Is Evolution A Lie?

[SithDoughnut]

That's a pure statement of your faith/religion.

No, it's based upon what we know. We know that life is a series of chemical processes, so it makes sense to conclude that it started as a series of chemical processes. And yes, we've actually managed to observe some of these processes, so the evidence is there.

Also, please use the correct terminology. Calling the scientific method faith/religion distorts the meaning of all the words involved. It's a nice sound bite but it doesn't mean anything worthwhile.

 

[non-religious]

[Celtic D]I fear your attitude stems from the fact that you have been unable to change anyone's mind on the subject.

I do think there is some truth to this. Not wishing to speak for Ian, but I actually think that he thinks it is a heresy to subscribe to T.E. I do believe he mentioned it as such, somewhere earlier in this thread. So I can only assume that we are, according to his way of thinking, in some form of trouble and thus impending judgement. (please feel free to correct me Ian, because I do not want to put words in your mouth )

As for dividing people, my closest Christian friend is way more fundie than you Ian, creationism, the works, but the important things unite us more than the incidentals divide us.

Absolutely

That's just it, the account in Genesis is not the end of the discussion for most Christians. Most Christians subscribe to Theistic Evolution.

Agreed...

 

[StormHawk]

Sadly, many creationists believe in a de-volving gospel.

The original say all receive the fulness of God's Spirit, and knowing they had by the ability to pray in tongues. These new creatures began re-producing after their own kind (I am one). Sadly we also see a fake, mutant version that denies these things, promoting instead a words-only gospel that tickles the intellect but doesn't change the heart.

 

[artybloke]

John 1:1 "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God"
If the Bible is just a book written by mere men...how can you put any trust in the fact that Christ died for your sins? Maybe they got that bit wrong too...or perhaps that was symbolic?
Not having a pop...I just wondered how you interpreted Genesis to be symbolic perhaps?...and the gospels to be literal? Or do you think they are symbolic aswell?

Just to catch up... John's Gospel is refering to Christ not the Bible - the divine Logos not a book of human words but a person.

As for the second question: I read scripture (when I read it, which isn't often these days) according to the genre it's written in. The Gospels are narratives with some historical information in them; Genesis 1 espeically is constructed as a kind of liturgical hymn, with refrains and in a 'high' language (the Hebrew is apparently slightly artificial and old-fashioned for its time).

Also, of course, there is nothing about the basic story of Jesus that is entirely improbable apart from the resurection; which some do interpret in a symbolic sense, of course. But the resurection is something we can only percieve by faith. There will never be sufficient physical evidence to prove it either happened or didn't happen, because any evidence it might have left behind, if it left any, has disappeared in the sands of the Middle East (and note, I'm talking of physical not documentary evidence like the Gospels.)

The creation narratives, if taken as science, would be totally improbable knowing what we know about the age of the earth, the development of life through evolution, and a hundred other scientific disciplines. Every bit of evidence so far has only served to cement the theory of evolution into place.

So either we have a solipsistic theology that says that our interpretation of the bible is more important than the evidence coming to us from the (God-created) world, or we have a theology that accepts the real world and interprets the bible in the light of reality. Trying to reconcile Genesis with science, or science with Genesis, is doomed to failure.

Whatever your theology of the Bible, inerrant or not, it's your theology of the world that actually is affected. If the world is 'unreal' or somehow 'evil' then we're heading down the road to dualism and Gnosticism. If the world is 'good' (even though fallen) and is the real world, then what we see through a microscope and a telescope is what is there. And the real world says: evolution happened.

 

[TalkaboutScience]

No, it's based upon what we know. We know that life is a series of chemical processes, so it makes sense to conclude that it started as a series of chemical processes. And yes, we've actually managed to observe some of these processes, so the evidence is there.

Also, please use the correct terminology. Calling the scientific method faith/religion distorts the meaning of all the words involved. It's a nice sound bite but it doesn't mean anything worthwhile.

You posted this about the origin of the universe:

''Nothing initiated it, as such. It was the natural result of the properties of the chemicals.''

- This is a pure faith statement/religious. This is not science.

