When did you decide to become a creationist?

[RichardT]

Congrats on getting out btw. Now hopefully you'll force yourself out of religion, like you almost managed to before.

It's atheists like you who give your entire movement a bad name.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/aug06.html#part2

 

[RichardT]

When I got saved when I was 15 years old, I knew that evolution was not compatible with the bible. I was automatically an Old Earth Creationist.

 

[MoonLancer]

It's atheists like you who give your entire movement a bad name.

How is encouraging people to shed the lies of their childhood a bad thing? at least its not done door to door.

 

[Parmenio]

Muslim children go the mosque and are taught about Islam until they are 16 years old,
they are then asked if they would like to become Muslims.
What do you think their answer ALWAYS is?

This way they can genuinely say they were not forced, but chose to be Muslims.
And they honestly believe they did.
How sad is that???

That's seriously how it works? Huh. That is a rather interesting way of doing things, but also ingenious.

 

[consol]

Congrats on getting out btw. Now hopefully you'll force yourself out of religion, like you almost managed to before.

It's atheists like you who give your entire movement a bad name.

The first thing to understand is there is 'NO movement', Raydon speaks for himself,
Atheists think for themselves, and die alone, without a God, that's why it's not for everyone.

I think you will agree that for you to commit yourself to anything at the age of 14 would mean that
someone had got to your mind and put ideas into it,
but of course, you will say it was your idea all along, and no one got to your mind,
they just told you about Christianity and you made up your own mind, just like the Muslims,
if that's what you want to believe, it's your right,
but where you talk about a God and the light, Atheists tell it like it is, not how we wish it could be.

To die is quite, quite normal, everything does it, everything, even Gods.

 

[Raydon]

It's atheists like you who give your entire movement a bad name.

http://www.talkorigins.org/origins/postmonth/aug06.html#part2

I couldn't care less about another atheist's defence of religion, as consol said I speak for only myself.

What exactly was wrong with what I said? I simply wished that he would remove the shackles that bind him. He declared himself an atheist before, he can do it again. Here is one person who actually has a chance to escape dogma.

Oh I get it, because my view is that getting out of religion is a good thing, and I don't hide it, then I must be offensive.

 

[JamesDaJust]

I simply wished that he would remove the shackles that bind him. He declared himself an atheist before, he can do it again. Here is one person who actually has a chance to escape dogma.

It sounds like this person did escape religious dogma.
What else do you call the parroted tautology of evolution?
</IMG>

 

[Dal M.]

It sounds like this person did escape religious dogma.
What else do you call the parroted tautology of evolution?
</IMG>

One day, all creationists are going to sit around a big table and finally decide what it is about the theory of evolution they hate more:

1. That it's dogmatic, like you're claiming here, or
2. That it keeps changing, as AV1611VET is always complaining about.

Also, would you care to explain why evolution is a tautology?

 

[gamespotter10]

I couldn't care less about another atheist's defence of religion, as consol said I speak for only myself.

What exactly was wrong with what I said? I simply wished that he would remove the shackles that bind him. He declared himself an atheist before, he can do it again. Here is one person who actually has a chance to escape dogma.

Oh I get it, because my view is that getting out of religion is a good thing, and I don't hide it, then I must be offensive.

but I Like my faith

 

[theFijian]

I'm of the persuasion that there is no such thing as a non-creationist.

This is just the post-modernist in AV coming out again (redefining terms to suit his own ends)

 

[theFijian]

Muslim children go the mosque and are taught about Islam until they are 16 years old,
they are then asked if they would like to become Muslims.
What do you think their answer ALWAYS is?

This way they can genuinely say they were not forced, but chose to be Muslims.
And they honestly believe they did.
How sad is that???

Wow that would be sad, were it true.

 

[JamesDaJust]

One day, all creationists are going to sit around a big table and finally decide what it is about the theory of evolution they hate more:

1. That it's dogmatic, like you're claiming here, or
2. That it keeps changing, as AV1611VET is always complaining about.

Also, would you care to explain why evolution is a tautology?

IMO it's both.

1. That it's dogmatic, like you're claiming here, or
2. That it keeps changing, as AV1611VET is always complaining about.

I was using tautology to describe a statement that was true merely by virtue of saying the same thing twice.
Can you prove evolution true?
Blind mechanisms like Darwinian evolution cannot explain life.
Are there many textbook frauds still in our current study materials today?
Do science professors/teachers get fired or denied tenure for discussing or teaching alternatives to the strictly enforced dogma known as evolution?
Are the enforcers of the evolution dogma scared to have truthful discussions of the weakness in the theory itself?
Do we still have a truthful discussion about evolution today or is it brainwashing?
Is there Irreducible Complexity or Specified Complexity?
Are we allowed by the higher authorities to question the icons or theories weakness of said religious dogma.of natural selection or chance mutation as all there is?
Is there a Law and order to a snowflake?
Chance and necessity cannot generate Specified Complexity, or information.
What's wrong with truthful science?

 

[JamesDaJust]

What age were you when you decided to be a creationist?
and what convinced you that creationism was right for you?

When I saw this was when.
http://www1.foru.ms/attachment.php?attachmentid=109303&stc=1&d=1194707480

 

[consol]

IMO it's both.

1. That it's dogmatic, like you're claiming here, or
2. That it keeps changing, as AV1611VET is always complaining about.

