Are there any creationists willing to debate?

Alessandro · Jul 30, 2003

To disregard one point in what God says, is equal to disregarding all of it, you cannot take what you want and leave the rest. That is why we stand unchanged, we cannot mix and match you know.

Mechanical Bliss · Jul 30, 2003

Alessandro said:
To disregard one point in what God says, is equal to disregarding all of it, you cannot take what you want and leave the rest. That is why we stand unchanged, we cannot mix and match you know.

Ok, let's grant that your interpretation of your religious text is correct. Then why is God either wrong or deliberately lying to you?

Furthermore, how do you know that your interpretation of your religious text is necessarily correct? How do you know that the flood story or creation story for examples are not metaphorical rather than literal? The evidence simply does not support your interpretation whether you agree or not. That still doesn't change the facts that you've been unwilling to address.

It's a dangerous position to hold because if that is how you define your religion, by a literal text, then it's easy as pie to disprove Christianity as per your comment that to disregard one part is to disregard all. All one has to do is disprove a literal interpretation of a global flood or the creation story and one has disproven Christianity. And that's quite easy. Is that really the position you want to hang onto?

Pete Harcoff · Jul 30, 2003

Alessandro said:
To disregard one point in what God says, is equal to disregarding all of it, you cannot take what you want and leave the rest. That is why we stand unchanged, we cannot mix and match you know.

But taking a passage as non-literal or allegorical is not the same as disregarding it.

Pete Harcoff · Jul 30, 2003

Oholiab said:
First off evolution is not natural science per se, its a synthesis of science and philosophy.

All science rests on philosophical underpinnings about the universe. But evolution is still just as much science as any other field of scientific study.

It is essentially an arguement against 'special creation'

It is an alternative to special creation. Furthermore, the theory of evolution arose because the evidence within God's creation fits evolution as an explanation of the diversity of life on Earth as opposed to the idea of special creation.

Im convinced it is antithesitic it its intent and there is nothing Ive seen to convince me otherwise.

It isn't anti-theistic any more than quantum mechanics or relativity. The idea that evolution is anti-theism is a lie perpetuated by creationist organizations trying to further their own religious beliefs.

Alessandro · Jul 30, 2003

God is not wrong, and nor is He lying. I would watch what I say if I were you. You are in way over your head my friend, you have no idea what you are getting yourself into. But soon enough you will.

Nobody knows anything for sure other than God Who created it all. But when everything makes sense according to the evidence and what the Bible says it is quite hard to deny it, but confirms it. You may disagree, I have no problem with that.

When God says something in the Bible that is meant to be metaphorical whoever reads it will KNOW, same thing with literal accounts. The Bible is quite simple to understand if you have an open mind to take what it says in. God will show you. You are free to disagree of course.

I said this before, looking at the same piece of evidence you see it as opposing I see it as confirmation.

My friend, I know and trust and am convinced way beyond that, you have no idea where I stand.

To be honest with you, some time ago, I might have been uncertain about the interpretation of the evidence, and I could have went either way, but now it is totally different.

ifriit · Jul 30, 2003

Alessandro said:
When God says something in the Bible that is meant to be metaphorical whoever reads it will KNOW, same thing with literal accounts.

That's quite patently false. Many Christian sects and even individuals within them disagree on what should be literal and what should be metaphor. So either you are mistaken or everyone else is lying; I assume the latter.

Pete Harcoff · Jul 30, 2003

(I assume this was addressed to me)

Alessandro said:
God is not wrong, and nor is He lying. I would watch what I say if I were you. You are in way over your head my friend, you have no idea what you are getting yourself into. But soon enough you will.

I have not said that God is wrong. I have not said that God is a liar. You seem to be of the mindset that anyone who disagrees with your Biblical interpretation is calling God a liar. But you don't get to make that determination. You are not God.

Nobody knows anything for sure other than God Who created it all. But when everything makes sense according to the evidence and what the Bible says it is quite hard to deny it, but confirms it. You may disagree, I have no problem with that.

Of course I disagree that the evidence confirms a literal Genesis. From what I have seen, the evidence does not. Furthermore, when I ask creationists to confirm a certain Biblical event with geology, they are unable to.

When God says something in the Bible that is meant to be metaphorical whoever reads it will KNOW, same thing with literal accounts. The Bible is quite simple to understand if you have an open mind to take what it says in. God will show you. You are free to disagree of course.

Considering the disagreements over the Bible, I'd say the issue is hardly as simple as you've made it.

I said this before, looking at the same piece of evidence you see it as opposing I see it as confirmation.

