WTF is wrong with people

Just on the off-chance that you were ever wrong about something, how would you know?When I'm wrong the people on "my side" don't hesitate to tell me so. (It's a good thing I'm not paranoid.) If you don't consider anybody else's ideas but your own, how do you avoid confirmation bias?

What you know is much more limited than you think.How do you know what your own limits are?Edited by ringo, : Fixed quote.

How would you know if you were looking through the wrong end of the telescope? What possibilities exist for self-correction in your method?

The topic is about how creationists can believe such nonsense in the face of all of the evidence and contrary to any logic. I have not attacked you as a person; I'm saying that you hold idiotic beliefs because your methodology is flawed.So let's try again: If, in the course of human events, you could ever be the slightest teeny bit wrong about anything, how would you know? What possibilities are there in your methodology for correcting errors?

You're misusing the word "theorizing". Theorizing involves testing so it shouldn't be associated with speculating or fantisizing. Theorizing is not the same as treating something as if it was real but it does explain what is real.You can speculate or fantasize about things that can not be tested, such as God.

You're still misunderstanding what a theory is. Evolution is a fact - and no creationist has ever been able to point out what prevents microevolution from adding up to macroevolution. The Theory of Evolution is an explanation of how that fact works. It happens to be the only explanation of how that fact works because creationists admit that their God can not be explained. As I mentioned, a theory is tested (and passes the test) before it is called a theory.WTF is wrong with creationists is that they don't understand the basic concepts and terminology of science.

That's just speculation and fantasy. To bring the claim anywhere near science, you'd have to test it.

It's not an alternate theory, not a theory at all until it has been tested. What part of that do you not understand? Saying something is not support.

Their "logic" is very fluid.(Of course that chart is pure "fantasy", even though it's made up of real items - whereas the Flood story is very "real", even though there are no real items to back it up.)

That's nonsense, of course. For one example, the theory of evolution by natural selection was formulated before we knew anything about DNA. The subsequent discovery and study of DNA has provided the mechanism by which mutation and the resulting natural selection works. On the other hand, the study of DNA has provided NO support for the creationist tripe about a magical "super genome".Every discovery of new facts is a test of the theory. If creationists are so confident in their hypothesis, why aren't they looking for factual support?

As a friend of mine used to say, you wouldn't know the truth if it sat down beside you in church.

If that was the standard, there wouldn't be anything in the dictionary about gods or religion.

I've asked you more than once: On the off-chance you you might conceivably be wrong about anything, how would you know? What possibility is there for correction in your methodology?If you were looking in a mirror, how would you know?

Fundie: "Slavery was fun in the Old Testament. It was like a ride at Disneyland."Heathen: "But what about the Golden Rule? Would you want to be a slave in the Old Testament?"Fundie: "Look! A dog with a poofy tail!"

The pinnacle of their logic is, "I know you are but what am I?"