Are there any creationists willing to debate?

[lucaspa]

Or as BabbleOn8806 said, they get tired of being insulted by scoffers and skeptics and soon come to realize it is a waste of time to try and convince someone of truth when they are hell bound to believe lies.

What lies? Are you saying God lied in His Creation? After all, it is God's Creation that is the source of the evidence that science uses. Are you saying it's a lie that God created? You mean the physical universe was NOT created by God? Those are the only ways scientific theories can be lies, John.

So which is it: It's a lie that God created or God lied in His Creation?

 

[lucaspa]

You deny the evidence that we see as proof of the work of God, and vice versa.

God Bless.

How about the evidence shows that God worked by a different method than you say God worked by?

Again, this isn't about evolution and creationism anymore, but is slipping into the theism vs atheism debate with evolution cast in the role of atheism.

Why do you keep doing that despite all the evidence that evolution is not atheism?

 

[Pete Harcoff]

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

Well, the propoganda I am referring to are obvious baseless claims that anyone spending five minutes of research could check -- i.e. stuff like "evolution is a religion", "evolution is an atheistic conspiracy", "there's no evidence for evolution", "more and more scientists are abandoning evolution as a theory", etc. The kind of stuff promoted by the most vocal of creationist proponents.

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).

I respect your honesty and willingness to admit that you aren't able to debate the points presented. I just wish some others would admit to the same honesty, instead of claiming a position, but not being able to back it up in a discussion.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

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.

Maybe not a month. A week might be better. At the very least, I'd might help curb some of the "drive-by" posters this forum attracts.

 

[lucaspa]

The difference of course is we have actually shown tons of evidence that has been flat out ignored by you and those who share your position.

Mechanical, I think you have missed what "your position" actually is. You are talking from the strictly scientific position. Honeylight, JohnR7, and Allessandro are thinking that evolution means God didn't create. They are in the theism vs atheism debate, not the creationism vs evolution debate.

You have not shown that any of us have ignored evidence. We seek explanations for ALL available evidence. Your position does not. You simply throw out the findings you don't like because you think you know the ultimate conclusion already even though your conclusion is actually false, as has been shown.

It's not about different interpretations; it's about one side explaining all available evidence and the other denying what it doesn't like.

Again, this is correct from the pov of evaluating the two scientific theories of creationism and evolution. But the posters have decided that their "conclusion" is that God exists and your conclusion is that God hasn't.

I know that "even though your conclusion is actually false, as has been shown" refers to creationISM, all 3 are thinking you are referring to CREATION.

 

[lucaspa]

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.

This site says that God's Creation shows that A LITERAL INTERPRETATION of the Bible is the wrong interpretation.

"Believe Genesis" does not require a literal interpretation.

There are two ideas in Genesis 1. First is "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". THAT is a theological statement that neither science nor evolution dispute. Following that statement is a description of the sequence and timing of events. THAT description science shows is wrong as long as you read it literally.

The Nicean Creed says nothing about having to believe in creationISM. All you have to do is believe in CREATION.

Statements in the Bible, like statements everywhere, are evaluated singly. That God did not create according to a literal reading of Genesis 1 does not say that God did not intervene in the Exodus, become human in Jesus, or offer salvation. All those are NOT dependent on a literal reading of Genesis 1.

 

[lucaspa]

Im really not used to a discussion forum of this size, I keep jumping in and out of threads but I'll try to jump in here and try to keep up with it if I can. First off evolution is not natural science per se, its a synthesis of science and philosophy. It is essentially an arguement against 'special creation' Im convinced it is antithesitic it its intent and there is nothing Ive seen to convince me otherwise.

Special creation was the reigning SCIENTIFIC theory of the time. It had roots in Aristotle and Plato, a literal reading of Genesis, and in what naturalists had found in the 1700s.

As to antitheistic intent, have you read Origin? Let's start with the Fontispiece. Darwin had 3 quotes there. Here they are:

"But with regard to the material world, we can at least go so far as this -- we can perceive that events are brought about not by insulated interpositions of Divine power, exerted in each particular case, but by the establishment of general laws" Whewell: Bridgewater Treatise.

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

"To conclude, therefore, let no man out of a weak conceit of sobriety, or an ill-applied moderation, think or maintain, that a man can search too far or be too well studied in the book of God's word, or in the book of God's works; divinity or philosophy; but rather let men endeavour an endless progress or proficience in both." Bacon: Advancement of Learning

Are these quotes anti-theist? Are you convinced?

Here are some quotes from the end of the text of Origin:

"There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved." C. Darwin, On the Origin of Species, pg 450.

Also: "To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes, like those determining the birth and death of the individual." pg. 449.

Nothing anti-theistic here. In fact, very pro-theist.

I have to go now. I'll deal with the rest of the post later.

