Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Of course no one here would be willing to accept evidence for creationism since it has already been falsified over 100 years ago.cc297 said:Hi.
1st. I am a creationist incapable of debating it. I know what I believe and why I believe it..but would not be good at trying to convince either of u.
2nd. It appears to me from reading your posts that both of you are very dogmatic and would not be willing to ever accept anything from a creationist. Therefore, it would be senseless for someone to "debate" you and take the insults and scoffing. If you show yourselves open to change if someone can show you proof...you may get your debate. Y'all have a good day!!
Man's interpretation of Creation is based on a mere two chapters with a multitude of happenings involved. I think you may be misinterpreting the interpretation.lucaspa said:As Aceldama pointed out, young earth creationism was falsified by 1831.
What is overlooked in modern creationism literature is that creaitonism was THE accepted theory from 1700 to 1831. It was shown to be false by the data, and the data that showed it false is still around today. Data doesn't go away. What we have in modern creationism is a group of people who refuse to accept that the theory is falsified.
"There is another way to be a Creationist. One might offer Creationism as a scientific theory: Life did not evolve over millions of years; rather all forms were created at one time by a particular Creator. Although pure versions of Creationism were no longer in vogue among scientists by the end of the eighteenth century, they had flourished earlier (in the writings of Thomas Bumet, William Whiston, and others). Moreover, variants of Creationism were supported by a number of eminent nineteenth-century scientists-William Buckland, Adam Sedgwick, and Louis Agassiz, for example. These Creationists trusted that their theories would accord with the Bible, interpreted in what they saw as a correct way. However, that fact does not affect the scientific status of those theories. Even postulating an unobserved Creator need be no more unscientific than postulating unobservable particles. What matters is the character of the proposals and the ways in which they are articulated and defended. The great scientific Creationists of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries offered problem-solving strategies for many of the questions addressed by evolutionary theory. They struggled hard to explain the observed distribution of fossils. Sedgwick, Buckland, and others practiced genuine science. They stuck their necks out and volunteered information about the catastrophes that they invoked to explain biological and geological findings. Because their theories offered definite proposals, those theories were refutable. Indeed, the theories actually achieved refutation. In 1831, in his presidential address to the Geological Society, Adam Sedgwick publicly announced that his own variant of Creationism had been refuted:
Having, been myself a believer, and, to the best of my power, a propagator of what I now regard as a philosophic heresy ... I think it right, as one of my last acts before I quit this Chair, thus publicly to read my recantation.
We ought, indeed, to have paused before we first adopted the diluvian theory, and referred all our old superficial gravel to the action of the Mosaic Flood. For of man, and the works of his hands, we have not yet found a single trace among the remnants of a former world entombed in these ancient deposits. In classing together distant unknown formations under one name; in simultaneous origin, and in determining their date, not by the organic remains we have discovered, but by those we expected, hypothetically hereafter to discover, in them; we have given one more example of the passion with which the mind fastens upon general conclusions, and of the readiness with which it leaves the consideration of unconnected truths. (Sedgwick, 1831, 313-314; all but the last sentence quoted in Gillispie 1951, 142-143)
Philip Kitcher, Abusing Science: The Case Against Creationism pp125-126
Frumious Bandersnatch said:I have never thought that most creationists are stupid. However, one begins to wonder about people who continue to believe stupid things in spite of the overwhelming evidence that the things they believe are stupid. One who puts forth ridiculous claims is likely to have them ridiculed. If you want to claim that all the animals on earth are descenced from a pair of each kind that a 600 year old man and his family saved from a year long worldwide flood on a huge wooden boat and that the earth's geological and fossil records are the result of a worldwide flood, fine, just don't be surprised that people who know a bit about science and the nature of the world find those claims ridiculous and are not shy about saying so. If you try to claim that there was a solid hydrogen canopy surrounding the earth or that human and dinosaur footprints have been found together or that a 1920's spark plug is an ancient out of place artifact feel free but don't expect anyone with a lick of sense and a bit of knowledge to consider such claims worthy of more than ridicule. You are free to believe that saber tooth tigers and velociraptors were vegetarians before the flood as many YECs do but don't be surprised if such "different" beliefs are met with ridicule.