Are you saying the origin of the universe has been replicated, observed or tested?

 

[SithDoughnut]

You posted this about the origin of the universe:

''Nothing initiated it, as such. It was the natural result of the properties of the chemicals.''

Wrong. Apparently your faith prevents you from reading my posts correctly. We were not talking about the origin of the universe at that point.

I don't know why the Big Bang happened. That's what I think about the origin of the universe.

 

[TalkaboutScience]

I don't know why the Big Bang happened. That's what I think about the origin of the universe.

How is that a scientific answer? Secondly there is no evidence for Big Bang.

 

[TalkaboutScience]

Big Bang is also Christian, so why are Atheists now embracing it? It needed a first cause to start it - which is why many Christians support Big Bang.

 

[TalkaboutScience]

All these are faith statements/religion:

If we're going to go all the way back to the start (sort of), then basically gravity. The first "major" (as in not sub-atomic or something-that-I-don't-understand-in-the-slightest ) reactions were the formation of stars. That was, I suppose, the first "push". There has never actually been total equilibrium; chemical reactions have been constantly happening since the Big Bang. From what I understand, life didn't just come from a spontaneous start of chemical reactions, it's just part of a continuous set of processes.

I know some of the processes that would naturally create elements of life have been re-created, but I don't know the details.

The first chemical reaction ever? Nothing initiated it, as such. It was the natural result of the properties of the chemicals. At least, that's the case as far as I know.

The funny thing also is that you come here typing your faith, but then claim it is science or apart of the scientific method... read your own posts though - in the above i quote:

I suppose

I don't know

etc.

I don't see how 'supposing' or ''i don't know'' is apart of the scientific method.

You have also claimed nothing initiated the first chemical reaction. So where is your empirical scientific evidence for this claim?

Remember you claim to not have any faith, so please present the science. Thanks.

 

[SithDoughnut]

How is that a scientific answer?

If there is inconclusive evidence, and no way to scientifically test something, then the logical answer is "I don't know". Science is all about "I don't know".

Secondly there is no evidence for Big Bang.

You mean no evidence other than all of this?

Big Bang is also Christian, so why are Atheists now embracing it? It needed a first cause to start it - which is why many Christians support Big Bang.

Ah yes, because an atheist is never ever allowed to agree on anything with a theist. Are you reading what you type?

I don't see how 'supposing' or ''i don't know'' is apart of the scientific method.

That's because evidently you have no idea what the scientific method is. It starts with a statement of "I don't know". We've progressed to the next step, which is "I don't know, but here are some ideas that fit with what we know".

You appear to be under the misunderstanding that you have to know absolutely everything for your view to be based on science. That's completely wrong.

By the way, you can copy multiple quotes into one post, and there's an edit button if you want to add anything more. You don't have to make three posts in a row.

 

[ianb321red]

Nobody is twisting your arm to participate in these threads, though I fear your attitude stems from the fact that you have been unable to change anyone's mind on the subject.

As for dividing people, my closest Christian friend is way more fundie than you Ian, creationism, the works, but the important things unite us more than the incidentals divide us.

That's just it, the account in Genesis is not the end of the discussion for most Christians. Most Christians subscribe to Theistic Evolution.

I don't spend hours trawling through books and I doubt very much if other TE's do either. If you don't have the knowledge then don't pretend that you do and you shouldn't be trying to "baffle" folk with made up "facts" like you did earlier in the thread - people with even very basic scientific knowledge see straight though it and it paints a very bad picture of Christianity to them.

If you haven't got the knowledge go and obtain the knowledge - from that nameless friend you mention, there is nothing special about retired professors mind you, there were many in the church I used to attend. Perhaps you are frightened what you might learn

"If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen"

It’s funny because when I submitted my post yesterday, I predicted that someone would say something along the lines of “if you don’t like it then clear off”…

Firstly, you talk about “most Christians” in reference to (a) Genesis not being the end of the creation discussion for Christians, and (b) that these people subscribe to Theistic Evolution. With the greatest respect, on the basis of what information do you make this claim?

