How many creationists practise what they preach?

[ScottA]

Saying your assertions are fact is one thing, which you are welcome to do.

Demonstrating that your assertions are facts, is something, you have yet to even come close to accomplishing yet.

That's cool...but then again, missing the forest for the trees, is not on me.

 

[ScottA]

You are wrong that any of your statements are protected by forum rules. Where did you ever get that idea from? And I have yet to see a single fact posted by you. All you can do is to make vague claims that are apparently false.

Got it from the honchos. Nice try. Nice timing with the [666] Likes record. You assume much. Your loss.

 

[bhsmte]

That's cool...but then again, missing the forest for the trees, is not on me.

You havent demonstrated anyone is missing anything. When you can, let us know.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Got it from the honchos. Nice try. Nice timing with the [666] Likes record. You assume much. Your loss.

No, creationists are the ones that assume. I base my beliefs on what is supported by observation, evidence, and logic. I have yet to see a creationist that can honestly make the same claim. When creationists claim that those that accept science "assume" they usually mean that at best that the creationists do not understand.

 

[ScottA]

The only protections are against flaming and goading,harrassment, or someone telling you that you are not a Christian.
Here is the full list.

Flaming and Goading
● Please treat all members with respect and courtesy through civil dialogue.
● Do not attack another member's character or actions in any way, address only the content of their post and not the member personally.
● NO Goading. This includes images, cartoons, or smileys clearly meant to goad.
● Stating or implying that another Christian member, or group of members, are not Christian is not allowed.
● Only the person to whom the post is addressed may report the other. Anyone may report generalized flames or goads which are addressed to a group of members.
● Moderators have the right to report egregious violations of flaming or goading.
● Clear violations of the flaming rule will result in bans.


Harassment
● Be considerate and do not make another member's experience on this site miserable. This includes making false accusations or persistently attacking them in the open forums.

Your personal interpretation of the Bible is not protected.

I was told that as far as the forum was concerned, Christianity was considered unquestionable and therefore even indefensible as a known fact...and then shortly after my rebuttal it changed to what it is now. Let the games continue.

 

[freezerman2000]

Your FAITH (Christianity) is not to be questioned..not the way you interpret the Bible,nor anyone's assertions for that matter.
Do you agree with other Christian's assertions (interpretations)on the Bible?
Do you question them on it?
Their assertions are fair game.Why should your's be any different?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Your FAITH (Christianity) is not to be questioned..not the way you interpret the Bible,nor anyone's assertions for that matter.

Correct, so if I said something foolish like "Bill is not a real Christian", that would be a huge no no. Also present Christian members are not allowed to contest the fact that I used to be a Christian. They cannot say "you were never a real Christian". But claiming that one's interpretation of the Bible cannot be questioned is pure nonsense. Since that would lead to chaos with the first person making a statement on any article of faith claiming that no one could change it since it was protected by the rules.

 

[ScottA]

No, creationists are the ones that assume. I base my beliefs on what is supported by observation, evidence, and logic. I have yet to see a creationist that can honestly make the same claim. When creationists claim that those that accept science "assume" they usually mean that at best that the creationists do not understand.

But you do assume our position.

As for your basis for your beliefs, I commend you. You are using what you have. But your observation, as pointed out by a multitude of eye witnesses down through all of recorded history, is limited. Furthermore, using what you have to make your assessment, simply speaks to your limitation and not to that which you do not know. That's the point. Granted, we cannot demonstrate to you what you do not know, but likewise, you cannot speak to it either. It is not your area of expertise, in fact, you are completely out of the loop and unaware. And if you cannot fathom that there are possibly things that remain beyond your realm of understanding...then you add to your position arrogance and bliss.

 

[bhsmte]

I was told that as far as the forum was concerned, Christianity was considered unquestionable and therefore even indefensible as a known fact...and then shortly after my rebuttal it changed to what it is now. Let the games continue.

You would like that, wouldnt you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was told that as far as the forum was concerned, Christianity was considered unquestionable and therefore even indefensible as a known fact...and then shortly after my rebuttal it changed to what it is now. Let the games continue.

But you do assume our position.

No, that is deduction not assumption. There is a difference.