The Frumious Bandersnatch
kenneth558 said:Anyway, the latest thing I've learned is that God sends Evolution to the unrighteous as their strong delusion (II Thess 2:11). Now, if my Father sends a strong delusion, why would I think that I can remove it?
I took the word stupid from your post. I don't recall anyone else using it lately before you did. I did say that is not the creationists but some of their claims that are stupid. There is a BIG difference in attacking claims, which is after what a debate board is about and attackng the person. It clearly isn't necessary for a person to be stupid to hold absurd beliefs. Just look at those Heavens gate people who commited suicide over comet Hale-Bopp. They weren't necessarily stupid, but they sure had some stupid ideas. Do you think their ideas did not deserve ridicule? Do you think that all "different" ideas are of the same quality? I wonder if you don't think that the idea of a solid hydrogen canopy surronding the earth is absurd. If you don't I can easily show you why it is. Why don't you show us exactly where someone has accused you of being stupid for having different beliefs? I don't remember that post.DGB454 said:Thank you for supporting my statement. What I am saying is: Is there a way you guys can discuss this without saying things like "Stupid"?
Websters and Rogets(sp?) have 2 wonderful books that give many fine examples of words and their meaning and alternatives to those words that may help in finding something other than "stupid" to say to people that don't share your beliefs.
Pete Harcoff said:Where does it say that evolution is the delusion? Furthermore, where in the Bible does it state that rejecting evolution is required to be a Christian?
kenneth558 said:God doesn't say evolution is or isn't the delusion. Think about it, though - believing in evolution is the foundation of unbelief in God. Can you think of a stronger delusion causing unbelievers to not believe?
Rejecting evolution isn't required to be a minimal wimp Christian. It just becomes a basis for even further license with the word of the God of heaven. As if God only gave us a Bible rough draft and needs our finishing touches to correct His mistakes. Jesus rebuked his disciples for their unbelief that would keep them from being used mightily by Him. Their unbelief in those cases didn't directly jeopardize their salvation.
Pete Harcoff said:Believing in evolution is not the foundation of unbelief in God. Not believing in God is the foundation of unbelief in God.
And yes, I can think of stronger delusion causing unbelievers to not believe: Biblical literalists.
Great, you've just called about 50% of America's Christians wimps, including a number of posters in this very forum. I'm sure they appreciate you for it.
kenneth558 said:No, I'm calling 99.99% of American Christians WIMPS! Because we are so full of UNBELIEF! When we can't walk down the the local topless joint and claim it for the Kingdom and put it out of business on the spot, when we can't walk down to the local abortion clinic and do the same, we are WIMPS! But ya' know what? The bride of Christ will make herself ready. It is called revival, and it is coming! Thank you Lord!!!!
kenneth558 said:I'm new. Forgive me as I figure out this system. I'm a creationist. I'm only seeing the initial thread starting post, but I know others have replied. Maybe I'm not expanding the thread right. Anyway, the latest thing I've learned is that God sends Evolution to the unrighteous as their strong delusion (II Thess 2:11). Now, if my Father sends a strong delusion, why would I think that I can remove it?
kenneth558 said:Liar? You mean "unfair" that He would create some vessels for honor and others for dishonor. Hey, it's His gig. He gets His way and gives you yours.
kenneth558 said:Oh, BTW, Pete Harcoff, I said "think about it". You didn't. It doesn't even take a complete fool to know that you don't encourage someone to believe by your own unbelief: Bible literalists can't be deluding unbelievers from believing.
Mechanical Bliss said:You said that your god deliberatly uses all available evidence in the natural world (because it indicates evolution) as a "strong delusion" to further dissuade unbelievers from the truth. That means your god lies to his creation. There is no way around that.
kenneth558 said:Mechanical Bliss, dude! You don't understand the difference between evidence and proof? You can have tons of evidence for nearly any untruth and it doesn't make truth a lie. You need to think deeper.
Pete Harcoff said:Yeah, it's people like you that leaves a bad taste in the mouths of non-believers (and probably a good number of Christians, too).
Mechanical Bliss said:You said that your god deliberatly uses all available evidence in the natural world (because it indicates evolution) as a "strong delusion" to further dissuade unbelievers from the truth. That means your god lies to his creation.
kenneth558 said:Mechanical Bliss, dude! You don't understand the difference between evidence and proof? You can have tons of evidence for nearly any untruth and it doesn't make truth a lie. You need to think deeper.
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?