A Question for Creationists

[mzungu]

Did someone post the Ten Commandments on your courthouse lawn?

I hate to break it to you but I do not own a court house and in my country no court houses have lawns, but they do have the icon of Jesus.

Now everyone in town is a born-again, Bible believing, blood-bought, God fearing Christian?

I would rather they be God loving instead of God fearing. After all to live a life in fear is not to live at all.

 

[Loudmouth]

You mean have similar design features. Genetics has not shown that humans evolved from apes. You may believe that some of their loose inferences are correct but that is all they are.

Then you are not using the same evidence as scientists are. Scientists use genetics and fossil evidence to determine if humans share a common ancestor with apes. You ignore this evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Absolutely correct. Each of us looks at the evidence and decides for ourselves which makes more sense; creation or evolution? The difference is, we have more evidence.

What genetic evidence, if found, would falsify separate creation of humans and other apes?

What features would a fossil need in order to falsify the separate creation of humans and other apes?

From what I have seen, you have already decided that creationism is true before even looking at the evidence, and no evidence will ever change your mind. You don't have evidence, you have a dogmatic religious belief.

In addition to the easily seen structures of the world around us, there is an unseen and infinitely more significant existence that can't be constrained into a purely natural world view.

So you have evidence that no one else can see? That's not evidence.

 

[bhsmte]

I hate to break it to you but I do not own a court house and in my country no court houses have lawns, but they do have the icon of Jesus.

I would rather they be God loving instead of God fearing. After all to live a life in fear is not to live at all.

I'm with ya.

This whole "fear" thing never set right with me, when a God is described as all loving and all caring. Would a God with those features want to use intimidation as their motivation? One of the many many points of christianity that I can't reconcile.

 

[Split Rock]

What p;hysical evidence have you found that can be verified b iologically.

Its all biological. Do you think genetics is not biological?

The same is true about the so called evolution that you think validates evolution. Fallible men interpreted the fossil record as reinforcing gradualism, but 2 of your popes, Gould and Mayr said that is not a valid way to use the fossil record.

But we don't claim infallibility as a cloak. You guys do. You have nothing else. That is why I have told you over and over again that we don't prove anything in science.

Fallible men, Darwin, said the intermediate fossils would be found and all the evos said AMEN. Yete in over 100 years none have been found.

Blatant falsehood. You have been shown the intermediates.

Fallible men found the bones of a whale and said the creature was once a dog-like land animal. They even had pictues drawn up to hsow the intgermediatge steps, but they for got one thing. The actual fossils that matched their claim.

They, made up a stgory we can call the tale of the whale.

The never eplain how a dog can geneticfally lose it legs for a million years and survive.

Whale evolution is a necessary ploy to give the faithful hope that what they have put their faith in had not been given by a false prophet.

Whales didn't evolve from a dog. The intermediates you have been shown demonstrate that whales' rear legs became reduced over time, and now they are just tiny bones in modern whales. Close your eyes, though and say it isn't what it is.

 

[mzungu]

I'm with ya.

This whole "fear" thing never set right with me, when a God is described as all loving and all caring. Would a God with those features want to use intimidation as their motivation? One of the many many points of christianity that I can't reconcile.

Indeed! I honestly cannot understand them. Although most Christians worldwide do not fear God; the ones who do usually go to these commercialised mega churches where the pastor drives the fear of God into them with the threat of fire and brimstone and what not. These bible thumping preachers find it impossible to speak like normal humans; they scream and shout and throw people onto the ground.

Benny Hinn: Let the Bodies Hit the Floor - YouTube

 

[selfinflikted]

Although most Christians worldwide do not fear God; the ones who do usually go to these commercialised mega churches where the pastor drives the fear of God into them with the threat of fire and brimstone and what not. These bible thumping preachers find it impossible to speak like normal humans; they scream and shout and throw people onto the ground.

It's how they make their mega-money, mang.

 

[AV1611VET]

Of course it does. It's like saying I used to be Muslim, or Buddhist, or... See? Works just like that.

Calling yourself a Christian is saying that God adopted you into His family.

Saying you were a Christian at one time is saying that God adopted you into His family, but now you are no longer in His family.

 

[bhsmte]

Calling yourself a Christian is saying that God adopted you into His family.

Saying you were a Christian at one time is saying that God adopted you into His family, but now you are no longer in His family.

If that is the way you want to put it, fine.

As was stated, people who had faith in many different Gods or religions and it was a legitimate faith to them, have come to realize their faith was misplaced.

