JohnR7 said: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.
Alessandro said:You deny the evidence that we see as proof of the work of God, and vice versa.
God Bless.
ElElohe said:"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 said: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.
Mechanical Bliss said: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.
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.
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.
Oholiab said: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.
Alessandro said:To disregard one point in what God says, is equal to disregarding all of it,
lucaspa said:What lies? Are you saying God lied in His Creation?
Alessandro said:It does hold my friend.
ElElohe said:There is though, an obvious link to a person's worldview and whether they espouse Creation or Evolution.
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).
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?
JohnR7 said: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.
Oholiab said: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,
anyone contending that this has nothing to do with God should read Darwin.
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.
Darwin makes some observations and forms a theory that is actually an attack on theistic belief.
" 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.
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).
Transition based on a priori supposition that God didnt 'create' any of this.
Oncedeceived said: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?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?