If creationism is true, then why is it useless?

[Ophiolite]

Where did you acquire this certainty? And quite seriously please, let us know which beliefs are incorrect. Don't horde this knowledge all for yourself.

The second point might best be determined by discussion with fellow Christians. I am sure you are aware of fundamental differences between different individuals, sects and denominations as to both minor and major issues. Since those differences exist it is difficult (for me, impossible) to see how they can all be correct.

If you can show me how it might be possible, I would lose my certainty, which is contingent on the observed contradictory beliefs between believers.

 

[Strathos]

You list your religious affiliation as Anglican, but you don't seem to ascribe to God creating the Heavens and the Earth as described in Genesis 1 - 11. What is it that the Anglican church is teaching these days that makes you think this way?

The issue is not whether God created the universe. The issue is what methods He used.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Where did you acquire this certainty? And quite seriously please, let us know which beliefs are incorrect. Don't horde this knowledge all for yourself.

Well, of course, I think you are all wrong. ☺

But I don't have to know which of you is right to know that if two people disagree, at least one of them is wrong.

ETA: or what @Ophiolite said.

 

[Speedwell]

You list your religious affiliation as Anglican, but you don't seem to ascribe to God creating the Heavens and the Earth as described in Genesis 1 - 11. What is it that the Anglican church is teaching these days that makes you think this way?

That belief in Genesis 1-11 as 100% accurate literal history is not necessary for salvation. That all one needs to believe is contained in the Nicene Creed. It's been that way for a long time, not just "these days."

 

[seeking.IAM]

You list your religious affiliation as Anglican, but you don't seem to ascribe to God creating the Heavens and the Earth as described in Genesis 1 - 11. What is it that the Anglican church is teaching these days that makes you think this way?

The three-legged stool of Anglicanism is "scripture...tradition...and reason." Some things don't hold up very well when viewed in the light of reason. That is not to say God's hand is not present in creation or evolution.

 

[DogmaHunter]

Actually his book is still in print

So is the iliad. And the quran.

Also his book follows the Bible and the Bible has stood the test of time for over 3500 years now.

So did the bagavad ghita.
And plenty of other religious manuscripts.

Moses, Noah and Adam were all real people. Everyone we read about in the Bible were real historical people.

So the book says.

As a book of history the Bible is extremely accurate.

Evidence, disagrees.

 

[pitabread]

As a book of history the Bible is extremely accurate.

Except for the parts that never happened.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Except for the parts that never happened.

If NO name is used there are people that believe that the story is fiction. I tend to think all the stories really happened. Real or not all the stories in the Bible can be applied to our lives. So trying to convince yourself it is not a real story with real people does not make any difference at all. God is going to hold us all accountable and on the day people are judged for what they did with their life they will have no excuse. One pastor said all their attempts to produce and excuse will shatter like glass before the throne. Your excuse this is not a real story about real people will shatter like glass before the throne because this excuse has no substance and it does not hold any thing.

 

[joshua 1 9]

So is the iliad.

My son is in his second year at the university and he is wanting to study computer engineering. He was required in his humanity class to read this book. Why do you suppose the university requires him to read a book that is so old? There must be some value in it or they would not require their students to read it.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Evidence, disagrees.

I have studied science & history for 50 years and the Bible for 30 years. My conclusion is that there is 100% agreement between the Bible and Science. If there is a problem then the reason is you do not have a true understanding of the Bible or you are not using true Science. Lots of people do not understand, even the majority of people are lost and going to perish because they do not enter in through the narrow gate. They take the wide way to destruction. Those who do know the truth knows that there is no conflict and no contradictions. I am 65 and they put me in school when I was 5. So after 60 years of research, study and practical experience this is the conclusion that I have arrived at. I may not even still be here and still alive if this were not my testimony.

 

[DogmaHunter]

I have studied science & history for 50 years and the Bible for 30 years. My conclusion is that there is 100% agreement between the Bible and Science.

Honestly...
Knowing you, that means nothing to me.

If there is a problem then the reason is you do not have a true understanding of the Bible or you are not using true Science.

uhu, uhu....
It is utterly impossible that YOU might be the one that is drawing incorrect conclusions, I bet?

