Any creationists left?

[2Timothy2]

You would be an OEC* then.

*Old Earth Creationist

Yep, that's pretty much what I thought I said. But for the purposes of this thread, the operative term there is "Creationist"

 

[Xaero]

hi there , i am a creationist

sad that many creationists left this forum. they should come back - let us share our thoughts and knowledge together

 

[Smidlee]

I'm a creationists while I don't find a need to post much about creation vs evolution since it's an old worn out road. I reject evolution mainly for scientific (and mathematics) reasons. I see the evidence extremely weak while listening to the scientists tell me what they believe. Some scientist are honest to say they believe in evolution even though their own evidence doesn't fit the theory. The Big Bang theory also in such a bad shape yet people still believe in it.

As far as how old the earth is, I personally can see it could be old than 6,000 years but not billions (galaxies is different story since we don't know what what God was doing in the past). Since most scientist sees everything though "evolution" I have my doubts it's 4 billions years old but still the earth could be more than 6,000 years old. (Even when scientists realize that our brain are wired for God and spiritualities he tries to explain it away by asking why "evolution" would do such a thing.) Evolutionists need billions of years to have room for thing to evolved in their theory. I satisfied with "In the beginning God created ..." while I lean toward the Earth is probably around 6-10 thousands year I don't have any problems with a believer who believe it's older (gap thoery).

So I'm sure there is still creationist here who really doesn't care to debate this issue anymore so they don't post on the subject.

 

[Knowledge3]

I just come off a YEC forum, where a load of guys have been chucked off this forum for holding Creationist views (their words, not mine!) so I was wondering how many creationists are actually left here?

Yes.

I have just kept silent about the age-old Creationist debate for several years. I peek in there once in a while, as one peers into something dark.

What do all the meaningless words and pages and pages debate at internet infidels accomplish?

Nothing.

Why?

Let's look at Ecclesiastes 6.11

Whatever exists has>> already been named<<,
and what man is has been known;
and no man can contend
with one who is stronger than he.
The more the words
the less the meaning
and how does that profit anyone?

---
I would rather have fruitful discussions about Christ Jesus than to chatter meaningless talk about what already exists.
---

 

[TwinCrier]

I personally think it's simply that many creationists are turning to our most powerful weapon: prayer. Evolutionists have convinced themselves of evolution and only they can talk themselves out of it. There just came a time when I felt the frustration wasn't worth it so i turned it all over to God. If He can change my mind about evolution, He can change theirs as well.

 

[Knowledge3]

That is sort of the direction I went too..I realized that even as a Christian, not everything is to our knowing and things have a reason for being what they are.

I might get in the Creationist ballgame again.


I came up with some new stuff, but the only reason I do it is show beauty in nature and the planet, not to discuss and debate with evolutionists.Being a Creationist is God's gift of explanation, it's too bad many want to defeat Creationism

 

[Underdog77]

I believe in YEC but have been quiet lately on the forums. I guess to some extent I fallen into a "it won't make a difference what I say" mentality.

 

[keyarch]

.... I was wondering how many creationists are actually left here?

I'll check in as a Young Biological Creationist (6 literal days, 6,118 ya), and Old Upper Heaven with an unfinished Earth (covered with water & thick cloud layer). My reference for this position is at: www.genesistruth.org/Genesisday1_4.htm

 

[SBG]

I think many have left because it comes apparent that a creationist view is not really welcomed here. This is seen when one tries to uphold their view with Biblical verses and a half a dozen evolutionists come in and preach science and tell the creationists how they are responsible for so many souls being lost to the Kingdom of God.

What creationists take by faith we are ridiculed for by evolutionists. There is a real problem in this forum, I believe, because when Christians gather there should be fellowship. I recently posted something about this and some evolutionists told me this is not the place for fellowship.

This is not a theology forum. No one here is talking about Scripture against Scripture. It is Scripture versus science here. If popularity was the deciding factor on who wins, sciences takes the cake.

Something that has always been apparent to me and seems to be invisible to most is that the evolutionists here state that it is our interpretation of Scripture that is wrong. But then they conviently forget that evidence must be interpreted by scientists and furthermore argue as if this interpretation could never be wrong by an ad populum argument. It is simply one side saying your interpretation of God's Word is wrong and the scientists (many who don't believe in God) interpretation is beyond refute.

I think the main reason why it becomes unattractive to post here is because when you do post, no one actually listens to what is said, instead they look to find what they can refute. There is no real communication here.

 

[keyarch]

I think the main reason why it becomes unattractive to post here is because when you do post, no one actually listens to what is said, instead they look to find what they can refute. There is no real communication here.

I have found some exceptions to this, which very rewarding and worth the negative. If nothing else, this forum represents the world views that we'll find in our community and hopefully help us prepare for witnessing to others. Please hang in there, we need you. <><

 

[Knowledge3]

I am a devout Creationist..CF, consider me on your team because I have been developing a new type of argument before I go back to Internet Infidels some in the near future...

We can all brainstorm here for several weeks and brainstorm..I have much knowledge at my disposal.Even though I cannot possibly know everything, I can sure get into a intense debate..before I do this I pray to the Lord to keep my speech and help my keep my calm. However, we should all brainstorm together and formulate a concise outline and argument.

Trust me, Creationism will not die.....CF's loyal servant K3

Somewhere in a Psalm it said I know every bird in the mountains, the cattle on a thousand hills.

That is only One small OT verse.

I will pray for everyone's well being throughout the day...

