A question I don't think creationists will answer.

[pyramid33]

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.

Haha, we are not honored by men. LOL

 

[Delphiki]

Haha, we are not honored by men. LOL

You're either honored by people or you're not honored.

 

[bhsmte]

I've never understood why Creationists, especially those who suffer the most from Dunning-Kruger, think false equivocation and straw men argued ad nauseum is a good debate tactic. It just makes them look dishonest.

The problem is, they don't think like most others and honesty is not a priority. The most important priority, is simply protecting their belief and they rationalize whatever means necessary to do so.

Really, it is desperation and desperate people, do things that appear desperate to others, while their defense mechanisms, have developed enough to rationalize the behavior, to themselves.

 

[lifepsyop]

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 was evolutionist for most of my life. The first time I really examined evolution skeptically it became very clear how absurd it is, and how it is propped up only by philosophy and metaphysical assumptions.

After this I began reading the Bible and God opened my heart up to its ultimate truth. The plain reading of Genesis is the truth of our origins and the history of Earth, and we are also told the truth of God's judgment by a worldwide flood will one day be scoffed at and denied.

The ridiculous belief that a fish can turn into a man given enough time will eventually join the ranks of the materialistic "science" that told us fully grown mice could spontaneously generate from dirty underwear.

 

[RickG]

I've never understood why Creationists, especially those who suffer the most from Dunning-Kruger, think false equivocation and straw men argued ad nauseum is a good debate tactic. It just makes them look dishonest.

 

[RickG]

I was evolutionist for most of my life. The first time I really examined evolution skeptically it became very clear how absurd it is, and how it is propped up only by philosophy and metaphysical assumptions.

Just wondering. How does one be an evolutionist most of one's life and then examine it? Doesn't it make more sense to examine it first? I never accepted it until I examined it.

 

[Dizredux]

The ridiculous belief that a fish can turn into a man given enough time will eventually join the ranks of the materialistic "science" that told us fully grown mice could spontaneously generate from dirty underwear.

Perhaps, but one thing for sure, now is not the time for that to happen. I guess that about all you can do is wait patiently.

Dizredux

 

[lifepsyop]

Just wondering. How does one be an evolutionist most of one's life and then examine it? Doesn't it make more sense to examine it first? I never accepted it until I examined it.

How do you think? Indoctrination through public schools and media.

I highly doubt you were capable of seriously examining Evolution in grade school when you were being taught it was the truth.

 

[lifepsyop]

Perhaps, but one thing for sure, now is not the time for that to happen. I guess that about all you can do is wait patiently.

True, the evolution industry has not made it a secret that they will proceed unhindered in spite of data. Like I said, Evolution is primarily a school of philosophy.

 

[RickG]

How do you think? Indoctrination through public schools and media.

I highly doubt you were capable of seriously examining Evolution in grade school when you were being taught it was the truth.

It wasn't taught when I was in grade school. However, I was exposed to it in high school biology briefly, but I never did make a decision one way or the other. What convinced me was the fossil record. Can you explain the fossil record without evolution? How did all those critters get there? Well?

 

[RickG]

True, the evolution industry has not made it a secret that they will proceed unhindered in spite of data. Like I said, Evolution is primarily a school of philosophy.

Well, I think that comment nullifies your previous post. Saying evolution is primarily a school of philosophy pretty much reveals you have not examined evolution skeptically. Science and philosophy are not even close to being the same.

 

[lifepsyop]

It wasn't taught when I was in grade school. However, I was exposed to it in high school biology briefly, but I never did make a decision one way or the other. What convinced me was the fossil record. Can you explain the fossil record without evolution? How did all those critters get there? Well?

I'm pretty sure if you had a "natural science" class in public grade school, then you were exposed to Evolution religion. "Secular" culture in general is pretty efficient at making sure any dissent from Darwinian evolution is promptly met with contempt and ridicule.

Not going to derail the thread, but the fossil record is one of the most powerful bodies of evidence against Evolution. Also, if you're informed at all about the history of ToE, the fossil record represents one of the most stunning failures of evolutionary predictions. It's amazing that people can still be brainwashed into believing fossils support evolution.

 

[bhsmte]

I'm pretty sure if you had a "natural science" class in public grade school, then you were exposed to Evolution religion. "Secular" culture in general is pretty efficient at making sure any dissent from Darwinian evolution is promptly met with contempt and ridicule.

