A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[South Bound]

How did you become a creationist?

PS. If you do answer, you are more truthful than I thought you would be,
and I would like to apologise for doubting you.

I don't think I ever "became" a Creationist. I just always instinctively knew that a design requires a designer and that things don't just magically appear from nothing.

 

[Herman Hedning]

I don't think I ever "became" a Creationist. I just always instinctively knew that a design requires a designer and that things don't just magically appear from nothing.

Have you ever tried to extend that line of thought one step further? Who designed your God? Surely he didn't just magically appear from nothing, right?

 

[biggles53]

I don't think I ever "became" a Creationist. I just always instinctively knew that a design requires a designer and that things don't just magically appear from nothing.

Isn't that EXACTLY what you believe...? That your god magically 'spoke' the universe into existence from nothing...?

 

[biggles53]

I noticed that the original poster consol said that most creationist if they are honest would say that they were born into it. That hey learnt it from their parents. My Dad was an atheist and my mum just didn't believe either way. I just happened to look at the moon one night and thought that had to be created. It just looked so alive and i could have sworn the moon then smiled at me.

Argument from Incredulity/Ignorance....take your pick, they are both fallacies...

 

[stevevw]

Argument from Incredulity/Ignorance....take your pick, they are both fallacies...

I wouldn't have expected any other answer from a non believer.

 

[biggles53]

I wouldn't have expected any other answer from a non believer.

No...you wouldn't have expected any other answer from someone who puts his brain to a purpose other than keeping his ears apart...!

Some of us over the centuries have gone a little further than imagining a 'smiling moon' .... We've actually rolled up our sleeves and done the hard work of finding out how the planets, moons, galaxies, etc, came to be formed, instead of satisfying ourselves with children's stories.... And what we've found out is far, far more awe-inspiring.....

 

[Aman777]

How did you become a creationist?

PS. If you do answer, you are more truthful than I thought you would be,
and I would like to apologise for doubting you.

Dear Consol, I was an Evol who read Genesis to refute someone else's thinking. What happened was that I recognized that the Supreme Intelligence of Creation is the Author. It's PROOF of God. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[AV1611VET]

Who designed your God?

God is self-existent.

 

[AV1611VET]

Isn't that EXACTLY what you believe...? That your god magically 'spoke' the universe into existence from nothing...?

No.

God miraculously spoke the universe into existence from nothing.

 

[ob77]

How did you become a creationist?

PS. If you do answer, you are more truthful than I thought you would be,
and I would like to apologise for doubting you.

No one has ever been able to disprove creation. There is the same amount of matter in the universe as there was at it's initial expansion or big bang, if you will. How far it will expand, we cannot know. We look at creation as we see our own creative powers at work. You are looking at a created thing. Everything you use was created. Everything is made of atoms. Every atom has a nucleus and highly charged particles rotating around it at an astonishing rate of speed, yet it does not fly apart. Something keeps it in uniform motion and intact. Our solar system is not unlike an atom, it has the sun as the nucleus and the planets revolve around it without flying out into space. Planets also have satellites , or moons that revolve around them. Looking farther out, Galaxies also have vast amounts of matter circling their centers.
Physical laws apply everywhere or nothing will work anywhere. These things cannot be random or chance. To believe that the universe just happened takes more faith in that than believing in a creator.

 

[AV1611VET]

I wouldn't have expected any other answer from a non believer.

Biggles is high on ridicule, low on facts.

Notice a lot of his posts have ellipses?

He actually has nothing to say.

After he ridicules something, he loses steam.

And trades the alphabet for punctuation marks.

 

[AV1611VET]

We've actually rolled up our sleeves and done the hard work of finding out how the planets, moons, galaxies, etc, came to be formed, instead of satisfying ourselves with children's stories.... And what we've found out is far, far more awe-inspiring.....

Like the number of planets the guys who 'rolled up their sleeves and worked so hard finding out' was wrong?

 

[biggles53]

No one has ever been able to disprove creation. There is the same amount of matter in the universe as there was at it's initial expansion or big bang, if you will. How far it will expand, we cannot know. We look at creation as we see our own creative powers at work. You are looking at a created thing. Everything you use was created. Everything is made of atoms. Every atom has a nucleus and highly charged particles rotating around it at an astonishing rate of speed, yet it does not fly apart. Something keeps it in uniform motion and intact. Our solar system is not unlike an atom, it has the sun as the nucleus and the planets revolve around it without flying out into space. Planets also have satellites , or moons that revolve around them. Looking farther out, Galaxies also have vast amounts of matter circling their centers.
Physical laws apply everywhere or nothing will work anywhere. These things cannot be random or chance. To believe that the universe just happened takes more faith in that than believing in a creator.

Thank you for describing gravity...

