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

[Smidlee]

I think this thread is over since Jesus ran someone off I doubt any church in USA would have. (Not because they should since we don't know their hearts.) So any doctrine that drives people away is not necessary evidence it's not from God.

P.S One time a reporter asked Billy Graham about his success and he replied "God didn't ask me to be successful but be faithful."

 

[Justatruthseeker]

I'd say evolution is actually increasing the number of Christians - as people begin to see it for the deception that it is.

http://www.cbn.com/spirituallife/biblestudyandtheology/perspectives/colson020722.aspx

Considering it has grown 1.3% worldwide, it kind of defeats any claims of evolution causing a decline, now doesn't it.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_population_growth

But why bother with reality when what people want to "believe" will do instead, right?

 

[John James3]

Pretty weak 'christians' if they cant believe God and His Word lol Chuck Missler on youtube has some very good videos that reconciles the so called biblical 'discrepancies' . God cannot lie! cheers

As many of us here know, Barna research* has shown that the denial of scientific data about reality is one of main reasons ex-Christians give for why they left Christianity. A major (perhaps biggest) source of this reality denial in churches is creationism.

Now we have data as to how many people are leaving Christianity in the US.

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. In the time it took you to read this far, another 5 people left their church, never to return. Christians lose ground, 'nones' soar in new portrait of US religion - Religion News Service

Creationism is, of course, only part of why they leave. But how big a part, on average? If it's only 10%, then that's still about 40 people a day leaving due to creationism. If creationism makes up most of the reason, then that could be as high as hundreds of people a day.

What do you think? You can vote for your estimate.

In Christ-

Papias

*Barna data says that around 25% cite this as a reason they left - among teens. https://www.barna.org/teens-next-gen-articles/528-six-reasons-young-christians-leave-church

 

[John James3]

Ouch, you are quoting Billy Graham who was an admirer of the arch terrorist Arafart. Almost as bad as the anti semite Luther who encouraged the holocaust for the Natzis.

I think this thread is over since Jesus ran someone off I doubt any church in USA would have. (Not because they should since we don't know their hearts.) So any doctrine that drives people away is not necessary evidence it's not from God.

P.S One time a reporter asked Billy Graham about his success and he replied "God didn't ask me to be successful but be faithful."

 

[Smidlee]

Ouch, you are quoting Billy Graham who was an admirer of the arch terrorist Arafart. Almost as bad as the anti semite Luther who encouraged the holocaust for the Natzis.

I agree with Billy Graham statement doesn't mean I agree with everything Billy Graham said or done.

 

[Justatruthseeker]

Ouch, you are quoting Billy Graham who was an admirer of the arch terrorist Arafart. Almost as bad as the anti semite Luther who encouraged the holocaust for the Natzis.

Yes, quoting a man that said God was going to kill him if we didn't send him a million dollars.

Or quoting religions that preach against marriage of preachers, when the Bible explicitly states that an overseer of the flock must be married and have his own family - so that one knows he is capable of shepherding the flock as he shepherds his own family.

As in the parable of the neighbor - not all those claiming to be your neighbor actually are. Some are simply wolves in sheep's clothing.

 

[LoricaLady]

QUESTIONS EVOLUTION BELIEVERS ALWAYS DODGE, BELOW:

Their usual method of dodging the Qs is to keep trying to change the subject, but I've also heard, "Sorry, something has come up and I can't respond right now....You're not articulate enough for me to understand the Qs.....Is English your first language because I can't understand you....I did answer the Qs (but they didn't)...etc."

There is no reference to Deity or the Bible since evolution stands or falls based on science and logic alone. However, before looking at the Qs you might want to Google http://freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/1435562/posts and see Nobel Prize winning scientists, other scientists, including evolutionists (!) admitting there is no...evidence... for evolution. If they don't buy it, why should we?

Qs, # 1. We are told by people like Richard Dawkins and others that bacteria turned into things like sponges and jelly fish and then eventually into you. Give one shred of evidence for that. After all, we have been examining bacteria since 1670, pretty much 24/7 around the globe, and they multiply at rocket rates.

I'll give you the real evidence. See if you can refute it. Yes, bacteria do change somewhat. But every last one of them stays a bacteria. Always have. Ditto sponges, jelly fish etc.