 

[lucaspa]

To disregard one point in what God says, is equal to disregarding all of it,

But you do disregard at least one point in the Bible. Luke 2:1 Was ALL the world taxed, like it says? Were eskimos, Japanese, and Sioux taxed?

In Job, there are verses where God clearly states that the ocean is behind gates. You disregard that.

You also disregard many of the specific laws laid down in Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, and Deuteronomy.

In NO field where there are multiple statements do we say that if we disregard one or one is false that ALL of them have to be false.

This logic, Alessandro, simply doesn't hold.

 

[JohnR7]

What lies? Are you saying God lied in His Creation?

I really do not know why you would ask me a question like that. You know that God is not a liar. You know that I know that God is not a liar. So you must have asked that question JUST to be a Troll or a trouble maker. I do not want to waste my time on childish games.

 

[Alessandro]

It does hold my friend.

 

[lucaspa]

It does hold my friend.

Then answer my questions. If you answer "yes" to any of them, then the logic doesn't hold because you have disregarded one part of the Bible but not abandoned all of it.

Know any Christians who are divorced?

Mark 10:1-10 makes it clear that Jesus (=God) says that divorce is not permissible. These Christians have disregarded one part of the Bible, but not the rest.

Genesis 1:1-2:4a says creation took 6 days by a literal reading. Genesis 2:4b says all that creation took place within a single day by a literal reading. Genesis 1 has men and women being created together AFTER all the animals are created. Genesis 2 has ONE man created, THEN the animals, THEN one woman. Creationists disregard the contradictions. Therefore, by YOUR logic, creationists MUST disregard the rest of the Bible. Do they?

If not, then your logic does not hold.

 

[lucaspa]

There is though, an obvious link to a person's worldview and whether they espouse Creation or Evolution.

What obvious link? At least half the evolutionary biologists in history -- starting with Darwin -- have had the Christian worldview.

ElElohe, I know I've told you this before, but here it is again. CREATION and creationISM are two different things. Creation is the theological belief that deity created the universe. CreationISM is a specific HOW of creation. But evolution is also a HOW of creation.

I haven't the time to read; I don't really like to read. ... 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).

Let me ask if you think it reasonable to hold strong opinions on subjects of which you are ignorant. Is that wise?

Now, more about the non-link between worldview and evolution.

"Johnson encapsulates his major insistence by writing: 'In the broadest sense, a 'creationist' is simply a person who believes the world (and especially mankind) was *designed* and exists for a *purpose*." Darwinism, Johnson claims, inherently and explicitly denies such a belief and therefore constitutes a naturalistic philosophy intrinsically opposed to religion.
"But this is the oldest canard and non sequitor in the debater's book. To say it for all my colleageues and for the umpteenth millionth time (from college bull sessions to learned treatises): science simply cannot (by its legitimate methods) adjudicate the issue of God's possible superintendence of nature. We neither affirm nor deny it; we simply can't comment on it as scientists. ...
"Forget philosophy for a moment; the simple empirics of the past hundred years should suffice. Darwin himself was agnostic (having lost his beliefs upon the tragic death of his favorite daughter), but the great American botanist Asa Gray, who favored natural selection and wrote a book entitled Darwiniana, was a devout Christian. Move forward 50 years: Charles D. Walcott, discoverer of the Burgess Shale fossils, was a convinced Darwinian and an equally firm Christian, who believed that God had ordained natural selection to construct a history of life according to His plans and purposes. Move on another 50 years to the two greatest evolutionists of our generation: G.G. Simpson was a humanist agnostic, Theodosius Dobzhansky a believing Russian Orthodox. Either half my colleagues are enormously stupid, or else the science of Darwinism is fully compatible with conventional religious beliefs -- and equally compatible with atheism,"
SJ Gould, Impeaching a self-appointed judge. Scientific American, 267:79-80, July 1992.

 

[Luke]

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?

Peter,

I am willing.

Luke

 

[lucaspa]

I really do not know why you would ask me a question like that.

I told you why. Let me refresh you rmemory, since you use out-of-context to make strawmen.

" Originally Posted By: JohnR7

Or as BabbleOn8806 said, they get tired of being insulted by scoffers and skeptics and soon come to realize it is a waste of time to try and convince someone of truth when they are hell bound to believe lies.


Lucaspa: What lies? Are you saying God lied in His Creation? After all, it is God's Creation that is the source of the evidence that science uses. Are you saying it's a lie that God created? You mean the physical universe was NOT created by God? Those are the only ways scientific theories can be lies, John.

So which is it: It's a lie that God created or God lied in His Creation?"

I asked you the question because you believe scientific theories are lies. But scientific theories must conform to the evidence in God's Creation. So for them to be lies means either: The Bible lies about God creating and God didn't really create or God lied in placing the evidence in His Creation.

You know that God is not a liar. You know that I know that God is not a liar.