Not going to derail the thread, but the fossil record is one of the most powerful bodies of evidence against Evolution. Also, if you're informed at all about the history of ToE, the fossil record represents one of the most stunning failures of evolutionary predictions. It's amazing that people can still be brainwashed into believing fossils support evolution.

Wow, just wow and we haven't even mentioned the power of the DNA evidence which Francis Collins, the former head of the human genome project explains:

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

 

[RickG]

I'm pretty sure if you had a "natural science" class in public grade school, then you were exposed to Evolution religion.

No evolution in grade school during the 1950's at all, but we did say the Lords prayer every morning.

"Secular" culture in general is pretty efficient at making sure any dissent from Darwinian evolution is promptly met with contempt and ridicule.

Speaking of ridicule, have you looked in a mirror lately?

Not going to derail the thread, but the fossil record is one of the most powerful bodies of evidence against Evolution. Also, if you're informed at all about the history of ToE, the fossil record represents one of the most stunning failures of evolutionary predictions. It's amazing that people can still be brainwashed into believing fossils support evolution.

Well, how about explaining how all the fossils got where they are. Did they just pop in there. For evolution to be false, we would see all fossils in all layers of strata. Fact is we don't.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was evolutionist for most of my life. The first time I really examined evolution skeptically it became very clear how absurd it is, and how it is propped up only by philosophy and metaphysical assumptions.

After this I began reading the Bible and God opened my heart up to its ultimate truth. The plain reading of Genesis is the truth of our origins and the history of Earth, and we are also told the truth of God's judgment by a worldwide flood will one day be scoffed at and denied.

The ridiculous belief that a fish can turn into a man given enough time will eventually join the ranks of the materialistic "science" that told us fully grown mice could spontaneously generate from dirty underwear.

I have heard creationists make this claim before. As a rule they did not understand the theory of evolution to begin with. At best they have a series of strawman arguments against evolution.

And lifepsyop's ignorance is shown in this very post. A fish does not turn into a man. Species change not individuals. And to say that a population of fish cannot eventually become population of men is as ridiculous of an argument to say as: It is impossible to walk from New York to California. A person can only walk within one state.

If you want to claim evolution is impossible you have a lot of work to do. The evidence keeps mounting for evolution and there is no evidence for creationism.

 

[lifepsyop]

Well, how about explaining how all the fossils got where they are. Did they just pop in there. For evolution to be false, we would see all fossils in all layers of strata. Fact is we don't.

That's an interesting claim. There is no apparent logic to it, but I'll give you an example of how Evolution could accommodate "all fossils in all layers of strata"

What if evolution occurred much more rapidly, say on the order of 10-50 million years from the Cambrian biota to extant biodiversity. (nothing in the theory rules this out, btw, it would just be chalked up to extreme selection pressures or other ad-hoc devices) In this scenario, the fossil record would reflect the majority representatives of biodiversity starting from the bottom-most layers. Evolution theory would have most likely accommodated something an ad-hoc explanation like this if forced into that position.

It's not really that dissimilar from how the Cambrian Explosion is handled today. It's simply regarded as an enigmatic rapid evolutionary event producing incredibly complex and diverse animal body plans with virtually no trace of their supposed evolutionary history in the rocks below.

Another point on fossil sequences, nothing in evolution theory explains why dinosaurs had to wait till LayerX to evolve, or mammals had to wait till LayerY to evolve, etc. etc.. The fog of evolution just accommodates whatever is there and then pretends it's a fulfilled prediction.

 

[Aman777]

I have heard creationists make this claim before. As a rule they did not understand the theory of evolution to begin with. At best they have a series of strawman arguments against evolution.

And lifepsyop's ignorance is shown in this very post. A fish does not turn into a man. Species change not individuals. And to say that a population of fish cannot eventually become population of men is as ridiculous of an argument to say as: It is impossible to walk from New York to California. A person can only walk within one state.

If you want to claim evolution is impossible you have a lot of work to do. The evidence keeps mounting for evolution and there is no evidence for creationism.