Celtic - you have previously been very guarded about the particulars of your Christian faith and I respect that, but you make no bones of the fact you don’t go church. Therefore, it is logical that the vast majority of Christians you have contact with is via cyberspace. I’m not saying there is anything particularly wrong with this, but this “e-Christianity” is not a representative sample of all Christians, in the same way that the majority of views expressed on these forums I would suggest are not particularly representative of Christianity on the whole.

So tell me on what basis do you make this claim about TE? Where do you get your data from?

I have a lot of contact with Christians. I am involved with a large Church in London, and also know many Christians from several churches in and around where I live in Surrey. My brother goes to a very large Church in London and I know people from his church, and I know a lot of people through my parent’s church. I’m involved with several evangelistic outreach ministries and discussion groups. I haven’t yet come across someone who subscribes to Theistic Evolution. You say “most people” subscribe to this though? With respect I don’t believe you actually know what you’re talking about when it comes to “most Christians”.

Next point – I said right from the start (if you actually read my posts properly) that I have limited knowledge on evolution (phew!) but I also said that “I don't think it is right to say that it is an outright lie because I believe there is certain truth within the theory that is compatible with Christian belief.” So I’ve NEVER pretended to have any knowledge, and I’ve been completely up front about that right from the start. I’ve also said that there may be “some truth” in evolution. But’s it not the whole truth – The Bible is.

Next point – lack of knowledge on evolution only paints a bad view of Theistic Evolution, NOT Christianity. Again, you’ve made another nonsense assertion based on the same incorrect view that most Christians agree with Theistic Evolution – which is a claim that I very much doubt you can support outside of your unrepresentative sample of e-Christians…

You say that Genesis is not the end of the discussion for Christians. That may or may not be true, but that does not mean to say that this is a good thing! And in fact, perpetuating these discussions on threads like this is the problem I have.

As a bible believing Christian it SHOULD be the end of the discussion. When Christians start messing around with The Word of God to fit it in to popular world views like science / evolution they are treading on very thin ice in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong I value the knowledge we gain from science as it tends to support what the bible says, but not the other way round.

The simple facts are that Genesis is the creation account that The Lord has given us. This is all we need to know that there is a supernatural creator who is the creator behind life. Therefore, we can be sure that from the general revelation of creation that we see around us that there is a God.In The Bible God has told us all that we need to know, so for Christians who “need more” than the Genesis account is like saying to God that his account isn’t good enough from them.

So it’s not really about “not standing the heat” or whatever. I’ve got no problem putting my views to anyone whether it be on this forum or to face-to-face.

The point of my previous post is that conversation threads like this one aren’t useful because it the only outcome is to polarise people even further apart. To start a thread called “Is evolution a lie?” when you completely subscribe to evolution tells me that you’re just looking to start an argument! You’ve made up your mind anyway. Anyone (Christian) who opposes what TE’s say from a Christian point-of-view gets mauled. This is why I quoted the passage in 2 Timothy yesterday, as the approach to those that have challenged or opposed TE has at time been decidedly un-Christian. Verse 23 & 24 say “..and the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness…”.

I said what I said yesterday, not because I can’t handle it – but because I have a fundamental problem with some Christians who are trying to start arguments with, and divide other Christians on peripheral issues. I say it’s peripheral because God centred creation is belief that is not unique to Christianity, unlike the miracles and events surrounding the life of Jesus which are central to Christian belief.

 

[TalkaboutScience]

You mean no evidence other than all of this?

There are numerous other models.

That's because evidently you have no idea what the scientific method is. It starts with a statement of "I don't know". We've progressed to the next step, which is "I don't know, but here are some ideas that fit with what we know".

You appear to be under the misunderstanding that you have to know absolutely everything for your view to be based on science. That's completely wrong.

Looks like you don't even know the basics.

The scientific method starts at observation, you then make a hypothesis and test that hypothesis -

''...the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses''

Scientific method - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary

 

[Celtic D]

It’s funny because when I submitted my post yesterday, I predicted that someone would say something along the lines of “if you don’t like it then clear off”…

I never said or inferred anything of the sort, please don't twist my words!