Bacteria can be fossilized. Examples have been found in so called "earliest, Cambrian" layers of the earth, and they are all just bacteria, w/no evidence they are turning into anything else at all.

We are told that nylon eating bacteria are evidence for evolution. Yeal, they made a change. But change is not evolution. Dogs, cats, horses, cows, tulips, bees etc. have been changed for thousands of years. They give evidence against evolution because all that change has led to are....dogs, cats, horses, cows, tulips, bees etc.

Evolutionary literature tells us that nylon eating bacteria are a poster child for evolution because they learned to eat nylon from factory run off into their ponds. Nylon eating bacteria have not so much as changed their species even. They go right back to normal eating patterns in normal ponds. So explain how they are turning into uber bacteria climbing up Darwin's Tree to turn into you? Explain that now, don't dodge it.

Give any evidence whatsoever that any bacteria whatsoever ever stopped being a bacteria. Theories which have no evidence to back them up, when presented as scientific fact, make only for pseudo science.

Kindly don't say, "Change IS evolution!" It is ultra easy to prove that is totally untrue. That's one of evolution's big myths. All those bacteria, fish, birds, bugs, plants, people, etc. etc. keep changing, sometimes into new species, but they all stay bacteria, birds, bugs, plants, people etc. etc. So what change really shows is that it does NOT lead to evolution!

Therefore, kindly don't send me links telling all about how the eboli virus, snow flake yeast etc. whatever, changed in intelligently designed, (ahem!) high tech labs, while they all stayed....eboli virus, snow flake yeast etc. Don't tell me about bacteria that became resistant to antibiotics because they are still....bacteria!

Back to Dawkins, he teaches that time, space, matter, energy and you, everything, comes from....nothing. Rotfl! Doesn't science, doesn't common sense, show that nothing comes from nothing? In fact, they show us that an effect can never be greater than its cause.


Qs. # 2 We are told that natural selection leads to evolution. Again, we see change, indeed, through natural selection. Look at all those countless varieties, for ex. of fish in the waterways and birds in the air....all staying fish and birds.

Cite observed data that demonstrates an occurence of unique genetic information resulting through natural selection - not just the reshuffling of, or elimination of, genetic information that is already available in the life form. Name the life form and verify its before and after states.

In order to turn a reptile into one of countless other varieties of reptiles there is only the need to shuffle, or eliminate, some genetic material it already has, through natural selection or even human intervention. To turn a reptile into a bird you would need totally new, bird, DNA for things like wings, feathers, beaks etc.

(Funny how, with evolution supposedly being the norm, there is not one example of any such changes with the countless billions of reptiles found on the planet, and ditto the countless fish that are not seen turning into reptiles or into anything but fish. Find a toe on a single fish, a feather on a single reptile, for ex.. living or fossil. And no those supposed "protofeathers" found on some ancient reptile fossils have been described by some....evolutionists....as being only collagenous fibers.)

Find where science has ever observed any such things happening with DNA. It is all very well to say "Well, it all happened so long ago...." What evidence is there in that? How do you tell a missing link from a nonexistent link?

Qs, # 3 We are told mutations are the 2nd mechanism leading to evolution. Where is the evidence for that? Yes, mutations happen all the time. Virtually all are harmful, and the few "beneficial" ones are debatable. Even if they are beneficial in some very slight way, though, where is the evidence that mutations build on one another like leggos to create new structures, say to turn a fin into a foot?

Fish don't have DNA for feet. To change a fin into a foot you need new. foot, DNA. Explain how mutations could create DNA. Seek evidence for where that has ever been seen to happen. In fact, explain how DNA came about period by any mechanism.

Please don't belive that the sickle cell anemia nmutation is leading to evolution, as some evolutionists claim. No, it just replaces one horrible disease for another through bent blood cells. How is that going to make the hapless victims more likely to produce healthy, viable, offspring? How do bent blood cells have the capacity to turn the victims some day into uber people, climbing up Darwin's Tree?

Do your research in peer reviewed evolutionary literature and when you do check for theorietcal dodge words like "Probably....must have...likely....we can infer...it appears that...similar homology [Correlation Does Not Imply Causation logical fallacy which undergirds all of evolutionary theory]....millions of years ago [stated as Gawd's truth scientific fact though such happenings in those periods of "time" are untestable, unobservable, unrepeatable....ev-i-dence-less.]...etc."