And thank you also for your brand of Argument from Incredulity fallacy...we have something of a collection building, I see...!

 

[Tellastory]

I believe in Jesus Christ and He has helped me to understand the limits of science and why there is a science falsely so called, and so it took time to see the truth of the falsehood taught in schools.

There is no reliable dating method that can discern past 10,000 years. There are even mistakes found in the dating method of items as proven within our known lifetime: like a living mollusk dated by carbon 14 as 10,000 years old "dead".

Science is about what is observed and proven. Evolutionary theoritical applications do not count, no matter how fancy they dress it up. They cannot say it is proof when the theory of evolution remains a theory and not proven as law of evolution.

The laws of science can disprove the evolution theory: which to be precise is about macroevolution: not micro evolution.

Micro evolution is the law of Biogenesis: that kind begets similar kind; meaning a cow will always be a cow: you may get a different variation of a cow, but it will still be a cow; just as a rose by any other name is still a rose.

Science does declare that no genetic information has been observed as being added to a living organism. It cannot happen unless by design.

Man interbreeded a lion & a tiger and got a liger, both male & female, but both were impotent. So even when man intervened of mixing kinds that do not normally mate together in spite of being close in the cat family, the result is impotency.

Now imagine the statistical odds of that happening by random chance, but with the result of what? Still impotency.

The 1st law of thermodynamics cites that nothing is created nor destroyed: so how can added genetic information come out of nowhere to insert itself in a given DNA to change that kind to another kind? It can't.

That is why the Law of Biogenesis remains as a law.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics reproves the notion that life is becoming more complex because what is being observed and proven is that any system left to its own devices tend to degrade. Things are breaking down: not building up. One can attribute that to the effects of sin in the world and in the universe.

So the idea that life will find a way is erroneous when it is limited and degrading while it is limited.

Citing "transitional fossils" is a series of assumptions that cannot be proven.

“The procession of life was never witnessed, it is inferred. The vertical sequence of fossils is thought to represent a process because the enclosing rocks are interpreted as a process. The rocks do date the fossils, but the fossils date the rocks more accurately. Stratigraphy cannot avoid this kind of reasoning, if it insists on using only temporal concepts, because circularity is inherent in the derivation of time scales.” (O’Rourke, J.E., “Pragmatism Versus Materialism in Stratigraphy,” American Journal of Science, vol. 276, 1976, p. 53) (emphasis mine)

The geographic chart as given in science text books does not exist anywhere in the world.

Fossils are Evidence of a World-Wide Flood | X-Evolutionist.com

The layers of the “geologic column” were dated before radiometric dating was invented. The index fossils were not dated radiometrically. Their age was assumed initially by the belief in evolution, how long they supposedly took to evolve. Then the rocks are given that age. The assumption that evolution is true is used to support an old age for the earth.

Science declares an explosion of fossils around pre-Cambrian & Cambrian periods that even one did say that it had to occur by an extinction event of a global flood.

With mass graves of fossilized whale bones with other fossilized marine life AND with fossilized animal life on mountaintops in South & Latin America, North Africa, Turkey & China, it really isn't that hard to see that a global flood did happen and where most of these fossilized bones came from.

But in spite of the laws of science and what is real science that is observed & proven, people will believe what they want to believe.

It is unfortunate that some believers will take heed to that which has never been proven as the evolution theory is a science falsely so called.

1 Timothy 6:20 O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane and vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: 21 Which some professing have erred concerning the faith. Grace be with thee. Amen.

Romans 3:3 For what if some did not believe? shall their unbelief make the faith of God without effect? 4 God forbid: yea, let God be true, but every man a liar; as it is written, That thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged.

Peter believed in the world wide flood & prophesied of what is coming.

2 Peter 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: 7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 8 But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day. 9 The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance. 10 But the day of the Lord will come as a thief in the night; in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up. 11 Seeing then that all these things shall be dissolved, what manner of persons ought ye to be in all holy conversation and godliness, 12 Looking for and hasting unto the coming of the day of God, wherein the heavens being on fire shall be dissolved, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat? 13 Nevertheless we, according to his promise, look for new heavens and a new earth, wherein dwelleth righteousness. 14 Wherefore, beloved, seeing that ye look for such things, be diligent that ye may be found of him in peace, without spot, and blameless.

Believers should doubt fallible men of their fallible devices in science in regards to the evolution theory and trust in God & His words in the KJV.

 

[stevevw]

No...you wouldn't have expected any other answer from someone who puts his brain to a purpose other than keeping his ears apart...!

Some of us over the centuries have gone a little further than imagining a 'smiling moon' .... We've actually rolled up our sleeves and done the hard work of finding out how the planets, moons, galaxies, etc, came to be formed, instead of satisfying ourselves with children's stories.... And what we've found out is far, far more awe-inspiring.....