Nope... if anyone disagrees with you, it must be because they are not understanding the religion properly.

Lots of people do not understand, even the majority of people are lost and going to perish because they do not enter in through the narrow gate.

Right, right... but YOU... you hold all the answers. They should all just come to you and ask you what it is they should be believing.

They take the wide way to destruction. Those who do know the truth knows that there is no conflict and no contradictions. I am 65 and they put me in school when I was 5. So after 60 years of research, study and practical experience this is the conclusion that I have arrived at.I may not even still be here and still alive if this were not my testimony.

Other people have drawn very different conclusions.
The difference is that they can actually justify their conclusions, whereas you can only assert them.

 

[DogmaHunter]

If NO name is used there are people that believe that the story is fiction. I tend to think all the stories really happened. Real or not all the stories in the Bible can be applied to our lives. So trying to convince yourself it is not a real story with real people does not make any difference at all. God is going to hold us all accountable and on the day people are judged for what they did with their life they will have no excuse. One pastor said all their attempts to produce and excuse will shatter like glass before the throne. Your excuse this is not a real story about real people will shatter like glass before the throne because this excuse has no substance and it does not hold any thing.

See?

Instead of actually providing justification for your conclusion, you are just "threatening" those who disagree. You are using fear tactics.

Classic sign of having no case at all.

 

[DogmaHunter]

My son is in his second year at the university and he is wanting to study computer engineering. He was required in his humanity class to read this book. Why do you suppose the university requires him to read a book that is so old? There must be some value in it or they would not require their students to read it.

Right, right,...
Because the Greek gods actually exist and mengle in human warfare.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Right, right,...
Because the Greek gods actually exist and mengle in human warfare.

So you do not want to have a serious conversation.
That is fine if you do not want us to take you serious.

 

[joshua 1 9]

Instead of actually providing justification for your conclusion, you are just "threatening" those who disagree.

Read my posts, I "justify" my conclusions all the time. So you are falsely accusing me. Also I am not threatening anyone, I am only showing them that they need to wake up to reality and join us in the real world. If they want to live in their delusions that is their choice. They have the freedom to decide to do that. I only offer them the choice to abandon their delusions for what is real.

 

[joshua 1 9]

It is utterly impossible that YOU might be the one that is drawing incorrect conclusions, I bet?

How much are you willing to bet?
What price are you willing to pay?
Sense you seem to want to invoke Paley's wager.

 

[DogmaHunter]

So you do not want to have a serious conversation.

There is nothing serious to discuss here, if the points keep on flying way over your head.

That is fine if you do not want us to take you serious.

It is I that can not take you seriously. Especially not when you keep on shooting yourself in the foot, like you did in that post...

 

[DogmaHunter]

Read my posts, I "justify" my conclusions all the time

You most certainly don't.
Simply claiming that you "studied it for 50 year" or whatever, is not a justification. That's just another claim.

Also I am not threatening anyone, I am only showing them that they need to wake up to reality and join us in the real world.

"real" is that which corresponds to the evidence of reality.
Which your "hell" doesn't fall into.

If they want to live in their delusions that is their choice.

"delusions" are those things which are regarded as correct, but which do not correspond with the evidence of reality. Which is what YOU engage in.

They have the freedom to decide to do that. I only offer them the choice to abandon their delusions for what is real.

At virtual gunpoint.

 

[DogmaHunter]

How much are you willing to bet?
What price are you willing to pay?
Sense you seem to want to invoke Paley's wager.

Why else would you write the things that you do?
You're not giving me the impression AT ALL that you think there is a possibility that it's YOU who has it wrong (instead of 99.9% of the scientific community).

 

[Rubiks]

Yeah, it does. There are direct applications of datasets derived from phylogenetic relationships (i.e. the common descent part) utilized in algorithms for performing genomic sequence comparison.

Google "phylogenetic shadowing" and "phylogenetic footprinting" if you don't believe me.

Now, where are the applications of creationism?

What kind of applications would you expect? Just asking.