Creationists should abstain

[Rudolph Hucker]

It is difficult to find information on creation theory. Other creationists have here bemoaned that lack.

I, for one, would much enjoy reading some.

 

[mark kennedy]

It is difficult to find information on creation theory. Other creationists have here bemoaned that lack.

I, for one, would much enjoy reading some.

Creation Science is first of all theological, the theoretical implications cannot be entertained. There is an a priori assumption of universal common ancestry that before any theoretical groundwork is laid it is categorically rejected.

Creation Science Resources

If you reject God's work in creation you can't understand God's work since. The strong tendency of hybrids to return to the grandparent form and other Mendelian principles are the empirical basis for Creation Science in Biology. See my signature. The only thing geology ever produced for TOE is the time line, all the rest is extraneous. Human ancestry is the central issue and genetics is the prize.

 

[Gwenyfur]

The moderation policy is biased against creationists fighting back. We are just supposed to listen to the insults. TEs are going to dictate the policy around here and no one cares if we like it or not.

The last straw what when a flagrant flame was ignored and then a TE moves my response to the common area. It's going to be how it is around here and it lacks any real intellectual integrity.

TE is Darwinism, plain and simple. Darwinism itself is metaphysics which is basically a theory of everything. They have taken their atheistic philosophy into every major seminary in Christiandom. Why would a casual discussion board be immune.

Hang in there, you're in my prayers but I just can't stomach the bias.

If you'll notice, I put the link to the wiki for creationists to make the rules for this sub forum when the wiki first got started...

to date...only a few creationists have participated in formulating the forum specific rules here...

If you don't like the rules as they are...then take action and re write them...it's a member driven site...

Don't you dare sit on your laurels and blame the mods! We're doing everything we can to make CF what YOU the MEMBERS want!

 

[mark kennedy]

If you'll notice, I put the link to the wiki for creationists to make the rules for this sub forum when the wiki first got started...

to date...only a few creationists have participated in formulating the forum specific rules here...

That is a little hard to reconcile to the fact that the forum rules were changed turning this into a free for all.

If you don't like the rules as they are...then take action and re write them...it's a member driven site...

Yea but it's become painfully obvious which members are getting preference. It was a major policy change followed by here's a link post your suggestions.

Don't you dare sit on your laurels and blame the mods! We're doing everything we can to make CF what YOU the MEMBERS want!

I was proactive but there is one sticking point the moderators won't tolerate. There should be a distinction made between Christian and nonchristian. Creationism is openly ridiculed and trampled under foot but we dare not suggest that this is coming from a nonchristian worldview.

I'm just finishing up a formal debate but the new policy has pretty much driven the bulk of fundamentalist and evangelical thinking from these boards. I know a number of moderators are pretty unhappy with the new policy and some of them have left.

It was a nice run, just kind of sad to see the flickering embers fading away. It's turning into just another secular board and those are a dime a dozen.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

..... Creationism is openly ridiculed and trampled under foot but we dare not suggest that this is coming from a nonchristian worldview.
...

Are you equating creationism with Christianity?

One does not have to be a literal creationist to be a Christian. Indeed, it seems to me that apart from some parts of USA, Christians do not follow that line at all.

To a man, all my Christian chums accept evolution.

 

[mark kennedy]

Are you equating creationism with Christianity?

I have yet to see a TE show the slightest regard for doctrine or the Bible as anything other then poetry. Creationism is Christian, Darwinism is not.

One does not have to be a literal creationist to be a Christian.

I never said you did, you don't have to assume universal common ancestry to understand evolutionary biology either.

Indeed, it seems to me that apart from some parts of USA, Christians do not follow that line at all.

In the US religion doesn't have a secular agenda for the most part. Unlike Europeans were everything is either political or ethnic.

To a man, all my Christian chums accept evolution.

I don't know a single Christian who cares about evolution. It's not creationists who are are on the march in the US, it's secular humanists who are attacking traditional Christian theism.

 

[Melethiel]

I have yet to see a TE show the slightest regard for doctrine or the Bible as anything other then poetry.

You've been countered on this more times than I can count.
Retract.

 

[mark kennedy]

[/SIZE][/COLOR][/FONT]You've been countered on this more times than I can count.
Retract.

I have only seen one TE affirm the Gospel and that is after three years of this. I won't retract my statement and after reading the latest reports I have come to the realization that creationists are being systematically squeezed out of here.

In short I retract nothing and haven't told the half of it.

 

[KerrMetric]

(Mission accomplished)


this was meant in fellowship in the same spirit as Mark's Gospel comment.

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

I have only seen one TE affirm the Gospel and that is after three years of this. I won't retract my statement and after reading the latest reports I have come to the realization that creationists are being systematically squeezed out of here.

In short I retract nothing and haven't told the half of it.

Affirming the gospel has nowt to do with literal creationism or evolution.

You can, as seemingly you do, affirm the gospel and be a creationist.

Or, one can affirm the gospel and be an evolutionist.

There is no conflict unless you see one.

 

[mark kennedy]

I take it I can now state - which to be honest I can back up:

I have yet to see a single YEC on here who has the intelligence or knowledge to comprehend actual scientific research and instead we see the witless rantings of plumbers, insurance sellers and burger flippers who all struggled in school and were left by the academic wayside.

You left out Soldiers and machinists because those have been my primary vocations for the last ten years.By the way, I carried an A average with as a Liberal Arts major. I find it rather curious that academic and scientific professionals are the most virulent satirists I encounter. Open ridicule of traditional Christian theism has become the order of the day while all things pagan and secular are celebrated.

Do I have to retract that?

Not as long as you don't insist a person affirm the Gospel in order to be considered a Christian. It's OK to insult fundamentalist and evangelical views though, no one has a problem with that.

ps

this was meant in fellowship in the same spirit as Mark's Gospel comment.

"Blessed is the man that walketh not in the counsel of the ungodly, nor standeth in the way of sinners, nor sitteth in the seat of the scornful. But his delight is in the law of the LORD; and in his law doth he meditate day and night." (Psalm 1:1)

"The wind bloweth where it listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is every one that is born of the Spirit." (John 3:8)

 

[Melethiel]

I have only seen one TE affirm the Gospel and that is after three years of this. I won't retract my statement and after reading the latest reports I have come to the realization that creationists are being systematically squeezed out of here.

In short I retract nothing and haven't told the half of it.

Have you ever tried, I dunno, reading our posts in the other Theology forums? I've spent more time in the other Theology forums affirming the Gospel than I have in Origins. I know other TEs have as well. Can't say the same for you.

I say again: retract. This borders on slander.

 

[KerrMetric]

By the way, I carried an A average with as a Liberal Arts major.

No offence but so what? That's a long way from cutting edge research - in fact they have no connection. If we are blowing our trumpets then let me see: I had a full scholarship and stipend to attend Cambridge before my 16th birthday. I never got anything but an A all the way through my academic career. I came over to the States and did a PhD at Caltech which I received before my 22nd birthday. I was tenured by my 26th birthday and full professor by 30.

Your point was?

 

[mark kennedy]

Have you ever tried, I dunno, reading our posts in the other Theology forums? I've spent more time in the other Theology forums affirming the Gospel than I have in Origins. I know other TEs have as well. Can't say the same for you.

I say again: retract. This borders on slander.

Afraid I can't do that, the Gospel is directly tied to the historicity of Scripture in Evangelical theology. What is more I have been expecting this since the policy change which is why I advised Creationists to abstain. I warned them publicly and privately that they would have to listen to the harshest of criticisms and censored from taking a stand on the Gospel.

Can't say the same for you.

So now open ridicule from moderators is the order of the day. I say again, I retract nothing, in fact I haven't told the half of it.

 

[mark kennedy]

No offence but so what? That's a long way from cutting edge research - in fact they have no connection. If we are blowing our trumpets then let me see: I had a full scholarship and stipend to attend Cambridge before my 16th birthday. I never got anything but an A all the way through my academic career. I came over to the States and did a PhD at Caltech which I received before my 22nd birthday. I was tenured by my 26th birthday and full professor by 30.

Your point was?

That's what gets me about you guys, with all your academic credentials the best you can do is heap satire on traditional Christian doctrine.

Oh wait, you asked me what my point was. I'm not a burger flipper and I have read enough to know the difference between evolution as science and evolution as natural history. Your tactics are going to backfire on you Professor, Christian theism has been attacked by secularists before.

Rome persecuted the Christian faith for a couple of centuries before converting the entire empire. Roman Catholics persecuted the early Reformers and they responded by reforming not only religious doctrine but governments as well.

You guys in your ivory towers are outnumber, you know that right?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

Afraid I can't do that, the Gospel is directly tied to the historicity of Scripture in Evangelical theology. What is more I have been expecting this since the policy change which is why I advised Creationists to abstain. I warned them publicly and privately that they would have to listen to the harshest of criticisms and censored from taking a stand on the Gospel.



So now open ridicule from moderators is the order of the day. I say again, I retract nothing, in fact I haven't told the half of it.

Can we be clear on this.

Do you hold the view that an evolutionist cannot be a Christian?

 

[Rudolph Hucker]

....
1. Rome persecuted the Christian faith for a couple of centuries before converting the entire empire.

2. Roman Catholics persecuted the early Reformers and they responded by reforming not only religious doctrine but governments as well.
...

(Numbers are mine)

1. That's a moot point. Probably some happened, but if one were to believe Hollywood it went on all the time.

2. The establishment has always punished reformers. I agree that the church punished those who claimed that the sun orbited the earth until it became accepted, just as evolution is accepted by the majority now.

 

[KerrMetric]

That's what gets me about you guys, with all your academic credentials the best you can do is heap satire on traditional Christian doctrine.

I am not heaping satire on anything but blind literalism.

And the credentials are important for one thing Mark - it shows you can handle the academic workload and think. Sure it's elitist but then all walks of life have an elite and their wannabes. Just like 99.999% of golfers have no chance of competing with Tiger Woods I know 99.999% of people have no chance competing with me on science knowledge and ability to research.

I have read enough to know the difference between evolution as science and evolution as natural history.

Reading and comprehension are not the same Mark.

Your tactics are going to backfire on you Professor, Christian theism has been attacked by secularists before.

I'm not attacking Christianity - which would be bloody odd now I think about it - I am attacking the simplistic embarrassment that is modern literalism.

Rome persecuted the Christian faith for a couple of centuries before converting the entire empire. Roman Catholics persecuted the early Reformers and they responded by reforming not only religious doctrine but governments as well.

Pssst - Mark, you aren't a martyr. Just thought you should know.

You guys in your ivory towers are outnumber, you know that right?

Not on IQ point sum totals I'd wager - certainly not by groups like AIG and ICR who don't have a single figure who could carry my academic jockstrap. By the way - we still get all the funding and all the press, your guys are stuck in Chick tracts, goofy church speaking tours and an embarrassment in Northern Kentucky that cost a bunch of donations from sheep.

 

[mark kennedy]

Can we be clear on this.

Do you hold the view that an evolutionist cannot be a Christian?

First of all you can't lump evolution as defined scientifically with the a priori assumption of the Darwinian Tree of Life. I don't know of a single Christian who has a problem with Mendelian genetics, Euclidean math or Newtonian physics. The only issue for the Creationist is whether or not the Scriptures report a true and accurate account of historical events.

More importantly you can't ignore Nicene theology in an Origins debate forum and expect to be taken seriously by evangelicals. I have asked TEs again and again about their views of the Bible as history and they are ambiguous at best.

Romans 5 and I Corinthians 15 are clear that Adam and Eve were specially created as a sovereign and supernatural act of God. If you can't even acknowledge Creationism as sound doctrine then I have to question if your theology is Christian. In fact, I have to wonder if it's even a theology.

Hope that clears it up for you.

 

[Melethiel]

I warned them publicly and privately that they would have to listen to the harshest of criticisms and censored from taking a stand on the Gospel.

The Gospel that Jesus Christ came to save sinners, of which I am the worst? The Gospel that when I was dead in my sin, He granted me faith and saw fit to make me live? Nobody censors that - not in my forums at least. And while you were encouraging others to abstain, I was pushing to keep the Nicene Creed as part of the Theology guidelines when others wanted to take it out.

And I wasn't ridiculing you - simply stating a fact. I've seen other TEs in the other Theology forums, often posting in defense of orthodox doctrines. I've very rarely seen you outside of Origins - and I know 90% of the Theology posters by sight.