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

[Jorge]

Creationism doesn't drive away a single Christian. Creationism not understood or wrongly understood is what has the potential of "driving Christians away" from the faith. So, for example, the falsehood that Christians (Creationists or not) "deny scientific data about reality" is one of those falsehoods/errors that is commonly propagated. It's rather obvious why Atheists propagate that falsehood (i.e., it serves their agenda). Christians that propagate it are ignorant of the truth, ill-informed and/or the proverbial 'wolf in sheep's clothing'.

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationism doesn't drive away a single Christian. Creationism not understood or wrongly understood is what has the potential of "driving Christians away" from the faith. So, for example, the falsehood that Christians (Creationists or not) "deny scientific data about reality" is one of those falsehoods/errors that is commonly propagated. It's rather obvious why Atheists propagate that falsehood (i.e., it serves their agenda). Christians that propagate it are ignorant of the truth, ill-informed and/or the proverbial 'wolf in sheep's clothing'.

Hello, Jorge!

Welcome to CF!

Would I be correct in assuming you are a theistic evolutionist?

 

[Ada Lovelace]

Since biology even covers our senses if something is the foundation of biology it would included all of our knowledge. This is why atheist try so hard to keep intelligent design out of biology. Biology is the one science that deals directly with man.

The eminent geneticist and evolutionary biologist who wrote that "nothing in biology makes sense except in the light of evolution" and established it as precept in biology education was Theodosius Dobzhansky, and he wasn't an atheist. He was a Christian. He actually identified himself as a creationist and a evolutionist, and stated that evolution is God's method of creation. The notion of the "light of evolution" originally came from a priest Dobzhansky admired.

Does the evolutionary doctrine clash with religious faith? It does not. It is a blunder to mistake the Holy Scriptures for elementary textbooks of astronomy, geology, biology, and anthropology. Only if symbols are construed to mean what they are not intended to mean can there arise imaginary, insoluble conflicts.... the blunder leads to blasphemy: the Creator is accused of systematic deceitfulness.

- Theodosius Dobzhansky, "Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution"

Earlier in this thread you quoted Billy Graham. In his book Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, he made a statement that is parallel in thought to the one above:

"I don't think that there's any conflict at all between science today and the Scriptures. I think that we have misinterpreted the Scriptures many times and we've tried to make the Scriptures say things they weren't meant to say, I think that we have made a mistake by thinking the Bible is a scientific book. The Bible is not a book of science. The Bible is a book of Redemption, and of course I accept the Creation story. I believe that God did create the universe. I believe that God created man, and whether it came by an evolutionary process and at a certain point He took this person or being and made him a living soul or not, does not change the fact that God did create man. ... whichever way God did it makes no difference as to what man is and man's relationship to God."

It's not just atheists who try so hard to keep intelligent design out of the teaching of biology; it's the overwhelming majority of professional biologists, many of whom are also people of faith, and a significant number of religious leaders and Christians.

 

[Willtor]

The Earth is hollow. Geologists don't know what they're talking about, but I do. Listen to me.

Bill Gates got rich long before he got his degree. I'm kind of like the Bill Gates of geology.

---

Do you see how bogus that method of reasoning is? Do you not see that when you use that kind of reasoning, you undermine peoples' perception of your ability to reason?

 

[Oncedeceived]

Davian:

Can you not provide a positive ontology for this god of yours?

I would say that reason itself points to God. It is cohesive for God who is according to the Bible and the design of the universe and life forms a reasonable and intelligent Being creating those intelligent beings (us) for reason to exist. In the evolutionary model there is no reason for humans to be intelligent and able to understand the universe.

Then I will conclude, for now, that you have only imagined this "reveal" that you claimed to have experience.

Me and millions of others you mean. Your position is the minority of the population in the world. You can conclude anything you wish but that doesn't make it true.

This presupposes that your god is not imaginary.

I presuppose His existence due to knowing He exists.

The burden is on you to show otherwise. You have heard of the concept of the burden of evidence, have you not?

I have.

I do not accept circular logic as justification.

I am not sure that is true.

I do not deny it; I just point out how useless it is as "prophecy".

Please explain what you mean by this.

Why are you not Jewish, after posting all of that support for Israel? Or do they have it all wrong?

Why would that make me Jewish? Christ was Jewish. The end of days is for Israel and the Jews and unbelievers.

Consistent, and wrong. The Earth is not immovable.

The original text does not mean immovable. The translators have made a mistake by saying immovable.


Do not misrepresent my position. The burden is on you to demonstrate actual design. You have heard of the concept of the burden of evidence, have you not?

Observation.

Of?

Yep.

Hm.

