A call to Creationists, are there any left?

[mark kennedy]

This is just a general invitation to any creationists that might be lurking the forums and not posting. I have been trying to think of ways to organize support systems for creationists but every time I try that on here the evolutionists rush in and make a mess of things. I am looking for creationists who are interested in forming support and study groups, whether they are into debate or not.

The fact is the people I would most like to interact with the most are the people I actually see the least on here, creationists. I would just like to know who you are, what your interest in creationism is and what you would find helpful in your search. Let me tell you a little about myself.

I've been debating the creation/evolution thing for about six years now. I have virtually no interest in geology or radiometric dating, my interest is the life sciences in general and genetics in particular. I have debated the topic with evolutionists in formal debate forums in the creation/evolution common area and one in the General Theology formal debate forum.

If you are out there browsing the board why don't you stop a while and let me know your out there. I have set up a creationist discussion forum and I'm interested in learning what would attract creationists to the site. What are your likes and dislikes, what kind of members would you like to interact with, what would make a good creationist website.

My PM box is open to anyone who would rather discuss this privately.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[keyarch]

Hi Mark. I get bored quickly with most of the topics, or soon after the good ones get derailed. Some posts get so long or technical that I don't even start to read them. Maybe I need something to boost my enthusiasm.

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi Mark. I get bored quickly with most of the topics, or soon after the good ones get derailed. Some posts get so long or technical that I don't even start to read them. Maybe I need something to boost my enthusiasm.

Yea I heard that, the long hours of research I do to get to a point are tedious to say the least. The thing is, every now and then I go out into cyberspace and try to find a creationist group that is having good natured and substantive discussions about creationism. I have yet to find one that gets any real traffic or gets into the details.

I've been kicking a few ideas around and I have a discussion forum I just got started. I'm just going to make the rounds for right now and see if I can find creationists interested in helping build a creationist support site.

G4C.net

Nice to see you again Dennis. If you are interested or know of anyone else who might be interested just join the site and make a post. It seems I will have some spare time on occasion since the Army has sent me to Afghanistan. Man! is it ever hot here.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[EnemyPartyII]

This is just a general invitation to any creationists that might be lurking the forums and not posting. I have been trying to think of ways to organize support systems for creationists but every time I try that on here the evolutionists rush in and make a mess of things. I am looking for creationists who are interested in forming support and study groups, whether they are into debate or not.

Resources to teach creationists how to construct proper logical arguments would be good, and encouraging them to avoid both logical fallcies and PRATTs.

 

[juvenissun]

Yea I heard that, the long hours of research I do to get to a point are tedious to say the least. The thing is, every now and then I go out into cyberspace and try to find a creationist group that is having good natured and substantive discussions about creationism. I have yet to find one that gets any real traffic or gets into the details.

I've been kicking a few ideas around and I have a discussion forum I just got started. I'm just going to make the rounds for right now and see if I can find creationists interested in helping build a creationist support site.

G4C.net

Nice to see you again Dennis. If you are interested or know of anyone else who might be interested just join the site and make a post. It seems I will have some spare time on occasion since the Army has sent me to Afghanistan. Man! is it ever hot here.

Grace and peace,
Mark

I am on. Wish it success.

I am a physical geologist (in case you do not know). I am learning biology, but not very efficiently. So far, I have not been really challenged in my field by any non-creationist. Kind of boring. So, if you see a hard one, throw it to me.

Geology alone won't work in any CvE debate. It has to be based on theology. And I think this dependence is perfect.

God bless you at where you are.

 

[keyarch]

... encouraging them to avoid both logical fallcies and PRATTs.

What is a PRATT?

 

[teddyv]

I am on. Wish it success.

I am a physical geologist (in case you do not know). I am learning biology, but not very efficiently. So far, I have not been really challenged in my field by any non-creationist. Kind of boring. So, if you see a hard one, throw it to me.

Geology alone won't work in any CvE debate. It has to be based on theology. And I think this dependence is perfect.

God bless you at where you are.

Cool, another geo .

What is a PRATT?

I had to look that one up as well...
"Point Refuted A Thousand Times"

 

[marktheblake]

Hi Mark

my preferred topic of discussion (of which i am just a novice) is defending the creation view from the study of the OT and the Hebrew language.

 

[Sophophile]

This is just a general invitation to any creationists that might be lurking the forums and not posting.
...

I've been debating the creation/evolution thing for about six years now. I have virtually no interest in geology or radiometric dating, my interest is the life sciences in general and genetics in particular.

Hi Mark

What do you count as "creationist"? YEC only, old-earth, theistic evolutionists or IDers?

I'm stunned that you have debated C/E for six years and yet have no interest in geology or radiometric dating. These are two of the key areas of the debate!

Regards
S.

 

[Ave Maria]

Extensive resources and well moderated discussion sounds ideal to me.

 

[mark kennedy]

I am on. Wish it success.

I am a physical geologist (in case you do not know). I am learning biology, but not very efficiently. So far, I have not been really challenged in my field by any non-creationist. Kind of boring. So, if you see a hard one, throw it to me.

Geology alone won't work in any CvE debate. It has to be based on theology. And I think this dependence is perfect.

God bless you at where you are.

Geology is a complete mystery to me and I really never was bothered by the age of the earth, whatever it turns out to be. I feel in love with the life sciences though, you should really check out the MIT opencourseware biology course. There is a lecture by the resident geneticist who discusses Mendel's experiments and it's just fascinating.