I know the first sentence. I am not sure that you know that God is not a liar. Your post left many doubts, which is why I laid out the dilemma you posed. Your reply to my post hasn't resolved the dilemma.

You cannot say well-founded scientific theories are lies unless you think either the Bible or God lies. I'm trying to find out which you think lies.

If you think neither lies, then you have no basis to say scientific theories lie and should gracefully withdraw your statement.

 

[lucaspa]

In the first five of the 14 chapters Darwin describes observations underlying the theory of natural selection. He talks about artificial selection (especially important) in domesticated animals and compares them to how nature selects preexisting variants. Chapter 3 describes the Malthus struggle for existence, and chapter 4 details the environmental influences. ... The premise of Origin of Species is very straight forward and clearly metaphysical in its character,

You acknowledge all the observations underlying the theory of natural selection and then say Origin of Species is "metaphysical" Sorry, Oholiab, you can't have it both ways. If it is empirical, as you say, then Origin is science and not metaphysics.

It may have IMPLICATIONS for metaphysical positions (and it does), but it is not metaphysical by itself.

anyone contending that this has nothing to do with God should read Darwin.

It has to do with the way that people THOUGHT GOD WORKED. But that is very different from being about God.

A theist who belived in special creation was actully way ahead of him on the principles natural variation and developed what are truly scientific laws based on experimentation not philosophy. Mendel crossed and cataloged some 24,034 plants and came up with two scientific laws.

All Mendel did was find the mechanism of inheritance. And, in the process, removed the major barrier to natural selection. Ironic, isn't it, that Mendel really showed that natural selection works.

Darwin makes some observations and forms a theory that is actually an attack on theistic belief.

What natural selection does is remove a false "proof" of the existence of God. Before natural selection, the Argument from Design had no answer. But natural selection provides that answer.

" Nothing can be more striking than the manner in which he shows that the introduction of new species is "a regular, not a casual phenomenon,' or, as Sir John Herschel expresses it, 'a natural in contradistinction to a miraculous, process.'" (Philosophy of Creation, Rev. Baden Powell)

There are two issues here of interest to a theistic world view, the principle of creation and the miraculous. If God created the earth and all of life then it is by definition supernatural.

That last sentence is the problem. Here you are saying that the basic statement of faith of atheism is true: that 'natural' means no deity. Or that God can ONLY work by the supernatural and miraculous Darwin, and the theologians of the time, knew better. They understood God and the Bible better than later creationists. In the Fontispiece, Darwin included this quote:

"The only distinct meaning of the word 'natural' is stated, fixed, or settled; since what is natural as much requires and presupposes an intelligent agent to render it so, i.e., to effect it continually or at stated times, as what is supernatural or miraculous does to effect it for once." Butler: Analogy of Revealed Religion.

Darwin is claiming that God did not create different species independantly as described in Genesis.

"namely, that each species has been independently created -- is erroneous." (Taken from the first chapter of Origin of Species).

Yes. Instead, Darwin is claiming two things:

1. God created different species by the process of evolution.

2. The literal interpretation of Genesis was wrong. But that had ALREADY been decided when, in 1831, REVEREND Adam Sedgwick retired as President of the Royal Geological Society and declared a young earth and Noah's Flood as a world-wide flood to be wrong. By 1859 it was already known that the descriptions of creation in a literally read Genesis were wrong.

Transition based on a priori supposition that God didnt 'create' any of this.

Not an a priori supposition that God didn't create. But rather on the CONCLUSION that God used evolution to create. That God didn't create by MIRACLE. Instead, the "natural" process of evolution is just as much God creating as your literal interpretation of Genesis.

 

[Oncedeceived]

Are you willing to wait for a debate on this subject? I won't have much time for the next few days. Hopefully if everything goes well in my personal life here I could get into a debate about this. My only ground rule is that you show me the same respect that I show you. Fair enough?

 

[lucaspa]

Are you willing to wait for a debate on this subject? I won't have much time for the next few days. Hopefully if everything goes well in my personal life here I could get into a debate about this. My only ground rule is that you show me the same respect that I show you. Fair enough?

Are you talking to someone in particular or the plural "you" of all of us evolutionists on the board?

I will show respect for YOU. However, you may find that I don't have respect for the IDEAS you propose. But ideas and statements are separate from the person making them.

Remember, my position after reviewing the data is that creationISM is a falsified theory. So please don't expect any "respect" in terms of the validity of creationISM.

When you are ready, why don't you start a new thread?

 

[Wildebeast]

bring it on punk. i'm interested as to what questions have gone unanswered. so as the bible says 'let us sit down and reason together'

 

[MartinM]

"Bring it on punk"? Oh, this should be quite the entertaining...heh...'discussion'.

 

[Wildebeast]

you know i've been looking through the last couple of posts to this forum and it is difficult to see what anyone's point actually is. what are you guys saying?
are we debating darwinism or evolutionism?