A Creationist Creed

[46AND2]

Evolutionists don't post on religious forums...what about this one?

To be fair, he misused a comma, which confuses the point a bit...

 

[mark kennedy]

Who might the 'we' be? Not B B Warfield, not J I Packer, not J Gresham Machen, not Norman Geisler......

Ever notice .creationists never argue against Mendelian genetics only Darwinian evolution. That's because science isn't the problem. Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are the problem.

 

[mark kennedy]

I believe the claims of scientists I don't understand over the claims of clergymen I don't understand.
I believe I is better edjukated and smarterer than them creationists.

Classic!

 

[mark kennedy]

The difference is that evolutionists do not post on religious forums, trying to prove to themselves that Evolution is true. Nor do they give the impression that their theology begins and ends with an insistence upon a crassly literalistic reading of Genesis.

Genesis is an historical narrative, the literal interpretation always has preference. That's not just the hi me that's any historical narrative. Creation is also a New Testament doctrine universally affirmed by Christ and the Apostolic church. As usual you don't know what your talking about.

Evolutionists flood religious forums like a zombie horde. Wrong on that count to.

 

[USincognito]

Darwinian atheistic materialists don't get to write our creed, we already did:

It's so cute when he does this.

Which is diametrically opposed to Darwinian naturalistic assumptions:

The doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. All change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)​

Except that is a quote mine and Darwin is not making a statement, he is iterating Lamarck's thoughts.

>> Lamarck was the first man whose conclusions on the subject excited much attention. This justly-celebrated naturalist first published his views in 1801; he much enlarged them in 1809 in his "Philosophie Zoologique,' and subsequently, in 1815, in the Introduction to his "Hist. Nat. des Animaux sans Vertébres.' In these works he upholds the doctrine that species, including man, are descended from other species. He first did the eminent service of arousing attention to the probability of all change in the organic, as well as in the inorganic world, being the result of law, and not of miraculous interposition. <<


Creationists are very, very dishonest.

​

 

[46AND2]

Evolutionists flood religious forums like a zombie horde. Wrong on that count to.

C'Mon now. I know the sentence was worded a little awkwardly, but does it really take a genius to figure out that he wasn't saying that evolutionists don't come to Christian boards? You know, considering he IS an evolutionist posting that statement on a Christian forum?

He's saying that they don't come here FOR THE SAME REASONS YOU DO.

 

[mark kennedy]

C'Mon now. I know the sentence was worded a little awkwardly, but does it really take a genius to figure out that he wasn't saying that evolutionists don't come to Christian boards? You know, considering he IS an evolutionist posting that statement on a Christian forum?

He's saying that they don't come here FOR THE SAME REASONS YOU DO.

He doesn't know my reasons.

 

[USincognito]

Feeling better about yourself now?
Thinking you're a more evolved man than your father? Is this what it's all about, your oedipus complex?

What is it with Creationists thinking they have psychic powers and can read minds?

>> 1.) We believe the Earth is 6,000 years old.
>> I believe that everything came from nuthin'.

Young earth Creationists actually do believe the Earth is 6,000 years old. No "evolutionist", whatever that's supposed to mean, believes "everything came from nuthin'".

>> 2.) We believe that biologists have no idea what they are talking about.
>> I believe that all living things came from a single magic cell that came from nuthin'.

Young Earth Creationists actually do believe that biologists have no idea what they're talking about. No "evolutionist, whatever that's supposed to mean, believes in a "magic cell that came from nuthin'".

>> 3.) We believe that Darwin was the Devil Incarnate.
>> I believe that everything is evolving into more complex life forms despite that fact that adaptation results in lost information.

"All that stuff I was taught about evolution and embryology and the Big Bang Theory, all that is lies straight from the pit of Hell."
https://www.fulcrum-anglican.org.uk/articles/charles-darwin-a-fulcrum-appreciation/
"February 12th 2009 sees the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth. Along with Isaac Newton he was one of the greatest British scientists, though his science is still controversial. To some he was a great scientist and to others the devil incarnate!"
http://www.asa3.org/ASA/PSCF/2000/PSCF6-00Roberts.html
"Was Darwin a Christian? "Yes" and "No." Some think Darwin was the most wonderful person to be born in Shrewsbury, and others the devil incarnate who strove to destroy Christianity."

