How many dozens of Christians did creationism drive away this past hour?

[Oncedeceived]

that depends on how you translate into english the original word.
often more then one word may be used in translation from a foreign language.

Exactly.

 

[bhsmte]

So keep making the same prophecy over and over and hope it comes true, but most importantly just ignore all of the times it didn't come true?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Gen two is talking about what was already done and finished. That means it is the same man and woman as chapter one.

Where in Genesis 1 does it say anthing about Adam or Eve?

What's wrong with him doing what was normal in that day, marrying sisters and cousins? There is no support for some strange creatures that 'evolved' and which God allowed man to 'marry'. Man was commanded to bring forth fruit after his KIND! Man could not do so with any other kind.

Who would be his cousins?

Yes it does. Look at two rabbits, and let's do the math. They have to interbreed or there could never be a lot of rabbits. The incest law was many many centuries later. Not even in Noah's day was it forbidden if I recall.

You could be right. But there is no way of knowing is there?

There could have been scores of chicks born, sisters never made it into the record of genealogy! Heck why not have one be a wife for Cain, and stand by her man when he ran into trouble?

Like I said you might be right. But I don't know which of us have it right or if either of us are.

Exactly. So what better fits the bill here, near monkeys that evolved, or wreathes of sisters or female cousins etc that simply never made an honorable mentch in the official genealogy?

Why would Cain fear for his life if he was going out among his kin?

Right, so I thought I'd add my opinion.

Well I appreciate that. I was adding mine too.

 

[bhsmte]

Because the mind is capable of perceiving something as known at one point, does not preclude it from understanding later on, they were mistaken.

 

[Merlin]

Because the mind is capable of perceiving something as known at one point, does not preclude it from understanding later on, they were mistaken.

Exactly true of most science. It is a moving target.
Once upon a time there were four elements.
Eventually science decided there were 92 atoms.
Then there were protons, neutrons, electrons.
Then there were PIONS, quarks, etc.
Now there is what we call the "God" particle
First there was matter, then antimatter, then negative energy, then dark matter, etc.
Science is a moving target with nothing firm to believe in.
As far as science goes the mind will always believe wrong because science changes.

 

[bhsmte]

Exactly true of most science. It is a moving target.
Once upon a time there were four elements.
Eventually science decided there were 92 atoms.
Then there were protons, neutrons, electrons.
Then there were PIONS, quarks, etc.
Now there is what we call the "God" particle
First there was matter, then antimatter, then negative energy, then dark matter, etc.
Science is a moving target with nothing firm to believe in.
As far as science goes the mind will always believe wrong because science changes.

We can only know what we know.

Are you saying science is bad, because it is open to new information?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Why not?

At one time in my life, I absolutely knew that Santa Claus existed. I even thought I saw him late at night a few times. I don't believe in Santa Claus anymore. Why can't the same thing happen with beliefs towards God?

We believe in Santa Claus because people we trust tell us that he exists. God is not Santa Claus and those trusted adults don't believe he exists either.

 

[Oncedeceived]

By comparing my own experience against your statements. The same way I determine that most creationists try to speak about topics they have no real familiarity with. People who make over confident and incorrect statements often have little to no experience in the subject they're discussing.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning–Kruger_effect

Well I have to say that I have not any experience of being a psychopath so you have me there.

 

[Albion]

Sure it does. It makes clear sense as explained in post #152, above. Just because you don't happen to like it doesn't make it any less likely.

That's true, but neither have I argued that it is true "just because" I am persuaded by it.

Wow, you make unfounded assertions so easily! Evidence that Christians are leaving Christianity due to creationism has already been given, from more than one source, on this thread.

Actually, that has not been shown--which is my point. Also, that it is illogical to think that this would happen, regardless of what might have been told to an interviewer. People often find some excuse when changing jobs, political parties, and...churches, but it's not the actual reason. In this case, there is no logic in it except that it was theorized--that was not proof or evidence--that they were suddenly so distraught at what Christians of churches OTHER than the majority of Christian churches might think or say, that they just had to abandon their belief in Christ and everything that goes with it. If that sounds credible to you, it doesn't to me. And then, you have not quantified the magnitude of this alleged exodus. So no "proof" there. I allowed as though someone might have thought that way, but you want to make it into a big trend. Nothing supports that. Lastly, "Creationism" and "Science" are not the same thing, but you have had to talk as though they are so for your theory to even have a chance of credibility. In short, it's full of holes.

