• 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.

Creation Science Evangelism

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
54
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟36,618.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
john crawford said:
Gould:

I don't believe in evolution. How could I accept any evidence for it?

To those for whom there is no evidence of God, what proofs would be acceptable?
Ah, so you admit that you are not interested in science. Fair enough, expect for the fact that is a science forum.


As to what evidence I would accept, there have been plenty of threads on that in the apologetics section.


An example would be the words 'Jesus saves' in Aramaic in an energy pattern associated with every quark pair in the universe. That is an extreme one, but certainly possible for the creator of the universe. If you want to discuss this further, you can start a thread in the apologetics section.
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
9
84
usa
Visit site
✟3,968.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Pete Harcoff said:
Plotting the downfall of Western civilization... duh. :p
Hey, I thought this was a Christian Website.
What are all you anti-Christians doing here?
Why don't you create your own evolutionary Blog?

I think I'm going to report you to the Christian Cops.
 
Upvote 0

john crawford

Well-Known Member
Sep 10, 2003
3,754
9
84
usa
Visit site
✟3,968.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Constitution
Pete Harcoff said:
Well why do you find it preposterous from a scientific point of view? (emphasis intended)

His prejudices were inherited from the general mindset of Europeans at the time. They are hardly a result of his work on evolution.
Science is limited to human observation until it engages in religious speculation.
The root of theory is Theos.
Evolution is science fiction at its best.

Darwin was an old-fashioned English sexist and a bloody racist and you know it. (or should).

This is not an anti-Christian forum. If you mock believers in God then you may be rightfully called anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Islamic.

Evolution is a scientific hoax and a lie. Anyone who promotes it is anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Islamic.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
john crawford said:
Science is limited to human observation until it engages in religious speculation.
but "science" does not engage in religious speculation, and by religious speculation I am referring to issues of the supernatural.
Darwin was an old-fashioned English sexist and a bloody racist and you know it. (or should).
assuming he was, this is irrelevant. Feynman frequented strip clubs, in fact he came up with many of his best ideas there. this does not make his science any less meaningful.
This is not an anti-Christian forum. If you mock believers in God then you may be rightfully called anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Islamic.
which is why we don't
Evolution is a scientific hoax and a lie.
you will of course, have to demonstrate this.
Anyone who promotes it is anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Islamic.
that is a lie. Evolution has nothing to do with racism. what about a christian, jew or muslim who believes in, and promotes evolution?
 
Upvote 0

Oliver

Senior Member
Apr 5, 2002
639
23
52
Visit site
✟23,492.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
john crawford said:
This is not an anti-Christian forum. If you mock believers in God then you may be rightfully called anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Islamic.

Evolution is a scientific hoax and a lie. Anyone who promotes it is anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Islamic.
Are you seriously thinking this?

Stating that the theory of evolution is in your opinion much better supported by the evidence than any creationist theory is NOT mocking believers. How could it be, since many believers themselves are stating just this?

Promoting the theory of evolution is not being anti-semitic or anti-Christian or anti-anything. The only thing it opposes are other competing theories, and not religions.
 
Upvote 0

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
54
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟36,618.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
john crawford said:
Science is limited to human observation until it engages in religious speculation.
The root of theory is Theos.
Evolution is science fiction at its best.

Darwin was an old-fashioned English sexist and a bloody racist and you know it. (or should).

This is not an anti-Christian forum. If you mock believers in God then you may be rightfully called anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Islamic.

Evolution is a scientific hoax and a lie. Anyone who promotes it is anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Islamic.
Now we know John Crawford is a troll. You will be ignored from now on.
 
Upvote 0

David Gould

Pearl Harbor sucked. WinAce didn't.
May 28, 2002
16,931
514
54
Canberra, Australia
Visit site
✟36,618.00
Faith
Atheist
Politics
AU-Labor
lol - I mean to say 'ignored by me'. But I hope others obey me. How else are we to corrupt the morals of little children, bring about the downfall of Western civilisation, take over the world and organise a wine raffle by Thursday?
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
john crawford said:
Science is limited to human observation until it engages in religious speculation.
The root of theory is Theos.
Evolution is science fiction at its best.
Unfortunately, evolution does not engage in religious speculation. Most creationists think so, but that is because creationism is a scientific theory based on religious speculation. Sauce for the goose.

Some evolutionists do engage in religious speculation. Dawkins comes to mind. However, the correct way to handle this is to show that they personally are off the scientific reservation and evolution won't back their religious speculations.

Darwin was an old-fashioned English sexist and a bloody racist and you know it. (or should).
Darwin was neither a sexist nor a racist. Particularly the latter. He constantly fought against slavery and protested the racist policies of the Spanish in S. America. You should know this. Any biography of Darwin will document this. Read one. Desmond and Moore's Darwin is one of the best.

This is not an anti-Christian forum. If you mock believers in God then you may be rightfully called anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Islamic.
Some of us question whether Biblical literalists are believers in God or worshippers of the Bible.

Evolution is a scientific hoax and a lie. Anyone who promotes it is anti-Semitic, anti-Christian and anti-Islamic.
LOL!! You obviously haven't been reading what Christian ministers say, have you? Also, I have been in 5 synagogues over the years of each division in Judaism and in each of them the commentary in the pew Torah says Genesis is not literal.

BTW, you are aware, aren't you, that of the 26 plaintiffs against creationism (and for evolution) in the 1982 MacLean vs Arkansas trial, 23 were ministers or rabbis? Including the Catholic, Methodist, and African-Methodist bishops of Arkansas?

See here for religious denominations supporting evolution. Who knows? Yours may be among them.

http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9375_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp
 
Upvote 0

lucaspa

Legend
Oct 22, 2002
14,569
416
New York
✟39,809.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Methodist
Marital Status
Private
john crawford said:
I don't believe in evolution. How could I accept any evidence for it?
By being honest enough to admit evidence that doesn't agree with your belief?

Notice that you just provided the excuse for atheists not to change their minds.

To those for whom there is no evidence of God, what proofs would be acceptable?
You just said atheists don't have to accept "any evidence". Nice work on your part. After saying that it was valid to reject any evidence contrary to a belief, you can't ask atheists what evidence they will accept counter to their belief!
 
Upvote 0