I was using tautology to describe a statement that was true merely by virtue of saying the same thing twice.
Can you prove evolution true?
Blind mechanisms like Darwinian evolution cannot explain life.
Are there many textbook frauds still in our current study materials today?
Do science professors/teachers get fired or denied tenure for discussing or teaching alternatives to the strictly enforced dogma known as evolution?
Are the enforcers of the evolution dogma scared to have truthful discussions of the weakness in the theory itself?
Do we still have a truthful discussion about evolution today or is it brainwashing?
Is there Irreducible Complexity or Specified Complexity?
Are we allowed by the higher authorities to question the icons or theories weakness of said religious dogma.of natural selection or chance mutation as all there is?
Is there a Law and order to a snowflake?
Chance and necessity cannot generate Specified Complexity, or information.
What's wrong with truthful science?

Why are you just repeating the same old crap???

Darwin never tried to explain life, evolution has nothing to do with how life began, no one knows,
you choose to believe it was poofed into existence by some God, the rest of us don't know how life began.

With all the resources at the disposal of the creationists, (they can build a 27 million dollar museum)
why don't they set up a laboratory, fill it with 'Creation Scientists' and prove evolution wrong once and for all?????
ASK YOURSELF WHY THEY DON'T DO IT??? according to you and many other creationists there is plenty of proof,
WHY? because they can't, if they could, they would have done it years ago.

So stop going on about something you know nothing about and accept it, because it's the truth,
sad but true.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Darwin never tried to explain life, evolution has nothing to do with how life began, no one knows,
you choose to believe it was poofed into existence by some God, the rest of us don't know how life began.

Please don't broad-brush. Most of us non-Creationists consider life to have begun by the spontaneous formation of self-replicating organic molecules, as demonstrated by the Miller-Urey experiments.

 

[NailsII]

Can you prove evolution true?

Yes, without a shadow of a doubt.
Evolution by natural selection is an observable phenomena, and Darwin's theory is testable and makes predictions - virtually everything known about biological systems can be explained in terms of evolution.
Even Prof Behe has admitted that so called micro-evolution is real, and he was essentially the founding father of ID.
It doesn't take a genius to work out that a simple combination of a few micro- events leads to what some call macro-evolution.

Blind mechanisms like Darwinian evolution cannot explain life.

No, it cannot explain how life originated. Only how it reached it current state of development, and give us cope to to speculate on what could potentially happen in the future.

Are there many textbook frauds still in our current study materials today?

Yes. My children have to attend RE lessons; the base of all the study can be considered fraudulant.

Do science professors/teachers get fired or denied tenure for discussing or teaching alternatives to the strictly enforced dogma known as evolution?

Would you employ a physics professor who publically considered atomic theory or gravity to be acasemically unsupported by evidence, and preferred to believe in the teachings of the ancient egyptians?

Are the enforcers of the evolution dogma scared to have truthful discussions of the weakness in the theory itself?

Not at all. Have a look at www.richarddawkins.net sometime, the good Professor has made quite a name for himself from books, lectures and debates on evolution. some clips are available online....

Do we still have a truthful discussion about evolution today or is it brainwashing?

This comment does not deserve an answer.

Is there Irreducible Complexity or Specified Complexity?

Irriducable complexity is a myth, totally void of evidence or logic. If you would like to discuss this, please start or supply a link to an existing thread on the subject. I will gladly participate and supply plenty of evidence.

Are we allowed by the higher authorities to question the icons or theories weakness of said religious dogma.of natural selection or chance mutation as all there is?

Science thrives on being questioned and analysed, but in the end you need to supply a viable alternative to the theory you are trying to debunk. also, you seamed to have accidently inserted the word 'religious' into this sentance. Natural selection has no icons and no deity, so I believe your post was not only incorrect but incoherant.

Is there a Law and order to a snowflake?

Do snowflakes reproduce?

Chance and necessity cannot generate Specified Complexity, or information.

And the earth can not be created before the rest of the universe.

What's wrong with truthful science?

Nothing whatsoever. If however truthful depends upon your personal definition, I am relieved that you are not a researcher in a pharmacutical lab or a forensic scientist, or even a surgeon. Peoples lives would then be at stake and so the question of truth becomes even more relevant.

 

[RichardT]

why don't they set up a laboratory, fill it with 'Creation Scientists' and prove evolution wrong once and for all?????

Actually, sponsors from CRS were needed for Humphreys, Austin, Baumgardner and Snellings experiment, it wasn't cheap.

http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq/articles/41/41_1/Helium.htm

 

[JamesDaJust]

Please don't broad-brush. Most of us non-Creationists consider life to have begun by the spontaneous formation of self-replicating organic molecules, as demonstrated by the Miller-Urey experiments.

All Miller did was produce some amino acids in an atmosphere that probably never existed.
And suppose that even if Miller's atmosphere could have existed, how do you get the simple molecules such as amino acids to go through the obvious necessary chemical changes that's needed to convert them into more complicated compounds, or polymers, such as proteins. Nucleic acids (DNA, RNA) themselves were not formed.
Miller himself had his doubts.. "It's a problem," he said. "How do you make polymers? That's not so easy."
(quoted: Peter Radetsky, Earth, February 1998, "Life's Crucible" page 36 (Ev)
Creationists like myself like to talk about the difference that evolutionists falsely claim that their creation myth is a "scientific fact", even when it is widely known that there is no experimental proof for those beliefs. My understanding is that experiments have shown that life does not originate under carefully controlled, ideal conditions. So the logical conclusion is that it would or could not originate under less-than-ideal conditions that may occur naturally. Is that so wrong?

 

[RichardT]

I can't take seriously anyone who actually believes that the Miller experiments are "proof" that Abiogenesis could have happened in the distant past.

 

[gamespotter10]

I can't take seriously anyone who actually believes that the Miller experiments are "proof" that Abiogenesis could have happened in the distant past.

why not?