I promise you, you will always find those kinds of "faith factor" words, usually in the first paragraph. And I promise you that speculations piled on logical fallacies piled on presumptions mixed in with sophistry will almost always be counted as "evidence" in the peer reviews.

Qs, # 4 Pick any "transitional" fossil you like, Lucy, Australopithecus, whatever. Then answer these Qs with data, with evidence. How do you know it ever had a single descendant significantly different from itself in any way much less that it eventually changed from say Ambulocetus, a little animal with four legs and hooves, into a great whale?

How do you know a "transition", like Tiktaalilk and all the others, isn't just what it looks like - what the only evidence shows - a dead end, extinct, life form? And btw look at modern day lobe finned fish that are virtually the same as Tik.

Research the history of how they said another lobefinned fish, Coelacanath, WAS a transition. They used their Correlation Does Not Imply Causation, Fallacy of the Single Cause , etc. and Presuming Omniscience magic crystal ball that sees into the past to tell people that. Tons of peer reviews said the presumed to be extinct Coelacanth was turning into a reptile. Then they found some live ones. You can see the pretty blue...fish period...swimming on Youtube.

There are countless billions of fossils out there but that's an example of the best they can do to prove there are transitional forms. Please don't say "Walking catfish". They are 100% fish with 100% fins used in a novel way, similar to "flying fish" which no way are turning into birds.

Fish and dolphins, etc. have astronomically more "characteristics of" and "similar homology" features than amabulocetus and a whale. Ditto Tiktaalik and a tetrapod. Bats, birds and bees fly. Bats and whales, both mammals, have sonar. Snakes and worms slither on the ground. Chimps and tobacco have 48 chromosomes. Cockatoos and people dance to music. So what? Correlation Does Not Imply Causation is a logical fall-a-cy.

The only matching "characteristic of" ambulocetus is a minor similarity in the inner ear to that of a whale. Based on that we're supposed to believe ambulocetus turned into a great whale? Again Correlation Does Not Imply Causation is a logical fallacy, not scientific evidence. To use it as evidence is illogical, therefore antiscience.

Oh, and before you say "Geologic Column" that is a mythical construct developed by a 19th century lawyer named Charles Lyell. He never saw one and no one else has either. Sites like Talk Spin, aka Talk Origins, claim they found part of one on this entire planet.

What does the fossil record really show? Fossils are jumbled. There are so called Cambrian and PreCambrian seashells, mollusks, etc. littering the tops of most mountains. Dino bones from the so called lower level Jurassic area stick out of mountain ranges in the northwestern states. Where I grew up, in a midwestern state, you can find extinct, ocean floor trylobytes in the hills. I could give you quotes from evolutionary scientists admitting that their dating of the rocks is "very subjective" and that people try to match their dates to presumed Darwinian expectations.

For a clear portrayal of both the creation side and the evolution side on the fossil record see:

You can decide for yourself which side actually has the evidence to support it.
Someone may hop on here and repeat a common lie about Patton, that he got his degree from some kind of online mill. Actually he has a PhD in education and gives his academic credentials online. He says he took many geology course but was denied getting a PhD in that field due to being a creationist. If you think that is unlikely or unusual see:

For more quotes where evolutionists admit there is really no evidence for evolution, and an explanation of how it defies the laws of thermodynamics see:

Did you know that stretchy materials and blood cells have been found in dino bones since early last century?

For evidence of ancient art and historical accounts of dinosaurs, sometimes portraying them with people, see
http://www.genesispark.com/exhibits/evidence/historical/ancient/dinosaur/

My fave is the stegosaurus, almost to the bottom of that page, carved on the ruins of a Tibetan Temple about 1000 years ago.

Guess what? Messiah spoke of Adam and Eve, Jonah and the whale (or big fish), and Noah and the Great Flood as real, historical. If we are Christians aren't we supposed to believe our Leader? If we can't believe His words, then why believe anything in the Bible? Rhetorical Qs.

 

[VirOptimus]

LoricaLady, <staff edit: please do not use such terms at CF, ty> do you have any scientific background or education? Dont you think that if any of the points where true that the people who do would have noticed?