Well I was throwing in a bit of a joke with the smiling moon. But I am detecting some ridicule there which is uncalled for. The assumption that if a person chooses to believe therefore hasn't got a brain or uses it is unfair and quite harsh. Some of the greatest scientist are Christians and some of the greatest people who have given us some great scientific break throughs are also christians and believe in a creator God. IE

Nicholas Copernicus , Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Albert Einstein, Francis Bacon, Ernst Haeckel, Louis Pasteur, Johannes Kepler, Max Plank.

 

[biggles53]

Thank you Tellastory for as concise a listing of creationist half-truths, fables and outright lies that I've ever seen compiled.........well done...!

 

[lasthero]

Science is about what is observed and proven.

No, it's not. Science doesn't offer proof.

Micro evolution is the law of Biogenesis: that kind begets similar kind

'Kind' is a word that has no real meaning in biology.

Science does declare that no genetic information has been observed as being added to a living organism.

You're making a lot of statements with no backing whatsoever. Science declares no such thing.

The 1st law of thermodynamics cites that nothing is created nor destroyed: so how can added genetic information come out of nowhere to insert itself in a given DNA to change that kind to another kind? It can't.

The 1st law doesn't say that and has nothing to do with DNA.

The 2nd law of thermodynamics reproves the notion that life is becoming more complex because what is being observed and proven is that any system left to its own devices tend to degrade.

Not what the 2nd law says, either.

The geographic chart as given in science text books does not exist anywhere in the world.

It's not supposed, anymore than an atom is supposed to look like a bunch of little balls. It's a representation meant to give children the general idea of the principle of superposition. No one ever said that the world is supposed to look exactly like the chart we see in textbooks.

Science declares an explosion of fossils around pre-Cambrian & Cambrian periods that even one did say that it had to occur by an extinction event of a global flood.

Except we don't just find any fossils around this time. We only see the emergence of certain groups.

With mass graves of fossilized whale bones with other fossilized marine life

Funnily enough, I often hear creationists tell me that fish would have been fine during the flood, but now you seem to be saying it would have killed them off, too.

fossilized animal life on mountaintops in South & Latin America, North Africa, Turkey & China,

We don't find fossils on TOP of mountains, we find them INSIDE of mountains. And from what we know of how mountains form, it's not a big surprise. There's no need to invoke a global flood.

 

[biggles53]

Well I was throwing in a bit of a joke with the smiling moon. But I am detecting some ridicule there which is uncalled for.

No, it was entirely called for...and your detection system is spot on....moronic ideas deserve to be called for what they are...

The assumption that if a person chooses to believe therefore hasn't got a brain or uses it is unfair and quite harsh.

Relying upon a world view that has its basis in pretending to know that which you don't know deserves a harsh response....I find it insulting when adults claim that using their brains in a childish way is legitimate...

Some of the greatest scientist are Christians and some of the greatest people who have given us some great scientific break throughs are also christians and believe in a creator God. IE

Nicholas Copernicus , Galileo Galilei, Isaac Newton, Gregor Mendel, Albert Einstein, Francis Bacon, Ernst Haeckel, Louis Pasteur, Johannes Kepler, Max Plank.

And every single one of them tossed his religion to one side while he was doing his science...! Furthermore, many of them had to battle through the stultifying, mind-numbing resistance of religious protest to even do their science in the first place...!

 

[Dizredux]

Well Some of the greatest scientist are Christians and some of the greatest people who have given us some great scientific break throughs are also christians and believe in a creator God. IE

Steve, there are many scientists who are Christian and believe in a creator God. They don't bring their faith into doing science however. This is what a number posting here have so much difficulty understanding. For millions of people, there is no conflict between science and religion.

Dizredux

 

[Tellastory]

Thank you Tellastory for as concise a listing of creationist half-truths, fables and outright lies that I've ever seen compiled.........well done...!

If there are creationists' half truths, then that is like you are admitting to evolutionists' half truths, fables, & lies, right?

We all can be "cute" when we want to be too.

It all adds up to doing your own search just as believers are to lean on Him for help in discerning the truth and not rely on anyone else to do that search for them.

And your reply was hardly conducive to the discussion, now was it?

Got any proof that genetic information has been observed as added to a living organism? No. And why not? I point to the laws of science as to why not.

What do you point to? Charles Xavier School for Gifted Children? Oh wait. That does not exist.

More "cuteness".

Let me know when you can get a pair of wings that flies and still be able to reproduce after you become that new kind. Maybe then, it will become the law of evolution, but it will never happen.

And yes, I am fully aware that science are mixing animal and humans DNA invitro with gene splicing for observation but that doesn't count because it is still by design and if given "birth:, they will not be able to reproduce