Are there any creationists willing to debate?

[Mechanical Bliss]

God does not lie and you know that so don't pretend that you don't.

No, I don't know that, nor do I know that any deity whatsoever exists.

You should take up this claim with the poster who insists that your god is a liar, not me.

He does allow people do be deceived and deluded. That is not a part of His perfect divine will, that is a part of His permissive will. God is going to allow people to end up in hell. That is not His perfect divine will, He is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to a saving knowledge of the truth. But He will allow it, if that is what they want, so that makes it a part of what they call His "permissive" will.

If god deliberately deceives people, that is lying.

It's more than god allowing people to end up in hell. He would be forcing them to end up in hell by actively trying to dissuade people from the truth. That doesn't sound loving; that sounds sadistic.

 

[wblastyn]

That looks like a personal attack to me. Maybe if you guys started to get reported more often you would follow the rules around here.

Please we should report you for constantly trying to derail threads into random bible verses that are completely irrelevant to the thread.

 

[JohnR7]

Please we should report you for constantly trying to derail threads into random bible verses that are completely irrelevant to the thread.

By all means, if you think it is a violation of the forum rules, then report it. This is not the only christian forum on the internet, if they lock me out of here there are others. But from what I have heard from Erwin, he is happy to have me here to try and talk some sense to the unbelievers.

 

[JohnR7]

No, I don't know that, nor do I know that any deity whatsoever exists.

You do not know that God does not lie? Wow, we really do need to get down to basics with you. You can not build on sand, if you do not have a foundation to build on, you have nothing.

If god deliberately deceives people, that is lying.

The Bible refers to that as guile. Even Nathan was a man who had no deceit or guile in him. How much more was Jesus a man with no deceit or guile in him.

1 Peter 2:22 Who did no sin, neither was guile found in his mouth:

So there is hope for you Mr. Mechanical Bliss, you also can live a life free from all deceit and all guile. Indeed those of us who are children of God are required by God to live guile free lives.

I remember once someone came to me with a business offer and I turned it down, because I felt there was to much deceit in it. As a christian I just did not feel I could be a part of it. There were some people in my church who were getting involved in it, but I noticed that they were the weaker ones. The stronger christians tended to stay away from it.

It's more than god allowing people to end up in hell. He would be forcing them to end up in hell by actively trying to dissuade people from the truth. That doesn't sound loving; that sounds sadistic.

Again, your showing a very fundamental lack of understanding about God. Were you sleeping during your sunday school classes when they were trying to teach you about the nature of God. God is love, God is for us not against us. Satan is the one that is out to destroy people.

John 10:10
The thief does not come except to steal, and to kill, and to destroy. I have come that they may have life, and that they may have it more abundantly.

Jesus is the new and the living way. Jesus is life, health and healing. It is being stubborn, hardheaded and rebellion against God that leads to pain, misery, suffering, sorrow, and eventually death and destruction.

I got saved because I needed answers to my questions and solutions to my problems. Man could not give me the answers and the solutions I was looking for. Now I have found that God has the answer to every question I will ever have and the solution to every problem I will ever have. If we want to follow after that solution or not, at least He makes a solution available to us and for us.

 

[DGB454]

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.

The Frumious Bandersnatch

You got me on that one. I did say stupid first. I said that some people try and make others feel stupid.(something like that)

I guess I should have rephrased it to say that some try and make others feel inferior intellectually.

As far as someone trying to accuse me of being stupid? C'mon...Don't be absurd.

 

[samiam]

the latest thing I've learned is that God sends Evolution to the unrighteous as their strong delusion (II Thess 2:11)

Looking at the context, I can not possibly see how this could be about evolution:

And then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord Jesus will overthrow with the breath of his mouth and destroy by the splendor of his coming. 9The coming of the lawless one will be in accordance with the work of Satan displayed in all kinds of counterfeit miracles, signs and wonders, 10and in every sort of evil that deceives those who are perishing. They perish because they refused to love the truth and so be saved. 11For this reason God sends them a powerful delusion so that they will believe the lie 12and so that all will be condemned who have not believed the truth but have delighted in wickedness.

(NIV)

And, as a comparison, another translation:

Then the lawless one will be revealed, whom the Lord will kill with the
breath of his mouth, and destroy by the manifestation of his coming;
even he whose coming is according to the working of Satan with
all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deception of
wickedness for those who are being lost, because they didn't receive
the love of the truth, that they might be saved. Because of
this, God sends them a working of error, that they should believe a
lie; that they all might be judged who didn't believe the truth,
but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

Note that the second translation doesn't even call it a "powerful delusion"; it calls it a "working of error". In both cases, the context makes clear all of this happens after the antichrist shows up, in the end times.

Evolution was revealed 150 years ago, not in the end times.

Now, I don't know what kind of "working of error" God will send; but, in my humble opinion, it won't be evolution.

Keep in mind that the chances of us being in the end times is pretty small; every generation since Jesus walked on this earth has always had people who believed their their generation was the last one. Hasn't happened yet, and it has been over 80 generations.