 

[Albion]

I understand, you don't like the reasons people give themselves, so you discount it out of hand.

I carefully explain, again and again, and this is all you can say?

I'm going to consider it the signal that you have no rebuttal to the facts and consider this done.

.

 

[Papias]

Papias wrote: *****Wow, you make unfounded assertions so easily! Evidence that Christians are leaving Christianity due to creationism has already been given, from more than one source, on this thread.****

Actually, that has not been shown--which is my point. Also, that it is illogical to think that this would happen, regardless of what might have been told to an interviewer. People often find some excuse when changing jobs, political parties, and...churches, but it's not the actual reason. In this case, there is no logic in it except that it was theorized--that was not proof or evidence-

Evidence both from Barna - from hundreds of ex-christians, as well as the personal testimony of Libby were shown. That's certainly evidence, even if you continue to deny evidence.

If you think that all those former Christians were lying about the fact that creationism was part of the reason they left, then feel free to present evidence that they lied about that. Otherwise, admit that there is evidence of creationism being the reason, and no evidence suggesting otherwise.

you also didn't answer my question about whether you were an evolution denier. Are you?

In Christ-

Papias

 

[Papias]

I'm going to consider it the signal that you have no rebuttal to the facts and consider this done.

.

You didn't offer any facts. All you did was make unsupported assertions. Again and again.

So we are still waiting for you to support any of your many statements........


In Jesus' name-

Papias

 

[Merlin]

We can only know what we know.

Are you saying science is bad, because it is open to new information?

of course not. I am merely pointing out that beliefs can change in science.
My Bible has not changed, but science has.

 

[crjmurray]

Well I have to say that I have not any experience of being a psychopath so you have me there.

Clever.

 

[Albion]

Evidence both from Barna - from hundreds of ex-christians, as well as the personal testimony of Libby were shown. That's certainly evidence, even if you continue to deny evidence.

It's evidence. It's not proof. And it doesn't support half of what's been claimed. First, you say here that "hundreds" of ex-Christians have done something. OK, that's hundreds out of, what, hundreds of millions of Americans? That right there should tell you that it's all a tempest in a teapot being presented as much more than it is. I'm sure that there are hundreds of people who have joined some church because they've been newly persuaded of the truth of Creationism. None of this proves much of anything, but I'm sure you want to believe that it does.

.

 

[bhsmte]

of course not. I am merely pointing out that beliefs can change in science.
My Bible has not changed, but science has.

Over time, religious beliefs have had to adapt to science, and science does not have to factor in religion in how it goes about its work.

For example, decades ago many fewer people agreed with theory of evolution. Today, with education and the acknowledgment of all the evidence, most Christians agree with the theory.

 

[bhsmte]

It's evidence. It's not proof. And it doesn't support half of what's been claimed. First, you say here that "hundreds" of ex-Christians have done something. OK, that's hundreds out of, what, hundreds of millions of Americans? That right there should tell you that it's all a tempest in a teapot being presented as much more than it is. I'm sure that there are hundreds of people who have joined some church because they've been newly persuaded of the truth of Creationism. None of this proves much of anything, but I'm sure you want to believe that it does.

.

So we should believe you instead, vs a Christian group which conducted polling using proven polling methods by dealing directly with the people involved?

Sorry, I think you have it backwards and it is you who wants to believe what you will.

 

[bhsmte]

I carefully explain, again and again, and this is all you can say?

I'm going to consider it the signal that you have no rebuttal to the facts and consider this done.

.

You explained what exactly? That you know how people feel better than what they explain themselves?

 

[AV1611VET]

It turns out to be over 1% , or over 3 million people each year. That's nearly 10,000 each day, or 366 per hour - about a person every 10 seconds.

How many come back after a stint in the wilderness?

In the time it took you to read this far, another 5 people left their church, never to return.

Is this the report talking now; or is this your opinion?

 

[RickG]

How many come back after a stint in the wilderness?


I think a better question would be the reason for leaving. Is it because they begin to accept evolution as a fact or that the earth is not only 6,000 years old, but the current 4.54 Ga accepted by geochronologists? Or is it because they have the intestinal fortitude to fact-check creation science sources and find that much of that information is nothing more than misrepresented science?