Firstly, you talk about “most Christians” in reference to (a) Genesis not being the end of the creation discussion for Christians, and (b) that these people subscribe to Theistic Evolution. With the greatest respect, on the basis of what information do you make this claim?

Life experience

Celtic - you have previously been very guarded about the particulars of your Christian faith and I respect that, but you make no bones of the fact you don’t go church. Therefore, it is logical that the vast majority of Christians you have contact with is via cyberspace. I’m not saying there is anything particularly wrong with this, but this “e-Christianity” is not a representative sample of all Christians, in the same way that the majority of views expressed on these forums I would suggest are not particularly representative of Christianity on the whole.

So tell me on what basis do you make this claim about TE? Where do you get your data from?

I have a lot of contact with Christians. I am involved with a large Church in London, and also know many Christians from several churches in and around where I live in Surrey. My brother goes to a very large Church in London and I know people from his church, and I know a lot of people through my parent’s church. I’m involved with several evangelistic outreach ministries and discussion groups. I haven’t yet come across someone who subscribes to Theistic Evolution. You say “most people” subscribe to this though? With respect I don’t believe you actually know what you’re talking about when it comes to “most Christians”.

I have NEVER been guarded about my faith, what I was guarded about and will continue to be is the reasons why I left church and won't return. You have read my profile so you know the nuts and bolts. But with all due respect you are making a big assumption about me just because I don't go to church - in reality you have no idea who my Christian contacts are online or otherwise. I went to church for many years - the majority of my life in fact, I have been round different churches for numerous different reasons, one of which continues to this day although I don't "go" to church. I have several friends who have done/do attend some of the biggest churches in London.

I frequent various Christian forums/websites and have met a diversity of people there.

My closest Christian friend since I truely became a Christian is however indeed an online friend who was the person who lead me to a saving faith in Christ. That friend is a member of one of the most conservative/fundamentalist denominations in the country, and is indeed a leader in that church who regularly goes around different churches teaching and preaching and talking to people in these churches. That person is also a creationist, but will freely admit that many if not most people they meet are TE, so yeah my data is from various reliable sources

Next point – I said right from the start (if you actually read my posts properly) that I have limited knowledge on evolution (phew!) but I also said that “I don't think it is right to say that it is an outright lie because I believe there is certain truth within the theory that is compatible with Christian belief.” So I’ve NEVER pretended to have any knowledge, and I’ve been completely up front about that right from the start. I’ve also said that there may be “some truth” in evolution. But’s it not the whole truth – The Bible is.

You didn't say right from the start you said your knowledge was limited when people started picking holes in your arguements! The OP was in fact in response to a particular comment made on another thread and started so as not to derail that original thread!

Next point – lack of knowledge on evolution only paints a bad view of Theistic Evolution, NOT Christianity. Again, you’ve made another nonsense assertion based on the same incorrect view that most Christians agree with Theistic Evolution – which is a claim that I very much doubt you can support outside of your unrepresentative sample of e-Christians…

Not sure what you mean by your first sentence in this part. As for the rest I have already explained that my sources are NOT just from the net.

You say that Genesis is not the end of the discussion for Christians. That may or may not be true, but that does not mean to say that this is a good thing!

Why not?

And in fact, perpetuating these discussions on threads like this is the problem I have.

No one twisted your arm to participate

As a bible believing Christian it SHOULD be the end of the discussion. When Christians start messing around with The Word of God to fit it in to popular world views like science / evolution they are treading on very thin ice in my opinion. Don’t get me wrong I value the knowledge we gain from science as it tends to support what the bible says, but not the other way round.

I am a Bible believing Christian ( a term I do however despise because all true Christians (born again is another term I despise)) believe in the Bible. Nobody is messing with the Bible and most certainly not TEs - the Bible and science go hand in hand, there is no difficultly.

The simple facts are that Genesis is the creation account that The Lord has given us. This is all we need to know that there is a supernatural creator who is the creator behind life. Therefore, we can be sure that from the general revelation of creation that we see around us that there is a God.In The Bible God has told us all that we need to know, so for Christians who “need more” than the Genesis account is like saying to God that his account isn’t good enough from them.