 

[driewerf]

Science is already misrepresenting itself as not being a religion.
It fits nearly every definition of one, except it leans toward democracy.
But so do many churches.

Science is NOT a religion. It lacks every feature of it.

• It has no Holy Book, unlike the bible, the quran etc. It has influential books, like Newton's Prinipia, but no holy books.
• It requires no ritual to join: no baptism, no circumcission
• it doesn't impose any sexual morality. You can or cannot have sex before marriage, straight sex, or gay sex. You are an even good or bad scientist.
• It doesn't impose any specific diet, unlike the Jews who have to eat kosher or the hallal diet for the muslims.
• it doesn't target children unable to consent or understand, unlike infant baptism.
• It doesn't mutilate you, unlike circumcission or infibulation.
• It doesn't persecute heretics. Dissenters are welcomed, their ideas discussed, and sometimes even accepted as correct (Wegener!, McClintock!)
• it doesn't claim or impose exclusivness: you can study chemistry and biology at the same time. You can't be a christian and a muslim at the same time.
• no war has even been fought over science, unlike the crusades, the jihad, The Great Partition, ...

Nope, science is definitly not a religion.

 

[LoricaLady]

Real science is not a religion. Pseudo science can be, however. In the quotes I referenced above one can see scientists, even one evolutionist, saying that evolution is based on faith not facts. That's some folks' definition of a religion.

 

[bhsmte]

Science is NOT a religion. It lacks every feature of it.

• It has no Holy Book, unlike the bible, the quran etc. It has influential books, like Newton's Prinipia, but no holy books.
• It requires no ritual to join: no baptism, no circumcission
• it doesn't impose any sexual morality. You can or cannot have sex before marriage, straight sex, or gay sex. You are an even good or bad scientist.
• It doesn't impose any specific diet, unlike the Jews who have to eat kosher or the hallal diet for the muslims.
• it doesn't target children unable to consent or understand, unlike infant baptism.
• It doesn't mutilate you, unlike circumcission or infibulation.
• It doesn't persecute heretics. Dissenters are welcomed, their ideas discussed, and sometimes even accepted as correct (Wegener!, McClintock!)
• it doesn't claim or impose exclusivness: you can study chemistry and biology at the same time. You can't be a christian and a muslim at the same time.
• no war has even been fought over science, unlike the crusades, the jihad, The Great Partition, ...

Nope, science is definitly not a religion.

Have you noticed how some Christians need to put science on par with religion?

I always found this interesting.

 

[bhsmte]

Real science is not a religion. Pseudo science can be, however. In the quotes I referenced above one can see scientists, even one evolutionist, saying that evolution is based on faith not facts. That's some folks' definition of a religion.

How do you define; "real science" and please give us some specific examples.

 

[AV1611VET]

Science is NOT a religion. It lacks every feature of it.

Really?

It has no Holy Book, unlike the bible, the quran etc. It has influential books, like Newton's Prinipia, but no holy books.

But it does have the Scientific Method.

It requires no ritual to join: no baptism, no circumcission

We baptize believers -- those who have already joined.

But then, I'll admit, we're not a religion.

it doesn't impose any sexual morality.

Unless it's called to testify in court.

Then it comes in with a briefcase full of papers on genetics.

You can or cannot have sex before marriage, straight sex, or gay sex.

Along with a caveat emptor: use a condom.

You are an even good or bad scientist.[/quote

Ethics over morality.

It doesn't impose any specific diet, unlike the Jews who have to eat kosher or the hallal diet for the muslims.

That's why everything you buy today comes with nutrition information on the package.

That's why little Johnny came home with a note to his parents that little Johnny should consider his Body Mass Index.

it doesn't target children unable to consent or understand, unlike infant baptism.

Unless it can find a reason to do so otherwise.

Like s_x education.

It doesn't mutilate you, unlike circumcission or infibulation.

Or abortion?

It doesn't persecute heretics.

It only creates them.

Like saying the U.S. is at the bottom of the list on the world's science quizzes.

Dissenters are welcomed, their ideas discussed, and sometimes even accepted as correct

And sometimes locked out when its time to rig a vote.

Does Pluto come to mind?

it doesn't claim or impose exclusivness:

Unless you can't afford it.

you can study chemistry and biology at the same time.

Unless you can't afford it -- then go elsewhere to do it.

Like the library.