Please quote an example of an "evolutionist", whatever that's supposed to mean, claiming that everything is evolving to be more complex. I'll let that asinine "adaption results in lost information" comment slide for now.

Cont.

 

[AV1611VET]

He doesn't know my reasons.

To fulfill the Great Commission?

 

[USincognito]

>> 4.) We believe that astrophysicists have no idea what they are talking about.
>> I believe that benevolent mutations are real but God ain't.

"Benevolent" mutations? You don't know enough about the subject to straw man correctly. That said, Young Earth Creationists do believe that astrophysicists have no idea what they're talking about. Your poorly worded straw man, if corrected, could apply to many atheists, but if "evolutionists", whatever that's supposed to mean, includes the 10s of millions of religious people who accept the science, then it does not.

>>I believe the claims of scientists I don't understand over the claims of clergymen I don't understand.

Oh the sweet, sweet irony. Someone who refers to "benevolent" mutations decrying others for not understanding the science. And again, this could apply to many atheists, but if "evolutionists", whatever that's supposed to mean, includes the 10s of millions of religious people who accept the science, then it does not.

>>I believe I is better edjukated and smarterer than them creationists.[/QUOTE]

When it comes to the science, that seems to be the case 95% of the time.

 

[lesliedellow]

Ever notice .creationists never argue against Mendelian genetics only Darwinian evolution. That's because science isn't the problem. Darwinian naturalistic assumptions are the problem.

So? The people I listed had, or have, no problem with Darwin's theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

When it comes to the science, that seems to be the case 95% of the time.

When it comes to the creation week, science can take a hike.

 

[46AND2]

He doesn't know my reasons.

Great, so discuss that with him instead of some vapid point he clearly didn't make.

 

[AV1611VET]

So? The people I lised had, or have, no problem with Darwin's theory.

Big deal.

Eve saw no problem with the Serpent's theory.

 

[lesliedellow]

Genesis is an historical narrative, the literal interpretation always has preference. That's not just the hi me that's any historical narrative.

Genesis is cast in the form of a historical narrative, but that doesn't mean that it is history.

Creation is also a New Testament doctrine universally affirmed by Christ and the Apostolic church. As usual you don't know what your talking about.

Creation is a Christian doctrine, but the overwhelming majority of Christians worldwide do not sign up for a six day creation.

Evolutionists flood religious forums like a zombie horde. Wrong on that count to.

They do not come on here trying to convince themselves that Evolution is true, in the way that creationists try to convince themselves that it is false.

 

[mark kennedy]

Great, so discuss that with him instead of some vapid point he clearly didn't make.

His meaning was clear enough and he had it backwards. A lot of that going around.

 

[lesliedellow]

His meaning was clear enough and he had it backwards. A lot of that going around.

So I don't understand religion or science. Then why have I got two books, one called the Geometry of Spacetime, and the other called Reformed Dogmatics Volume 2, both within easy reach of where I am sitting?

 

[mark kennedy]

Genesis is cast in the form of a historical narrative, but that doesn't mean that it is history.




Creation is a Christian doctrine, but the overwhelming majority of Christians worldwide do not sign up for a six day creation.




They do not come on here trying to convince themselves that Evolution is true, in the way that creationists try to convince themselves that it is false.

Ever read the Niceen Creed? All Christian are creationist but not all ethnic and institutional Christians are believers.

As a matter of fact very few creationists post here long. Evolutionists do it religiously and with a vengeance. I never needed scathing criticism from uninform skeptics to confirm my Christian convictions. That is the sole providence of the Holy Spirit.

Wrong again. I would think You would get tired of being wrong every single time

 

[lesliedellow]

Ever read the Niceen Creed? All Christian are creationist but not all ethnic and institutional Christians are believers.

Yes, I have read the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed and the Westminster Confession. What of it? The only place you will find YECs in any number is in the southern states of America. Christians elsewhere do a double take the first time they hear that 40% of Americans think the Earth is only 6,000 years old.

Oh, and I know how to spell Nicene as well.

 

[KWCrazy]

So? The people I listed had, or have, no problem with Darwin's theory.

Jesus had a problem with it. Jesus taught that God created Adam as the first man. But what did He know, right? He's one of those YEC's.