There have been pastors who have preached for 30 years who have come to the same realization and to them, they also truly believed in their faith at one time.

It happens, just deal with it.

 

[selfinflikted]

Calling yourself a Christian is saying that God adopted you into His family.

Saying you were a Christian at one time is saying that God adopted you into His family, but now you are no longer in His family.

Or rather, calling oneself a Christians is like saying, "I believed god adopted me into his family." - Christian

Then, "But now I believe I was wrong." - Ex-Christian

 

[AV1611VET]

If that is the way you want to put it, fine.

As was stated, people who had faith in many different Gods or religions and it was a legitimate faith to them, have come to realize their faith was misplaced.

There have been pastors who have preached for 30 years who have come to the same realization and to them, they also truly believed in their faith at one time.

It happens, just deal with it.

We make a distinction between reprobates (not saved) and backsliders (saved).

 

[KWCrazy]

Did they? Did they, really?

A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica.

None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy.

In order to present an impression of adaptation for water, webbing has been drawn on its front feet. Yet it is impossible to draw any such conclusion from a study of Ambulocetus fossils. In the fossil record it is next to impossible to find soft tissues such as these. So reconstructions based on features beyond those of the skeleton are always speculative,
ibid

There is another problem with the whale series (and every other series of fossils) that Coyne fails to address: No species in the series could possibly be the ancestor of any other, because all of them possess characteristics they would first have to lose before evolving into a subsequent form. This is why the scientific literature typically shows each species branching off a supposed lineage.

In 1978, Gareth Nelson of the American Museum of Natural History wrote: "The idea that one can go to the fossil record and expect to empirically recover an ancestor-descendant sequence, be it of species, genera, families, or whatever, has been, and continues to be, a pernicious illusion."
ibid

"The anatomical structure, biological function, and way of life of whales are so distinctly different from those of terrestrial mammals that they cannot possibly have evolved from the latter by small genetic changes; aquatics require the simultaneous presence of all their complex features to survive".

You interpret data one way, others interpret it another way. Since whales are specifically mentioned on the fifth day of creation, I personally don't believed they evolved from anything.

 

[Loudmouth]

A Whale of a Problem for Evolution: Ancient Whale Jawbone Found in Antartica.

None of the features in question are any evidence of an evolutionary relationship. Even evolutionists admit that most of the theoretical relationships built on the basis of anatomical similarities between animals are completely untrustworthy.

Perhaps you could cite real scientific articles instead of creationist propoganda? Have you heard of peer review? Do you know what a peer review journal is?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

There is a big difference and if you were ever a Christisn, you still are. Yoou may be a prodigal but you are still a Christiasn. Once you are born physically, y ou cant be unborn. ONce y ou are born again, spiritually, the same is true. God gave u s that analogy for our assurnce.

Also remember what the prodigal son did. He figured out that being a hired hand for his father was better than living free without him


The father watched for his son ever day and God is doing the same for you.

Some Christians do say, "I think I am a Christian." Especially, new converts who have been taught that our conduct determines if we really are a Christian.

I find it incredibly patronising when Christians assume that I must not have been a "real Christian" at any point in time because, if I was, I would still be a Christian today. I prayed, I read the Bible, I was involved with the Church, I held leadership positions, I even gave serious consideration to the idea of becoming a priest or pastor. And yet I somehow wasn't Christian enough?

My personal speculation is that Christians only say this to reassure themselves that they are Christian enough to never lose their faith.

 

[KWCrazy]

Perhaps you could cite real scientific articles instead of creationist propoganda? Have you heard of peer review? Do you know what a peer review journal is?

Perhaps you could climb down off your condescending high horse and look up the word "propaganda." Do you know what it is? Do you know what it means? Aside from the negative connotations, propaganda as it relates to journalism is quite simply the one sided presentation of information. Everything you post is propaganda because you only post one side of the argument. I simply post the other side. Your sources aren't unbiased because they hold the view that the earth is millions of years old and that evolution is factual. My sources aren't unbiased because they hold the view that the earth is only thousands of years old; that it was created by God; and that evolution is false. To think that either side would post interpretations of evidence from the opposing perspective is quite simply idiotic. Have we required that you cite creation science publications? No.

If you think "real science" only consists of scientists who say what you believe to be true then you have absolutely no clue what science is. For example, you post information showing webbing on a foot despite the fact that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to support the notion that the foot was webbed. Soft tissue doesn't survive fossilization. If you say that science proves the foot was webbed, then you are promoting a lie and your source is discredited. The fact is when scientists state things that are problematic for evolution your sources do not reproduce them. The statements are frequently picked up by publications with an opposing view.