It's going to take me a while to get my first pages up because my work here is pretty demanding as you might imagine. As I get them ready I'll be posting links here to see what the resident creationists think of them.

Hey, BTW, if you have any posts, threads or blog entries I would be interested in browsing them. I know nothing about geology but I'm told it's important to the creation/evolution thing, still not sure why.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[mark kennedy]

Hi Mark

my preferred topic of discussion (of which i am just a novice) is defending the creation view from the study of the OT and the Hebrew language.

You get a lot of milage from that in Genesis, Job and Isaiah. Really never had the patience to learn the Hebrew but a dictionary/concordance generally gave me what I needed. I'm particularly fond of Vines.

I really don't know what I'm going to put together from the Old Testament, I'll have to finish the New Testament expositions first I guess.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[FallingWaters]

I voted for easy going discussion, but my life has changed drastically, and I don't have much time for spending online anymore.

 

[Calypsis4]

I am a six day creationist. I believe what the Bible teaches about that matter. Here is just part of the reason I believe in special creation:

I don't think there is any way possible for the blind forces of nature to have created this. It certainly isn't happening in our world outside of already existing DNA coded living organisms.

Best wishes to all.

 

[busterdog]

Mark,

How about another alternative.

The ad revenue on this forum wouldn't buy enough powder to blow it all to heckfire, so, let it roll with whatever.

Lots of other important stuff to do. Actually, I think the Christians are nicer to each other on the investment websites I go to. I got booted from raptureready.com or something like it. Dont remember because, I think, I posted information on maybe manipulation by the Federal Reserve or maybe it was the story about the dead lab animals injected with Bayer/Baxter flu vaccines in Europe. Too alarmist or something like that -- never mind whether it was true. Christians mostly beat the crap out of each other and are mostly incredulous with each other. Its nice for a workout, if you ahve the time. But, who does anymore? I am posting about making money, avoiding fraudulent investments, disaster preparations, guns, out of control government, etc, with the occasional Jesus angle. Hardly any flaming.

You are a force, however, my man! God bless you for keeping it up! (And stay safe.)

Blessings,

 

[busterdog]

Mark,

How about another alternative.

The ad revenue on this forum wouldn't buy enough powder to blow it all to heckfire, so, let it roll.

You are a force, however, my man!

Websites about investing (and including sections on preparation, guns, financial/gov't fraud) seem to be easier to participate in. People aren't incredulous and unpleasant like the Christian sites. Gee, guess you really CANT serve God and Mammon! How about that? There is a precious metals investing site I particularly like. Some good Christians there.

Blessings,

 

[oncelost]

oops

 

[oncelost]

I mostly lurk, but post every now and then. I'm far too busy to hang around too often, and even when I do, having no science background, I usually feel like a small fish in a big pond.

I'm definitely sold on ID and lean heavily YEC. Mark, why do you say that the age of the earth doesn’t bother you much? I guess I find an allegorical interpretation of Genesis problematic, because the lineages laid out in the Gospels would, then, have to be considered allegory, and where does it stop?

I'm a prosecutor, so I guess I usually think in terms of evidence and competing interpretations of evidence. I think that theories that seek to explain history and origins are more akin to theories of a criminal case (i.e., the best interpretation of evidence) and very different than most other scientific theories that can be tested by repeating experiments.

Since a youth, I've been interested with C/E and theism/atheism debates. I was thrown off the course of my faith in the Bible in my late teens and 20s (I say) largely due to being fed the evolution line by about every science teacher I ever had. I guess that accounts for my prejudice against teaching only the evolutionist’s interpretation in schools funded with my tax dollars. I resent that about every time I have to explain to my 3rd grader that the millions of years she reads about in her science textbook is just someone’s interpretation of bones that were dug up.

Anyway, about the time I reconnected with God in my mid-20s, I was influenced by Chuck Coulsen, R.C. Sproul, Stephen Meyer, and Phillip Johnson, all of whom strike me as brilliant. I’ve also been influenced by YEC proponents, many of whom strike me as very interesting and thoughtful but maybe not exactly brilliant.

The age of the earth has fascinated me for some time now. The thought that Genesis is an accurate historical account just seems to make sense to me, and I don't see a compelling argument against it. Ridicule seems to be the main argument against it.

 

[busterdog]

I'm a prosecutor, so I guess I usually think in terms of evidence and competing interpretations of evidence. I think that theories that seek to explain history and origins are more akin to theories of a criminal case (i.e., the best interpretation of evidence) and very different than most other scientific theories that can be tested by repeating experiments.

Interesting that you say that. I am lawyer too. The scientists don't understand evidence and burdens of proof, and varying standards of proof. They are so woefully clueless, and yet indignant when you suggest that maybe their science degrees aren't enough to evaluate all the issues in this debate.

They also don't understand negotiation.

 

[oncelost]

The scientists don't understand evidence and burdens of proof, and varying standards of proof. They are so woefully clueless, and yet indignant when you suggest that maybe their science degrees aren't enough to evaluate all the issues in this debate.

Yeah. A case in point is the area of transitional fossils. Evolutionists think that any evidence proves their point, when indeed quite large extrapolations are made from quite little evidence. Yet they act as if they've exlcuded all other reasonable interpretations.

That's one thing I don't think you can say about ID. The argument in ID is that all other reasonable interpretations are excluded.

Years ago, I used to do some administrative law, and I was often frustated with the standard of review, which was that the hearing officer only needed "some evidence" to support her findings.