As for your basis for your beliefs, I commend you. You are using what you have. But your observation, as pointed out by a multitude of eye witnesses down through all of recorded history, is limited. Furthermore, using what you have to make your assessment, simply speaks to your limitation and not to that which you do not know. That's the point. Granted, we cannot demonstrate to you what you do not know, but likewise, you cannot speak to it either. It is not your area of expertise, in fact, you are completely out of the loop and unaware. And if you cannot fathom that there are possibly things that remain beyond your realm of understanding...then you add to your position arrogance and bliss.

What "eye witnesses" are you talking about? Eye witness testimony is some of the weakest evidence there is and it is amazing how many Christians mistakenly think that much of the Bible was written by "eye witnesses". And your arrogance and ignorance tops mine so far at this site. When discussing science I am not afraid to show support for my claims. I have yet to see you do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I was told that as far as the forum was concerned, Christianity was considered unquestionable and therefore even indefensible as a known fact...and then shortly after my rebuttal it changed to what it is now. Let the games continue.

What makes you think that there was a change? I don't think that your interpretation of the rules was ever the case.

 

[ScottA]

Correct, so if I said something foolish like "Bill is not a real Christian", that would be a huge no no. Also present Christian members are not allowed to contest the fact that I used to be a Christian. They cannot say "you were never a real Christian". But claiming that one's interpretation of the Bible cannot be questioned is pure nonsense. Since that would lead to chaos with the first person making a statement on any article of faith claiming that no one could change it since it was protected by the rules.

And yet, regardless of us all deciding to be "nice" to each other or "fair", the real nonsense is that none of that speaks to the actual truth, but only to our intention of being considerate.

But let's not kid each other...your self-described mission for being here is not even "nice", but rather an attempt to topple...even if it is "fair" of us to extend you the "consideration."

 

[ScottA]

No, that is deduction not assumption. There is a difference.

Show that in a math equation...it can't be done. You can't leave out what you don't know and still arrive at the correct answer. Your naked eye perspective, is simply not all there is, and not seeing it...proves nothing but your limited vision.

What "eye witnesses" are you talking about? Eye witness testimony is some of the weakest evidence there is and it is amazing how many Christians mistakenly think that much of the Bible was written by "eye witnesses". And your arrogance and ignorance tops mine so far at this site. When discussing science I am not afraid to show support for my claims. I have yet to see you do that.

You speak of what you do not know. I am an eyewitness, and I can speak to the matter...you, cannot. As someone who "knows" the difference, I can confirm the witness of the words written in the Bible, and I do. You know nothing of it, yet speak from your lack, as if you did.

 

[AV1611VET]

I base my beliefs on what is supported by observation, evidence, and logic.

And theistic evolutionists don't?

When it comes to God, you base your beliefs on [what you perceive to be] what you don't see.

For example, you'll stand in front of a church on Christmas eve, with cars parked with bumper stickers saying HE IS RISEN, Christmas carols ringing in your ears, and challenge someone to show you evidence of God ... won't you?

 

[bhsmte]

And yet, regardless of us all deciding to be "nice" to each other or "fair", the real nonsense is that none of that speaks to the actual truth, but only to our intention of being considerate.

But let's not kid each other...your self-described mission for being here is not even "nice", but rather an attempt to topple...even if it is "fair" of us to extend you the "consideration."

Please deomonstrate what this 'truth' is, we are all ears.

 

[ScottA]

What makes you think that there was a change? I don't think that your interpretation of the rules was ever the case.

I see the problem here: I said, "I was told" and you carry on as if it were not clear...because you didn't see it. An obvious pattern.

 

[freezerman2000]

Who told you that?

 

[ScottA]

Please deomonstrate what this 'truth' is, we are all ears.

No, that's the problem...you are not "all ears" at all, but "can't" hear what we can only tell you...and then you "won't" hear.

 

[ScottA]

Who told you that?

I forget. Some staff person that came to me to impose the reverse-apologetics rules, saying something to the affect that because Christianity did not need defending, I wasn't allowed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

And yet, regardless of us all deciding to be "nice" to each other or "fair", the real nonsense is that none of that speaks to the actual truth, but only to our intention of being considerate.

But let's not kid each other...your self-described mission for being here is not even "nice", but rather an attempt to topple...even if it is "fair" of us to extend you the "consideration."

What are you talking about? I am not here to topple anything. And of course I am more for the "truth" than most here. And why do you think that you are extending anyone a consideration. One of the reasons that this website works is because it is more open than most so called Christian websites. Many of them if you disagree with the beliefs of those in charge will quickly ban you. After a while patting each other on the back gets rather boring.