I have some respect for your particular set of beliefs. They do not pretend science points to a young earth nor to one in which evolution is impossible.

- Sam

 

[Mechanical Bliss]

You do not know that God does not lie? Wow, we really do need to get down to basics with you. You can not build on sand, if you do not have a foundation to build on, you have nothing.

I know that you think a god exists that does not lie, but I don't know that your specific god concept exists, much less any god at all. There is zero evidence to suggest that a god exists who does not lie. That is the point I am trying to make.

The Bible refers to that as guile.

(Irrelevant distractions snipped)

In other words, deceit. Deliberate deceitfulness is lying, and there's no way around that.

Apparently your god does not want people (notice not just unbelievers because the majority of Christians accept evolutionary biology as well) to know what you claim to be the truth (and what the other poster claims to be a "truth" that is different from your version of the only "truth"). If your god deliberately deceives people by deliberately leaving all evidence to be contradictory to this alleged "truth" then it is a lie.

Again, your showing a very fundamental lack of understanding about God. Were you sleeping during your sunday school classes when they were trying to teach you about the nature of God. God is love, God is for us not against us. Satan is the one that is out to destroy people.

More contradictory doubletalk.

I know that you claim god's nature is love. However, you also claim that god is intentionally deceitful and intends to dissuade people from the alleged "truth." That means your god is actively trying to dissuade people from belief and thus a favorable afterlife. Apparently your god does want people to go to hell. That is sadistic. If god is deliberately deceiving in order to secure "disbelief" then that is not a loving act. There is no way around that either.

It's also interesting how you assume that everyone has automatically been indoctrinated into your religion during a naive and impressionable time in their life.

Jesus is the new and the living way. Jesus is life, health and healing. It is being stubborn, hardheaded and rebellion against God that leads to pain, misery, suffering, sorrow, and eventually death and destruction.

Actually it certainly seems to be quite the opposite. Your circular 'because the Bible says so' claims are meaningless to someone who sees through such nonsense.

Man could not give me the answers and the solutions I was looking for.

So you were looking for specific answers and regardless of what answers really exist, there are ones more favorable to you so you'd rather just accept those to not face reality. Truth is not defined by the answers you want to hear.

If we want to follow after that solution or not, at least He makes a solution available to us and for us.

Apparently he doesn't if he deliberately deceives unbelievers to further dissuade them from the alleged "truth."

 

[fortheloveofmike]

I know that you think a god exists that does not lie, but I don't know that your specific god concept exists, much less any god at all. There is zero evidence to suggest that a god exists who does not lie. That is the point I am trying to make.



In other words, deceit. Deliberate deceitfulness is lying, and there's no way around that.

Apparently your god does not want people (notice not just unbelievers because the majority of Christians accept evolutionary biology as well) to know what you claim to be the truth (and what the other poster claims to be a "truth" that is different from your version of the only "truth"). If your god deliberately deceives people by deliberately leaving all evidence to be contradictory to this alleged "truth" then it is a lie.



More contradictory doubletalk.

I know that you claim god's nature is love. However, you also claim that god is intentionally deceitful and intends to dissuade people from the alleged "truth." That means your god is actively trying to dissuade people from belief and thus a favorable afterlife. Apparently your god does want people to go to hell. That is sadistic. If god is deliberately deceiving in order to secure "disbelief" then that is not a loving act. There is no way around that either.

It's also interesting how you assume that everyone has automatically been indoctrinated into your religion during a naive and impressionable time in their life.



Actually it certainly seems to be quite the opposite. Your circular 'because the Bible says so' claims are meaningless to someone who sees through such nonsense.



So you were looking for specific answers and regardless of what answers really exist, there are ones more favorable to you so you'd rather just accept those to not face reality. Truth is not defined by the answers you want to hear.



Apparently he doesn't if he deliberately deceives unbelievers to further dissuade them from the alleged "truth."

God does not leave proof of his existance out to trick people into believing he is not there. God lets us have the chance to operate on faith. If we worship him willingly and out of faith, that is the greatest love there is, and that is what God wants from us, unconditional love. I dont know of anytime that God has tried to "intentionally dissuade people from the truth". that is against his nature.

also, I dont know what this really has to do with evolution or anything of the sort.

 

[Philo]

Evolution is a cop out. The fact that any stable species groups ever existed in substancial numbers for any period of time is more than enough evidence that it doesn't exist, or works in a way completely different than its proponents postulate. After all, there should be an absolutely unbroken, continuous, stable record of every stage in every "pseudospecies" from the beginning of time up until now. Otherwise, you have to accept that a huge number of beneficial mutations occured in population groups at the exact same time, then completely stopped for a while, then happened again... Without any corrosponding negative mutations.

Kind of hard to believe.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

p.s. the evolution religion is the biggest piece of unsupported garbage that has been tried to be passed as a science that i have ever heard.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

p.s. the evolution religion is the biggest piece of unsupported garbage that has been tried to be passed as a science that i have ever heard.