When both points of view, properly sourced, are presented in a forum, people reading the forum have both sides of the story. By insisting that only your interpretation of evidence may be posted, you are completely removing your relevance in the forum. People don't need you're input to read Talkorigins.org.

 

[Loudmouth]

Perhaps you could climb down off your condescending high horse and look up the word "propaganda."

I have. It perfectly fits the websites you keep referencing.

If you are going to claim that scientists say this or that, then directly quote the scientists from their own publications, and supply the context. Also, show that these are scientific journals and that they are peer reviewed. That's how things are done. What you don't do is quote someone else who makes claims on what scientists are saying. You quote the actual scientists, and do so with context.

Do you know what it is? Do you know what it means? Aside from the negative connotations, propaganda as it relates to journalism is quite simply the one sided presentation of information. Everything you post is propaganda because you only post one side of the argument. I simply post the other side. Your sources aren't unbiased because they hold the view that the earth is millions of years old and that evolution is factual. My sources aren't unbiased because they hold the view that the earth is only thousands of years old; that it was created by God; and that evolution is false. To think that either side would post interpretations of evidence from the opposing perspective is quite simply idiotic. Have we required that you cite creation science publications? No.

If you think "real science" only consists of scientists who say what you believe to be true then you have absolutely no clue what science is. For example, you post information showing webbing on a foot despite the fact that THERE IS ABSOLUTELY NO EVIDENCE to support the notion that the foot was webbed. Soft tissue doesn't survive fossilization. If you say that science proves the foot was webbed, then you are promoting a lie and your source is discredited. The fact is when scientists state things that are problematic for evolution your sources do not reproduce them. The statements are frequently picked up by publications with an opposing view.

When both points of view, properly sourced, are presented in a forum, people reading the forum have both sides of the story. By insisting that only your interpretation of evidence may be posted, you are completely removing your relevance in the forum. People don't need you're input to read Talkorigins.org.

You will notice that I quote real scientific, peer reviewed papers. What I don't do is go to a propoganda site like Uncommon Descent and quote liars who twist the words of others.

 

[KWCrazy]

I find it incredibly patronising when Christians assume that I must not have been a "real Christian" at any point in time because, if I was, I would still be a Christian today.

No, but you'd know there was a God; whether you thought He was just or not.
You might even change religions or become entirely non religious.
You can't tell me a God you once knew now doesn't exist. Either you never knew Him, or you're lying about him not existing.

Given the fact that you're on a Christian forum trying to undermine the faith of other Christians, I would say your back story is a sham designed to make us think you were "taken in" by religion but have now "found the truth." Otherwise, why would it be so important for you to seek commonality?

 

[AV1611VET]

I prayed, I read the Bible, I was involved with the Church, I held leadership positions, I even gave serious consideration to the idea of becoming a priest or pastor.

I ... I ... I ... I ... I = five I's.

Sound familiar?

Is Jesus in there anywhere?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I find it incredibly patronising when Christians assume that I must not have been a "real Christian" at any point in time because, if I was, I would still be a Christian today. I prayed, I read the Bible, I was involved with the Church, I held leadership positions, I even gave serious consideration to the idea of becoming a priest or pastor. And yet I somehow wasn't Christian enough?

My personal speculation is that Christians only say this to reassure themselves that they are Christian enough to never lose their faith.

Archaeopteryx, please understand that we are not trying to patronize you in anyway. The problem is this: you were active in the church, you read the Bible, you help leadership positions and even thought about becoming a priest or pastor. What you don't say is that you had a relationship with Jesus. You don't mention Him at all. You didn't have a personal relationship with Jesus and without that you are not born again.
Matthew 7:21 – 23

“Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only he who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name, and in your name drive out demons and perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’


Now I am not saying that this pertains to you, or that you are an evildoer that is not my place to say, but I can say that even those that have done all this were not born again. They didn't know Jesus. It sounds like to me you found the uncomfortable position of being a believer in a world where that is not a respectable place to be. However, I don't know your story so I shouldn't make assumptions. I do know that from what you wrote, you didn't know Christ. Correct?

 

[Oncedeceived]

I ... I ... I ... I ... I = five I's.

Sound familiar?

Is Jesus in there anywhere?

Ok, that is just what I wrote but you posted first.