The pattern-recognition ability of the brain is demonstrated by the ability to see bunnies in clouds. For those that claim to see real bunnies - or design - the burden is on them to show that what they perceive is actual. You have heard of the concept of the burden of evidence, have you not?

This isn't about the appearance as in pattern-recognition. these are true measurements and observations.


No.

You have provided your opinion.

As have you.

Or, it is not.

Why would we question that?

No, I am not saying that. You have heard of the concept of the burden of evidence, have you not?

yes.

lol. Sure, but if you are continuously unable to substantiate you claims, do you start to wonder why others don't believe them?

I don't wonder at all. You all have a worldview which does not include God.

That is not my position. If you wish for me to accept that the "design" you perceive in nature/biology/universe is attributable to something other than evolutionary processes or human perception, that burden is on you. You have heard of the concept of the burden of evidence, have you not?

Yes.

 

[bhsmte]

Creationism doesn't drive away a single Christian. Creationism not understood or wrongly understood is what has the potential of "driving Christians away" from the faith. So, for example, the falsehood that Christians (Creationists or not) "deny scientific data about reality" is one of those falsehoods/errors that is commonly propagated. It's rather obvious why Atheists propagate that falsehood (i.e., it serves their agenda). Christians that propagate it are ignorant of the truth, ill-informed and/or the proverbial 'wolf in sheep's clothing'.

Are the people that speak for themselves, that state creationism has driven them away, lying?

 

[ChetSinger]

Are the people that speak for themselves, that state creationism has driven them away, lying?

Perhaps they just don't know the options open to them. I'm not a TE myself, but I'm fine with brothers who are, as long as they accept that what we see came about via God's will, that is, "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth".

 

[MissVeronica]

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

The reason many christians leave Christianity is because they were never true converts...that's all

 

[Loudmouth]

Creationism doesn't drive away a single Christian. Creationism not understood or wrongly understood is what has the potential of "driving Christians away" from the faith. So, for example, the falsehood that Christians (Creationists or not) "deny scientific data about reality" is one of those falsehoods/errors that is commonly propagated. It's rather obvious why Atheists propagate that falsehood (i.e., it serves their agenda). Christians that propagate it are ignorant of the truth, ill-informed and/or the proverbial 'wolf in sheep's clothing'.

Then how does creationism deal with the matching phylogenies of morphology and DNA?

 

[justlookinla]

Then how does creationism deal with the matching phylogenies of morphology and DNA?

An intelligent creator.

 

[Loudmouth]

An intelligent creator.

How does an intelligent creator explain it?

 

[justlookinla]

How does an intelligent creator explain it?

Elements of design.

 

[Loudmouth]

Elements of design.

How does that explain the matching phylogenies of DNA and morphology?

 

[justlookinla]

How does that explain the matching phylogenies of DNA and morphology?

Lots of design in those elements.

 

[PsychoSarah]

Lots of design in those elements.

How would random junk that does nothing but matches something that has a function in another species qualify as intelligent in any regard?

 

[Smidlee]

Nothing in BIOLOGY makes sense except in the light of evolution.

Since that statement includes man then it' not a scientific statement. It's a religious world view. It's an idol; An idol is something created by man claiming to be his creator. Science is still a product of the human mind. Then turn around claiming the mind was the result of product of the mind.
This is like a dog chasing his own tail.

Classic. You give a convoluted response, to a simple question, to avoid giving a straight one. Refuse to acknowledge your own errors, much less correct then, then you quote mine, and pervert things again.

The quote the Biology professor gave was in response to a question his colleagues asked. "I remind them that evolution is the foundation of our science."

And when something is a foundation of our science then it then outside of science. If the foundation of science is that God created the universe then you can't use that science to prove that God created the universe. That is the thing that science is resting upon.

 

[Loudmouth]

Lots of design in those elements.

Based on what evidence?

 

[Loudmouth]

Since that statement includes man then it' not a scientific statement. It's a religious world view. It's an idol; An idol is something created by man claiming to be his creator. Science is still a product of the human mind. Then turn around claiming the mind was the result of product of the mind.
This is like a dog chasing his own tail.

Explanations that involve humans are not necessarily religions. That is something you have made up from whole cloth.

 

[Smidlee]

Since that statement includes man then it' not a scientific statement. It's a religious world view. It's an idol; An idol is something created by man claiming to be his creator. Science is still a product of the human mind. Then turn around claiming the mind was the result of product of the mind.
This is like a dog chasing his own tail.

Explanations that involve humans are not necessarily religions. That is something you have made up from whole cloth.

Religion is something that it "wired" into man. Man's origins has always been at the heart of religion.

 

[Loudmouth]

Religion is something that it "wired" into man. Man's origins has always been at the heart of religion.

That religions views on origins are religions. That doesn't make all views on origins religious. You are making a massive category error.