I will especially pray for us Creationists, even if none of the Creationists here will not go there to support me..I have never had support on the internet since I encountered the message board world.

I am a master Creationist.Old earth.

 

[theywhosowintears]

I am here... I am a newbie on this part of CF...

I have been in a few wars over literal genesis on other forums in here though.

 

[Knowledge3]

Hello sotheywhosowintears..

I am a pretty adept Creationist..I had a PM conversation with Keyarch, I wonder where he is. I would like to discuss with him.....hopefully

I've started a thread at infidels..Feel free to site on the sidelines and watch..

But I wait till post count gets to 100 before I start embarking on my explanation by images....

 

[keyarch]

I am a pretty adept Creationist..I had a PM conversation with Keyarch, I wonder where he is. I would like to discuss with him.....hopefully

I'm here...; What did you want to discuss? The main thing we talked about before was the source of light before day four of the creation week, which I say was from God, and you had a scientific approach to it as I recall. I think we'll just have to have our own opinion on that issue. I think Biblically, the sun wasn't in its current place until day four (whether or not it existed prior to that).

 

[theywhosowintears]

I'm here...; What did you want to discuss? The main thing we talked about before was the source of light before day four of the creation week, which I say was from God, and you had a scientific approach to it as I recall. I think we'll just have to have our own opinion on that issue. I think Biblically, the sun wasn't in its current place until day four (whether or not it existed prior to that).

Very Interesting God created light before the sun.
In fact Revelation makes a point that there will be no sun in heaven as God (Father & Son) will be the light.

Also when talking about the Tree of Life earlier it is interesting to note how many similarities there are between Eden and heaven; the Tree of Life is by the river of life flowing from the throne; was it always there and that makes eden heaven or did God move it off of the earth (as Genesis gives an earthly location for Eden?) the mind boggles.

Anyway NT sources like Revelation and OT prophecy are great places to back up Genesis as they make sense in conjuntion with literal 6 day creation.

I still struggle to comprehend how TE's can interprete scripture the way they do. AAAAGH. lol I guess God can teach me patience through my talks with them.

 

[mhess13]

Very Interesting God created light before the sun.
In fact Revelation makes a point that there will be no sun in heaven as God (Father & Son) will be the light.

Also when talking about the Tree of Life earlier it is interesting to note how many similarities there are between Eden and heaven; the Tree of Life is by the river of life flowing from the throne; was it always there and that makes eden heaven or did God move it off of the earth (as Genesis gives an earthly location for Eden?) the mind boggles.

Anyway NT sources like Revelation and OT prophecy are great places to back up Genesis as they make sense in conjuntion with literal 6 day creation.

I still struggle to comprehend how TE's can interprete scripture the way they do. AAAAGH. lol I guess God can teach me patience through my talks with them.

The early church used this as a powerful apologetic against pagan sun worship.

 

[Knowledge3]

I'm here...; What did you want to discuss? The main thing we talked about before was the source of light before day four of the creation week, which I say was from God, and you had a scientific approach to it as I recall. I think we'll just have to have our own opinion on that issue. I think Biblically, the sun wasn't in its current place until day four (whether or not it existed prior to that).

Hey keyarch!

The evolutionists I have been debating at II will not combine their basic scientific principle of manking with God's purpose in it. It relies on a purely random,spotaneous, and a Theory that is now exactly set in stone.

Do you follow?

I will no doubt look forward to dicussing you about the source of light and how it relates to evolution. The II'ers deny the Light argument as a logical fallacy. I have begun to develop or work toward a theory that God's logic does not equal or is constrained to the the basic logic of mankind as we know it.

 

[Knowledge3]

Hey keyarch!

The evolutionists I have been debating at II will not combine their basic scientific principle of including with God's purpose in it. I believe the Creator as a master of physics and metaphysics. Evolution in a sense,relies on a purely random,spotaneous, and a Theory that is now exactly NOT set in stone.

Do you follow?

I will no doubt look forward to dicussing you about the source of light and how it relates to evolution. The II'ers deny the Light argument as a logical fallacy. I have begun to develop or work toward a theory that God's logic does not equal or is constrained to the the basic logic of mankind as we know it.

 

[Knowledge3]

The early church used this as a powerful apologetic against pagan sun worship.

Hmm..someone at II just proved himself a "sun god". Which is obvious he has clue what we as Creationist talk and discuss to explain our world and how we view it as whole.

 

[keyarch]

The evolutionists I have been debating at II will not combine their basic scientific principle of manking with God's purpose in it. It relies on a purely random,spotaneous, and a Theory that is now exactly set in stone.

Do you follow?

Yes. No matter what you say to them, they will not see origins from a Biblical perspective until God changes their heart. For them, seeing is believing; but in reality, believing is seeing. Having faith before evidence is counter to their intellectual experience, and is what will keep them blind.

I will no doubt look forward to dicussing you about the source of light and how it relates to evolution. The

II'ers deny the Light argument as a logical fallacy. I have begun to develop or work toward a theory that God's logic does not equal or is constrained to the the basic logic of mankind as we know it.

I don’t follow how the source of light relates to evolution. Since God is TRUE and the source of all light (whether by his Word or an object like the sun) and macro-evolution is FALSE, there is no relationship between the two, and any attempt to make one is futile. I fail to see the need to fit the Biblical account of Creation into an evolutionary/scientific paradigm since they are opposing views to begin with. They cannot BOTH be true.

To convince someone who has a naturalistic view of origins, that anything in the account of creation is true (leaving out the supernatural), while at the same time trying to convince them that the supernatural exists, is a lost cause.