You can't be a christian and a muslim at the same time.

But you can be a theists and evolutionist at the same time; or you can be an atheist and agnostic at the same time.

no war has even been fought over science, unlike the crusades, the jihad, The Great Partition, ...

No, but war is justified à la the Malthusian principle.

Nope, science is definitly not a religion.

But Scientism is.

 

[LoricaLady]

How do you define; "real science" and please give us some specific examples.

Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.

- Albert Einstein

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.

---------------
I certainly agree with that last statement. Also, real science is the search for truth wherever it leads, For ex. real science would be able to answer the Qs. which I left above (none of which you have addressed btw.) While evolution, for ex., tells us that mutations lead to a climb up Darwin's so called Tree of Life, real science wouldn't just claim that it is so it would present data to show any such thing every happening. As I asked before - and feel free to answer this, and any of those Qs - how do we know mutations build on one another like leggos and that they can create the new DNA that would be necessary to say a fish to turn into a reptile? Real science would give some examples of where that has ever been seen to happen. Where are they? I see evidence alright. I see that mutations are almost always harmful and that the few which are considered beneficial are debatable. I see that they cause minor changes here and there and do not build on one another like leggos. I see that no one has a clue where DNA came from, much less any indication that mutations could create DNA.

When we are told that bacteria led to jelly fish and sponges and then to us by Richard Dawkins, well, real science should be able to give us some data to show that any bacteria have ever turned into non bacteria. Real science doesn't just claim such and such is so. Real science doesn't use the Presuming Omniscience, Correlation Does Not Imply Causation etc. etc. logical fallacies to tell us it happened so long ago that there's no evidence. Real science actually has ev-i-dence.

Now, since you are apparently a big fan of real science, could you please answer at least one of my Qs, above, using real science? That would include some kind of observable data, of course.

 

[bhsmte]

How do you define; "real science" and please give us some specific examples.

Anyone who doesn't take truth seriously in small matters cannot be trusted in large ones either.

- Albert Einstein

The truth is incontrovertible. Malice may attack it, ignorance may deride it, but in the end, there it is.

---------------
I certainly agree with that last statement. Also, real science is the search for truth wherever it leads, For ex. real science would be able to answer the Qs. which I left above (none of which you have addressed btw.) While evolution, for ex., tells us that mutations lead to a climb up Darwin's so called Tree of Life, real science wouldn't just claim that it is so it would present data to show any such thing every happening. As I asked before - and feel free to answer this, and any of those Qs - how do we know mutations build on one another like leggos and that they can create the new DNA that would be necessary to say a fish to turn into a reptile? Real science would give some examples of where that has ever been seen to happen. Where are they? I see evidence alright. I see that mutations are almost always harmful and that the few which are considered beneficial are debatable. I see that they cause minor changes here and there and do not build on one another like leggos. I see that no one has a clue where DNA came from, much less any indication that mutations could create.

When we are told that bacteria led to jelly fish and sponges and then to us by Richard Dawkins, well, real science should be able to give us some data to show that any bacteria have ever turned into non bacteria. Real science doesn't just claim such and such is so. Real science doesn't use the Presuming Omniscience, Correlation Does Not Imply Causation etc. etc. logical fallacies to tell us it happened so long ago that there's no evidence. Real science actually has ev-i-dence.

Now, since you are apparently a big fan of real science, could you please answer at least one of my Qs, above, using real science? That would include some kind of observable data, of course.

I asked you a question, so I would appreciate an answer, if you are willing to give it.

Can you give us example of "real science" and please be specific.

If you don't want to answer, just say so.

 

[AV1611VET]

Can you give us example of "real science" and please be specific.

Theogeology (or Christogeology):

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

 

[Smidlee]

Science, religion (worldview) , politics and even wealth are interconnected with the human mind.

 

[bhsmte]

Science, religion (worldview) , politics and even wealth are interconnected with the human mind.

Everything we think is associated with the human mind, wouldn't you say?

 

[bhsmte]

Theogeology (or Christogeology):

Luke 19:40 And he answered and said unto them, I tell you that, if these should hold their peace, the stones would immediately cry out.

Cool. Could you define them please?

 

[Smidlee]

Everything we think is associated with the human mind, wouldn't you say?

Which is why we can't totally separate religion, science, politics and money from each other.