Your arguement above has so many holes in it I could use it as a seive! suffice to say the TE stance is NOT in addition to Genesis, it is the practicalities of Genesis. Science is the how, Genesis is the why

So it’s not really about “not standing the heat” or whatever. I’ve got no problem putting my views to anyone whether it be on this forum or to face-to-face.

The point of my previous post is that conversation threads like this one aren’t useful because it the only outcome is to polarise people even further apart. To start a thread called “Is evolution a lie?” when you completely subscribe to evolution tells me that you’re just looking to start an argument! You’ve made up your mind anyway. Anyone (Christian) who opposes what TE’s say from a Christian point-of-view gets mauled. This is why I quoted the passage in 2 Timothy yesterday, as the approach to those that have challenged or opposed TE has at time been decidedly un-Christian. Verse 23 & 24 say “..and the Lord’s servant must not be quarrelsome but kind to everyone, able to teach, patiently enduring evil, correcting his opponents with gentleness…”.

I said what I said yesterday, not because I can’t handle it – but because I have a fundamental problem with some Christians who are trying to start arguments with, and divide other Christians on peripheral issues. I say it’s peripheral because God centred creation is belief that is not unique to Christianity, unlike the miracles and events surrounding the life of Jesus which are central to Christian belief.

As I have already explained the thread was started in response to another thread hence the particular title. The topic doesn't alienate - you are only making that statement because I and other TEs won't change our view. As I have already said my closest Christian friend is a creationist.

As for the Bible verse you quote, it is you who has the unChristian characteristics - at no point on this thread or any other have I trashed your faith, and yet in this and other threads you have called/implied my faith is heritical.

At the end of the day Ian, I have several creationist friends, they respect my stance and I respect theirs and we work together online for the advancement of Christ's kingdom, it is not an issue between us, so please stop trying to infer, just because you haven't managed to change my POV that the evo/crevo debate causes major splits amongst Christians because IT DOES NOT!!!

 

[TalkaboutScience]

the Bible and science go hand in hand, there is no difficultly.

There are numerous scientific errors in the Bible. An example being the Moon, which reflects light but the Bible says it produces its own (Ezekiel 32: 7; Matthew 24: 29; Mark 13: 24).

Is evolution compatible with the Bible? In Mark there is a quote from Jesus which states man and woman were created e.g. not having evolved.

Evolutionists however propose that we evolved from asexual bacteria.

 

[Celtic D]

There are numerous scientific errors in the Bible. An example being the Moon, which reflects light but the Bible says it produces its own (Ezekiel 32: 7; Matthew 24: 29; Mark 13: 24).

Is evolution compatible with the Bible? In Mark there is a quote from Jesus which states man and woman were created e.g. not having evolved.

Evolutionists however propose that we evolved from asexual bacteria.

I am not a total literalist when it comes to the Bible, although I do believe it is inspired.

Your arguement above does not hold water though - yes we were created, I believe we were created by the mechanism of evolution (theistic), sorry but I don't loose sleep or faith over verses like that

P.S. I'm sure the Bible you read did not actually state "e.g." (and it should in fact be i.e. ) "not having evolved"

 

[Astridhere]

There are numerous scientific errors in the Bible. An example being the Moon, which reflects light but the Bible says it produces its own (Ezekiel 32: 7; Matthew 24: 29; Mark 13: 24).

Is evolution compatible with the Bible? In Mark there is a quote from Jesus which states man and woman were created e.g. not having evolved.

Evolutionists however propose that we evolved from asexual bacteria.

You are being a little hard on a book written by people that had none of todays scientific vocabulary. Regardless of the moons reflection of light it still shines light on the earth at night. Besides there are many scientific accurancies in the bible written way before their discovery. This is proof that a higher intelligence was behind the scriptures, regardless of who wrote what and when.

101 Scientifc Facts & Foreknowledge - New Life

As far as our evolving from asexual bacteria, it took the invention of the contradictory term 'primitive cell' to paint a non plausible scenario to explain the factory of mechanisms in place in a single celled organism such as bacteria and how it evolved from non living matter. Of course we biblical creationists know that there is no such thing as a primitive cell. Scientists have never observed one.