Dear SZ, False, since evolution has falsely assumed that Humans evolved from Apes. History ALSO refutes the Falsehoods being taught to our children in the Public Schools. Evols CLAIM that we evolved from the common ancestor of Apes, but that is totally UnTrue and cannot be supported by ANY evidence, no matter how many Evols tell you it can. Go ahead and believe what you wish, but just don't try to push such tripe to grown up adults. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[justlookinla]

Wow, just wow and we haven't even mentioned the power of the DNA evidence which Francis Collins, the former head of the human genome project explains:

Francis Collins: The evidence is overwhelming. And it is becoming more and more robust down to the details almost by the day, especially because we have this ability now to use the study of DNA as a digital record of the way Darwin’s theory has played out over the course of long periods of time.
Darwin could hardly have imagined that there would turn out to be such strong proof of his theory because he didn’t know about DNA - but we have that information. I would say we are as solid in claiming the truth of evolution as we are in claiming the truth of the germ theory. It is so profoundly well-documented in multiple different perspectives, all of which give you a consistent view with enormous explanatory power that make it the central core of biology. Trying to do biology without evolution would be like trying to do physics without mathematics

Francis Collins and Karl Giberson Talk about Evolution and the Church, Part 2 | The BioLogos Forum

From the "What We Believe" portion of the BioLogos website.....

We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God.

We believe that God also reveals himself in and through the natural world he created, which displays his glory, eternal power, and divine nature. Properly interpreted, Scripture and nature are complementary and faithful witnesses to their common Author.

We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation.

We believe in the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. We believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which we are saved and reconciled to God.

We believe that God is directly involved in the lives of people today through acts of redemption, personal transformation, and answers to prayer.

We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as "natural laws." Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history.

We believe that the methods of science are an important and reliable means to investigate and describe the world God has made. In this, we stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom Christian faith and science are mutually hospitable. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality.

We believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life over billions of years. God continues to sustain the existence and functioning of the natural world, and the cosmos continues to declare the glory of God. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Deism that claim the universe is self-sustaining, that God is no longer active in the natural world, or that God is not active in human history.

We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.
We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.

We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church.​

 

[bhsmte]

From the "What We Believe" portion of the BioLogos website.....

We believe the Bible is the inspired and authoritative word of God. By the Holy Spirit it is the “living and active” means through which God speaks to the church today, bearing witness to God’s Son, Jesus, as the divine Logos, or Word of God.

We believe that God also reveals himself in and through the natural world he created, which displays his glory, eternal power, and divine nature. Properly interpreted, Scripture and nature are complementary and faithful witnesses to their common Author.

We believe that all people have sinned against God and are in need of salvation.

We believe in the historical incarnation of Jesus Christ as fully God and fully man. We believe in the historical death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, by which we are saved and reconciled to God.

We believe that God is directly involved in the lives of people today through acts of redemption, personal transformation, and answers to prayer.

We believe that God typically sustains the world using faithful, consistent processes that humans describe as "natural laws." Yet we also affirm that God works outside of natural law in supernatural events, including the miracles described in Scripture. In both natural and supernatural ways, God continues to be directly involved in creation and in human history.

We believe that the methods of science are an important and reliable means to investigate and describe the world God has made. In this, we stand with a long tradition of Christians for whom Christian faith and science are mutually hospitable. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Materialism and Scientism that claim science is the sole source of knowledge and truth, that science has debunked God and religion, or that the physical world constitutes the whole of reality.

We believe that God created the universe, the earth, and all life over billions of years. God continues to sustain the existence and functioning of the natural world, and the cosmos continues to declare the glory of God. Therefore, we reject ideologies such as Deism that claim the universe is self-sustaining, that God is no longer active in the natural world, or that God is not active in human history.

We believe that the diversity and interrelation of all life on earth are best explained by the God-ordained process of evolution with common descent. Thus, evolution is not in opposition to God, but a means by which God providentially achieves his purposes. Therefore, we reject ideologies that claim that evolution is a purposeless process or that evolution replaces God.
We believe that God created humans in biological continuity with all life on earth, but also as spiritual beings. God established a unique relationship with humanity by endowing us with his image and calling us to an elevated position within the created order.

We believe that conversations among Christians about controversial issues of science and faith can and must be conducted with humility, grace, honesty, and compassion as a visible sign of the Spirit’s presence in Christ’s body, the Church.
​

Please provide a source for the definition of Darwinist Creationism.

 

[justlookinla]

Please provide a source for the definition of Darwinist Creationism.

From Wikipedia....

"Darwinism is a theory of biological evolution developed by Charles Darwin and others, stating that all species of organisms arise and develop through the natural selection of small, inherited variations that increase the individual's ability to compete, survive, and reproduce."​