How many of you creationists...

[Warden_of_the_Storm]

And what is Christianity evidence of?

People believing in the Bible.

Doesn't mean the Bible is right.

 

[Astrid]

People believing in the Bible.

Doesn't mean the Bible is right.

Just substitute "astrology" for
Christianity.

 

[AV1611VET]

Just substitute "astrology" for Christianity.

Would astrology exist, if there were no celestial objects first?

Which came first? astrology or stars?

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Just substitute "astrology" for
Christianity.

Uh, no!

 

[inquiring mind]

...have ever read a science textbook? I'm curious.


(I don' t refer to "Darwin's Black Box" or Chick tracts, I am talking about books with titles like "An Introduction to Physics" or "General Biology". )

I wonder why they don't leave them in hotel rooms?

 

[AV1611VET]

I wonder why they don't leave them in hotel rooms?

The price of rooms would triple, and vacationers would riot.

 

[inquiring mind]

The price of rooms would triple, and vacationers would riot.

By the way, my question was dry humor... or meant to be anyway.

 

[AV1611VET]

By the way, my question was dry humor... or meant to be anyway.

Yes, I know.

 

[driewerf]

And what is Christianity evidence of?

The gullibility of people?

 

[driewerf]

...have ever read a science textbook?

I wonder why they don't leave them in hotel rooms?

Because only things without value are left for grab in an hotel room.

 

[AV1611VET]

The gullibility of people?

Is atheism the cure for this Christian virus that renders people gullible?

 

[driewerf]

Is atheism the cure for this Christian virus that renders people gullible?

No. At best it takes away one symptom, but it can not be excluded that other symptoms emerge.

 

[Astrid]

No. At best it takes away one symptom, but it can not be excluded that other symptoms emerge.

The cause and effect of gullibility may be getting confused.

 

[Astrophile]

Would astrology exist, if there were no celestial objects first?

Which came first? astrology or stars?

Stars. The first stars were formed more than 13 billion years ago, a very long time before there were intelligent beings anywhere in the universe who could look at the stars and wonder what they signified.

 

[AV1611VET]

Stars.

Correct.

And which came first? Christ or Christianity?

 

[driewerf]

Correct.

And which came first? Christ or Christianity?

Correct.

And which came first? Christ or Christianity?

I like your analogy.
First there were stars, and this caused the false doctrine of astrology.
First there was Jesus, and he caused the false doctrine of christianity.
That's the conclusion you want to lead us to, yes?

 

[AV1611VET]

I like your analogy.
First there were stars, and this caused the false doctrine of astrology.
First there was Jesus, and he caused the false doctrine of christianity.
That's the conclusion you want to lead us to, yes?

Cute.

 

[DialecticSkeptic]

It's impossible to be an informed and intellectually honest [young-earth creationist]

It's actually not impossible, as they do exist. For example, are you familiar with Todd C. Wood? Consider the following statements:

"The Truth About Evolution," Todd's Blog, September 30, 2009:

Evolution is not a theory in crisis. It is not teetering on the verge of collapse. It has not failed as a scientific explanation. There is evidence for evolution, gobs and gobs of it. It is not just speculation or a faith choice or an assumption or a religion. It is a productive framework for lots of biological research, and it has amazing explanatory power. There is no conspiracy to hide the truth about the failure of evolution. There has really been no failure of evolution as a scientific theory. It works, and it works well.

I say these things not because I'm crazy or because I've "converted" to evolution. I say these things because they are true. ...

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory. That doesn't make it ultimately true, and it doesn't mean that there could not possibly be viable alternatives. It is my own faith choice to reject evolution, because I believe the Bible reveals true information about the history of the earth that is fundamentally incompatible with evolution.​

"The Nature of Idolatry," Todd's Blog, November 03, 2009:

After many years in this debate, I've come to the uncomfortable conclusion that we creationists have made an idol of our own arguments. I don't say this lightly or flippantly either. This is a deadly serious problem, and the conservative wing of Christianity desperately needs to address it. ...

I greatly fear that our faith in Christ has been replaced with an idolatry of apologetics. I fear we've stopped believing in Christ and started believing in arguments about Christ (or the Bible or creation or what have you). ...

Don't believe me? Try telling a creationist that there is evidence for evolution. Watch how tenaciously they'll argue against you. They might even try to insult you, maybe call you bipolar or just plain ignorant. They'll certainly question your creationist "credentials." Only an evolutionist would say there's evidence for evolution! I've even been told that I'm going to lead people away from faith in Christ by my position on evolution. Imagine that. What kind of world is this where telling the truth about something would lead someone away from faith? The only way that could possibly be true is if our faith is actually wrong, which it isn't.​

 

[AV1611VET]

Creationist students, listen to me very carefully: There is evidence for evolution, and evolution is an extremely successful scientific theory.

There is evidence for microevolution, yes.

Macroevolution is another thing altogether.

I'm an example of microevolution because I microevolved from my parents; but that's where it ends.

But I did not macroevolve from apes.

 

[Bungle_Bear]

There is evidence for microevolution, yes.

Macroevolution is another thing altogether.

I'm an example of microevolution because I microevolved from my parents; but that's where it ends.

But I did not macroevolve from apes.

The evidence is the same for both. The theory is the same for both. You're just grasping at a creationist invention to try to pretend there is a difference.