So, you see (for example) the inability to determine which strata are representative of the world-wide flood as confirmation of said flood? Mighty strange viewpoint, if you ask me.

My friend, I know and trust and am convinced way beyond that, you have no idea where I stand.

To be honest with you, some time ago, I might have been uncertain about the interpretation of the evidence, and I could have went either way, but now it is totally different.

Then, quite frankly, there's little reason for you to be posting in this forum.

From the science forum rules:

7. You will come in here with the attitude and mindset that you are not always right. Stonewallers, and trolls need not apply (and hence will be happily removed from the board). This includes people on both sides of the debate. (emphasis added)

samiam · Jul 30, 2003

BabbleOn8806 said:
i would be but i don't have time and i do not enjoy being PERSONALLY insulted, i am sorry. i have a funeral to prepare for

I understand where you are coming from.

A lot of people are a bit short here with creationists; they are used to dealing with very stubborn b-headed people who refuse to listen to opposing viewpoints.

I myself try to treat each creationists on a case-by-case basis; I try to be as nice to creationists new to this forum, and ignore creationists who are obviously unwilling to listen.

Unfortunatly, I am a sinner and less-than-perfect. Is is very difficult to keep a level head when a creationist puts the gauntlet down and attacks people who believe in evolution using confrontational language. I don't think you are the kind of person who would do that, but some people here, alas, treat every single creationist like that.

I hope you come back here.

God bless,

- Sam

Pete Harcoff · Jul 30, 2003

samiam said:
I don't think you are the kind of person who would do that, but some people here, alas, treat every single creationist like that.

I agree, but unfortunately the most vocal are often the most confrontational and the rest end up forgotten. Particularly annoying is the trend for creationists to come into the forum fresh off their favorite creationist site reciting all sorts material as though no one here has ever seen it before. So, you get people becoming very exasperated at having to once again deal with the same points over and over.

Personally, I think there should be a one-month moritorium between registering and being allowed to post on this forum (the science section) to give new users a chance to read through existing material on the site so we don't constantly tread over the same ground.

Mechanical Bliss · Jul 30, 2003

Alessandro said:
God is not wrong, and nor is He lying.

Then why does the evidence disprove a literal interpretation of that global flooding event?

There are a few possible answers:

1. Your interpretation is incorrect.
2. Your interpretation is correct, but God gave you incorrect information.
3. Your interpretation is correct, but God deliberately gave you incorrect information (lied).

I would watch what I say if I were you. You are in way over your head my friend, you have no idea what you are getting yourself into. But soon enough you will.

Empty threats...

Nobody knows anything for sure other than God Who created it all. But when everything makes sense according to the evidence and what the Bible says it is quite hard to deny it, but confirms it. You may disagree, I have no problem with that.

Then why can you not answer simple questions and why do you ignore evidence if "everything makes sense"?

When God says something in the Bible that is meant to be metaphorical whoever reads it will KNOW, same thing with literal accounts. The Bible is quite simple to understand if you have an open mind to take what it says in. God will show you. You are free to disagree of course.

False. The majority of Christians disagree with your interpretation of the Bible, so no, people don't "KNOW" whether the interpretation should be literal or metaphorical. Most people just realize that a literal interpretation is untenable.

I said this before, looking at the same piece of evidence you see it as opposing I see it as confirmation.

No you don't look at the same evidence. You completely ignore what you don't want to see. You have provided zero explanations for the points raised. Instead you simply ignore facts like there is not enough water on earth for this flood, there are features that falsify the flood in the record because they clearly and indisputably indicate a hiatus in deposition and exposure for erosion, and radiometric dating, for examples.

You can't even point to the sedimentary strata that are pre-, syn-, and post-flood. You can't even directly address the mountains of evidence falsifying your position. You just remain evasive of the topics of the threads on which you post pretending like you are automatically right even though the evidence shows that you are decidedly wrong.

It only takes one piece of evidence to falsify your position. You've been given dozens of pieces of evidence that you have either ignored or tried to explain unrealistically because you lack a background in the geologic sciences.

goodseedhomeschool · Jul 30, 2003

I think I must have stepped into the twilight zone. Does this site make fun of people who believe the Bible? I am very confused. I thought this to be a Christian forum.
If a person does not believe Genesis, how on earth can they even begin to believe the rest of the Bible.

Pete Harcoff · Jul 30, 2003

goodseedhomeschool said:
I think I must have stepped into the twilight zone. Does this site make fun of people who believe the Bible? I am very confused. I thought this to be a Christian forum.