Seeing as how evolution is neither a religion nor unsupported, I would wager that you are talking about a strawman caricature of evolution (such as what Philo posted) that doesn't actually exist in science.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

Evolution is a cop out. The fact that any stable species groups ever existed in substancial numbers for any period of time is more than enough evidence that it doesn't exist, or works in a way completely different than its proponents postulate.

What do you mean by "works in a way completely different than its proponents postulate". How do you think evolution works?

After all, there should be an absolutely unbroken, continuous, stable record of every stage in every "pseudospecies" from the beginning of time up until now.

You seem to be thinking that evolutionary rates are steady. They are not. Rates of evolutionary change are incredibly dynamic, much like the environment in which it takes place.

What is a "pseudospecies"?

Furthermore, the fossil record is fragmented. This is simply a consequence of the fact that not every organism fossilizes when it dies. In fact, almost none do.

And there are transitional series between types of organisms in the fossil record. There are a few threads in this very forum with examples.

Otherwise, you have to accept that a huge number of beneficial mutations occurred in population groups at the exact same time, then completely stopped for a while, then happened again... Without any corrosponding negative mutations.

First, what's "huge number" of benificial mutations are we talking about? How many would qualify? Second, what about neutral mutations? Third, why can there not be any negative mutations? Do you understand the principals behind natural selection?

Kind of hard to believe.

Incredulity will get you nowhere.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

Seeing as how evolution is neither a religion nor unsupported, I would wager that you are talking about a strawman caricature of evolution (such as what Philo posted) that doesn't actually exist in science.

it is a religion. you are basing you BELIEFS on a theory on which there is no evidence of evolution ever taking place. second, you are talking about something that happened in the past. second, science deals with studying things in the present. third, you are basing your belief system on nothing but faith, because there is no actual evidence to base your belief system on.
please tell me how that is not a religion.

 

[fortheloveofmike]

You seem to be thinking that evolutionary rates are steady. They are not. Rates of evolutionary change are incredibly dynamic, much like the environment in which it takes place.

And there are transitional series between types of organisms in the fossil record. There are a few threads in this very forum with examples.

what are these "transitional series" species you speak of? ive never heard of a transitional species ever existing. im very interested.

 

[Philostratus]

Pete Harcoff shows evidence of transitional species...

fortheloveofmike puts hands over eyes and thumbs in ears and says "lalalalalalalalalala".

fortheloveofmike then proclaims there is no evidence for evolution.

 

[Pete Harcoff]

it is a religion. you are basing you BELIEFS on a theory on which there is no evidence of evolution ever taking place. second, you are talking about something that happened in the past. science deals with studying things in the present. third, you are basing your belief system on nothing but faith, because there is no actual evidence to base your belief system on.
please tell me how that is not a religion.

There is evidence. To claim there isn't is mind-boggingly ignorant. You might as well argue there is no evidence for France.

You can start with these:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html
http://www.gate.net/~rwms/EvoEvidence.html

Evolution is also occuring right this very second. In fact, it occures every time something reproduces. So until life stops reproducing, evolution will continue.

Your comment that "science deals with studying things in the present" is bogus. There is no criteria for such a thing within science.

And evolution is no more a religion than gravity, quantum mechanics and France. And when was the last time you saw someone worshipping the French?

 

[Philostratus]

part 1 complete.

 

[troodon]

what are these "transitional series" species you speak of? ive never heard of a transitional species ever existing. im very interested.

Here are a few:
http://www.christianforums.com/t43227&highlight=transitional

Pete Harcoff shows evidence of transitional species...

fortheloveofmike puts hands over eyes and thumbs in ears and says "lalalalalalalalalala".

fortheloveofmike then proclaims there is no evidence for evolution.

NO! I beat Pete to it. Ha!

 

[Pete Harcoff]

what are these "transitional series" species you speak of? ive never heard of a transitional species ever existing. im very interested.

There's a thread on it from a few pages back: http://www.christianforums.com/t43227

I'd also recommend visiting the following:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-transitional.html
http://www.cs.colorado.edu/~lindsay/creation/fossil_series.html

 

[Philo]

Evolution is a joke. The HUGE number of beneficial mutations required to change a 4-toed horse into a 1-toed horse, for instance, baffles the mind. Can you imagine the speciation issues one would run into between 4-toes and 3-toes, and so on? Do you understand the concept of a mule? Well, imagine thousands of mules suddenly popping up in a population group. If you want to get really creative, you can imagine them surviving.

But you have to get really creative.

This doesn't even begin to touch on the problem of biogenesis. That's where evolution really falls apart, whereas macroevolution is simply an easy target for all its inconsistancy.

If you don't believe me, we can engage in an experiment. Simply start setting everyone you meet on the street on fire. This should provoke a latent "fireproof" trait into manifesting itself, and thus humanity should evolve into being fireproof. That's how this works, right?