| Creationism The subforum for young-earth and other creationist members. |
 | | 
7th October 2009, 09:30 PM
|  | Not just any Willtor... The Mighty Willtor
30       
 | | Join Date: 23rd April 2005 Location: Nashua, NH
Posts: 7,683
Blessings: 527,448 My Mood 
Reps: 63,932,760,995,062,528 (power: 63,932,760,995,076) | | Originally Posted by crawfish  The correct answer was, "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"
I sentence you to 4 hours in the comfy chair.
Our chief weapon is surprise; surprise and ruthlessness... two chief weapons!
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
"Have you guys noticed that the internet is stupid?" --Macrina
|
13th October 2009, 09:53 AM
| | Newbie
45   
| | Join Date: 21st July 2008
Posts: 247
Blessings: 35,216
Reps: 12,847,148,479,862 (power: 12,847,148,483) | | Originally Posted by laconicstudent Does anyone have the slightest clue why Creationists insist on referring to the Theory of Evolution as "Darwinism" as if today's Evolutionary theory is exactly the same as it was back in Darwin's time?
Hi laconicstudent
Labelling evolution as "Darwinism" implies that the theory is an argument from authority, rather than based on evidence. This makes it much easier to attack. Discredit the authority, a single person - Darwin - and you undermine the whole theory. This is easier than discrediting the mountain of direct, observable evidence that supports the theory.
In any case, in my view Darwin pretty much got the theory totally correct. He just didn't have all the details we have today.
Cheers
S. |
13th October 2009, 09:38 PM
|  | Senior Veteran
| | Join Date: 20th June 2006
Posts: 3,347
Blessings: 1,072,785 My Mood 
Reps: 27,749,724,098,880,132 (power: 27,749,724,098,889) | | Originally Posted by Sophophile Hi laconicstudent
Labelling evolution as "Darwinism" implies that the theory is an argument from authority, rather than based on evidence. This makes it much easier to attack. Discredit the authority, a single person - Darwin - and you undermine the whole theory. This is easier than discrediting the mountain of direct, observable evidence that supports the theory.
In any case, in my view Darwin pretty much got the theory totally correct. He just didn't have all the details we have today.
Cheers
S.
Not at all. Its must more polite than "hogwash."  
See what I learned at charm school!
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
(as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations")
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Last edited by busterdog; 13th October 2009 at 09:44 PM.
|
8th November 2009, 01:31 PM
| | Newbie
  
| | Join Date: 8th November 2009
Posts: 51
Blessings: 33,126
Reps: 47,461,558,406,803,040 (power: 47,461,558,406,806) | | | I must admit, it slightly upsets me that so many Christians (or so it seems) are turning to creationism now. It really has only been in the last 100, maybe 150 years that there has been such an addiction to interpret the Bible super literally. Christians throughout the ages - even without the benefit of science! - have suspected that Genesis may be a metaphorical account. St Augustus hypothesised that the world may have been created in an instant (rather than in 6 days).
Why we must turn away from our historical roots into blind fundamentalism is beyond me. The fact is, science knows evolution to be true. Newsweek did a survey of 480,000 scientists ('scientist' being defined as someone with a relevant degree (a Physics degree therefore would not count since it's not relevant)), and only 700 of them gave credence to creation science. It *is* an accepted fact in scientific circles.
If you can't make that fit with your theology, then that's a problem with your theology. It's not a problem with science.  |
10th November 2009, 04:21 AM
|  | Junior Member
21 
| | Join Date: 11th May 2009 Location: USA-VA
Posts: 211
Blessings: 35,766 My Mood 
Reps: 26,670,023,779,105 (power: 26,670,023,782) | | | arationalchristian, I have a question. Is your name arational, as in not rational? Or a rational, as in you are one rational Christian? I'm guessing the latter, but you never know.
__________________
Dear friends, let us love one another. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. If we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him. |
10th November 2009, 01:35 PM
| | Newbie
| | Join Date: 8th November 2009
Posts: 51
Blessings: 33,126
Reps: 47,461,558,406,803,040 (power: 47,461,558,406,806) | | Originally Posted by Darkness27 arationalchristian, I have a question. Is your name arational, as in not rational? Or a rational, as in you are one rational Christian? I'm guessing the latter, but you never know.
Haha, that's pretty funny. I knew I should've capitalised the A and R!
The reason I called myself that is because on another Christian Forum I frequent there's a member called 'afriendlyathiest'
I shall have to ask him if he is "afriendly" as in, unfriendly  | | |
| Thread Tools | | | | Display Modes |  Linear Mode |
| | |