This is a Christian forum (however, this particular subsection of the forum is available for Christians and non-Christians alike).

The issue here is creationism, not Christianity. Personally, I do not dispute Christianity. However, I do dispute certain claims by creationists.

If a person does not believe Genesis, how on earth can they even begin to believe the rest of the Bible.

The issue is not whether or not a person believes Genesis. The issue is how a person interprets Genesis. A literal interpretation (and variations thereof) is one option. An allegorical interpretation is another.

samiam · Jul 30, 2003

goodseedhomeschool said:
I think I must have stepped into the twilight zone. Does this site make fun of people who believe the Bible? I am very confused. I thought this to be a Christian forum.
If a person does not believe Genesis, how on earth can they even begin to believe the rest of the Bible.

Please read my reply to one of your other postings.

- Sam

samiam · Jul 30, 2003

Pete Harcoff said:
Personally, I think there should be a one-month moritorium between registering and being allowed to post on this forum (the science section) to give new users a chance to read through existing material on the site so we don't constantly tread over the same ground.

I agree with you. It looks like our latest creationist here, goodseedhomeschool, is one of the stubborn types. My take: In total creationist denial, and not willing to listen to any reasonable scientific explanation. We will probably go round and round in circles with him until he realizes he has lost, give up, and leave here.

- Sam

wblastyn · Jul 30, 2003

goodseedhomeschool said:
I think I must have stepped into the twilight zone. Does this site make fun of people who believe the Bible? I am very confused. I thought this to be a Christian forum.
If a person does not believe Genesis, how on earth can they even begin to believe the rest of the Bible.

It's not that we don't believe Genesis, we just don't think it's supposed to be taken as a literal historical event. Rather it's a theological story saying God created everything, man is sinful and needs a saviour and God will provide that saviour.

ElElohe · Jul 31, 2003

Pete Harcoff said:
This was brought up in another thread, but I think it's worth a thread of its own.

For awhile, the number of creationists actually willing to engage in active debate have virtually disappeared from these forums. Even new creationists that come in seem less interested in addressing issues raised by people on the forum than simply reciting creationist propoganda.

Are there any creationists out there willing to actually debate about things raised in these forums?

"Propoganda" is a loaded term. Creationists would say the same about Evolutionists. Hence, null and void.

I would like to be able to debate but was an art student. There is though, an obvious link to a person's worldview and whether they espouse Creation or Evolution. Therefore it is interesting to me, and there are some things I can reply to intelligently (and others that I reply to even if unintelligently, though this is less often ).

I haven't the time to read; I don't really like to read. So I don't have the head knowledge to engage in any useful debate. Sorry if you're disappointed. People in the arts, while they have strong opinions about most everything under the sun, are usually next-to-inept at science (though physics I was good at, despite being barely average mathematically).

ElElohe · Jul 31, 2003

Pete Harcoff said:
Personally, I think there should be a one-month moritorium between registering and being allowed to post on this forum (the science section) to give new users a chance to read through existing material on the site so we don't constantly tread over the same ground.

I understand this wont, but would it work? There's no saying people would read in here for that month . . .

And it is less like a conversation, in which if new people come to a discussion things will likely be rehashed anyway.

ElElohe · Jul 31, 2003

wblastyn said:
It's not that we don't believe Genesis, we just don't think it's supposed to be taken as a literal historical event. Rather it's a theological story saying God created everything, man is sinful and needs a saviour and God will provide that saviour.

Hasn't he already provided that Saviour, or are you jewish?

And if you don't take one part of Scripture literally, how can you take any of it literally? We can't pick and choose the Truth, whether we aspire to Christianity or Buddhism.

wblastyn · Jul 31, 2003

ElElohe said:
Hasn't he already provided that Saviour, or are you jewish?

And if you don't take one part of Scripture literally, how can you take any of it literally? We can't pick and choose the Truth, whether we aspire to Christianity or Buddhism.

No, I'm not Jewish, I do believe he has provided the saviour, however, at the time it was written Jesus hadn't been born yet.

Alessandro · Jul 31, 2003

Do all still dont and wont get it.

Are there any creationists willing to debate?

Alive In God

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Alive In God

PRABOB!

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Active Member

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Secrecy and accountability cannot co-exist.

goodseedhomeschool

Guest

PeteAce - In memory of WinAce

Active Member

Active Member

Jedi Master

A humble Resistentialist

A humble Resistentialist

A humble Resistentialist

Jedi Master

Alive In God

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency