Help Me Understand!

[ej]

Lucaspa is not an atheist (AFAIK)

 

[Bulldog]

Lucaspa is definatly a Christian.

 

[lucaspa]

Denying cause and effect. Now that's almost laughable coming from an atheist.

Atheists can't post in this forum. So where did you get the idea I"m an atheist?

Cause is not equal to chance.

And neither is evolution or abiogenesis. Abiogenesis is chemistry, and which chemicals react with other chemicals and how is not chance. Natural selection is not chance. Selection is the exact opposite of chance. It is pure determinism.

You hate him and that's why you can't see. You are an enemy of God and you'll do whatever it takes to dis-prove his existence. then you'll die.

Where did you get the idea I'm trying to disprove the existence of God? Let me clue you into a shock: both creationism and evolution are ways that God created. What has happened is that creationism as the method that God used to create has been disproved. God didn't create that way. Instead, God created by the processes you lump together as "evolution".

But one things is certain, it appointed unto you once to die, and after this the judgement. You have an appoinment. It is scheduled and sure.

So do you. And how are you going to explain to God that you dismissed His second book and refused to listen to Him? I'd love to be a fly on the wall for that conversation!

 

[lucaspa]

If anyone is interested in a non-religious presentation for a new earth then you should visit world wide web dot creationscience dot com

Oh, no. This is Walt Brown's site! Scott, you are aware that Brown's "facts" have even been disavowed by other creationists? See Answers in Genesis' list of arguments that are no longer to be used: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/faq/dont_use.asp

For me to try and present the data here that is presented on this website would take too much space.

Why? There is no data presented on the website. Please pick one piece of data and show us.

One thing for any evolutionists and theistic evolutionists, the website contains a 25 year standing challenge to anyone who would wish to have a debate with the author that would be published by an unbiased publisher. No use of religious materials can be allowed into the discussion and no relying on religious argumentation either atheistic or theistic can be allowed. In order to be a qualified debator, you need to have a degree in a science field, that's it.
So now is your chance to prove you're right or wrong.

The debate topic is "The issue is: Does the scientific evidence favor creation or evolution? " Notice the use of the word "creation". Creation is a theological term. Creation is God creating for a purpose. Debates are opposite positions. Since evolution does not state that God did not create, there is no debate.

There is a debate only if Brown assigns evolution to a faith position. But that in itself is a strawman. I would debate if Brown and I would debate on how God created: creationism vs evolution. Would he do that? Why don't you ask him and see what you get for a response and then tell us. It should be enlightening.

If something proves the Bible right or wrong and the facts are hard data and not speculation such as the OORT CLOUD, then they can be presented.

Did you see this week that a small planet has been discovered in the volume that is the Oort Cloud? That's the first object seen in the Oort Cloud. Does that count as "fact". It sounds like Brown wants to exclude any hypotheses that contradict his position. Labeling them "speculation" is a nice debate tactic, but isn't really searching for truth, is it?