To presuppose that any chemical reaction would advance into a replicating entrohpic complex organism such as bacteria is to presuppose that chemical reactions have a purpose or direction towards life until life is achieved. I may add all abiogenesis theories are just that, theories, still being debated. Theories are not evidence although naturalists would like them to be.

There is adequate evidence behind the various creationist paradigms that is as robust as evolutionists. Creationists are also able to interpret the data according to their assumptions.

The earth is in a priviledged position in the universe and at the perfect address in the solar system. The earth is no ordinary planet as naturalists continually assert. Some of us don't need mysteries like dark matter and multiple dimensions no one has a clue about, either! We can all plainly see the earth is different to other planets. We don't need silly scenarios and statistics to see just how lucky and priviledged we are!
Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route
Our galaxy is the centre of the universe, ‘quantized’ redshifts show

The Creation Insitute has tons of stuff to scientifically back its claims as do others.

Evidence from Science

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - Table of Contents

You present evidence entwined in scenario and present this as evidence. How much more simpler it is for creationists that can simply take the evidence for what it is.

For example a single celled orgainism is a complex factory or mechanisms and there could be no intermediate that is partially alive. That is confirmed by the fact that a primitive cell has never been observed, and neither has anything partially alive been capable of continuing multiplication or replication. There are heaps of theories around abiogenesis with none proven. Due to the complexity of a bacteria, primitive cells never will be observed nor proven to have been. The complexity of a living organism is proof that a living organism eg bacteria, is irreduceably complex and could not possibly have evolved in any gradual manner from chemicals to complex life.

The 30% difference in the male human/chimp Y chromosome is comparable to a chicken and human at 310my of separation is proof that humans did not evolve from chimps. There is no need to evoke non plausible scenarios to explain it. The Laetolli footprints further confirm mankind was here way before any of our supposed ancestors. They were not made by the curved fingered, 3.5ft, gorilla/chimp like Lucy as yet another non plausible scenario puts forth.
Y Chromosome Evolving Rapidly - ScienceNOW
Chimpanzee-human Y chromosome comparisons | john hawks weblog
Gorilla-like anatomy on Australopithecus afarensis mandibles suggests Au. afarensis link to robust australopiths

Bird footprints dated to 212mya do not belong to a dinosaur that just happened to have modern bird feet. These footprints demonstrate birds were abundant and thriving 212mya as they should be and did not descend from dinosaurs at all.

Figure 1 : Bird-like fossil footprints from the Late Triassic : Nature
Ancient bird-like footprints found - 26 June 2002 - New Scientist


As I said in post 2 it is very much a matter of interpretation. However I must say that the various creationist interpretations of the data appears to be the more robust, credible and parsinomous.

I don't think evolution is a lie, as such, in that it is just a theory anyway. I do think it is a misrepresentaion of the data by way of many non plausible scenarios offered as evidence,though. You'd be better off throwing your hat behind one of the creationist paradigms.

 

[Celtic D]

The only people misrepresenting the data is these creationist websites! None of these sites use credible "proof" for their arguements

 

[TalkaboutScience]

I am not a total literalist when it comes to the Bible, although I do believe it is inspired.

If it was inspired why are there scientific mistakes?

 

[Celtic D]

If it was inspired why are there scientific mistakes?

You'll need to ask the Author that question

 

[welshman]

The thing is; you have consistantly said the same kind of thing over and over in these type of threads, yet when I have asked you to post what it is exactly that is incorrect, misrepresented etc. you either refuse or tell us that you are "too busy".

In one discussion about Cain and his wife; I referred you to answersingenesis who provided a scripture-based answer. While it did touch on genetics (if I remember right), you flat out refused to even look at the link because they believe in creationism and in your words "...the science on that site to put it politely, is mince!!!" (29th August 2011).

Without sounding harsh (because I actually have a lot of time for you and think you are genuinely sincere in reaching the lost) you can't ask questions and then refuse to look at answers that are given to you. You may not agree with the content, but refusing to look at evidence put forward for one side of the argument is just silly.That is not how a debate or discussion progesses.

In that particular thread entitles "Genesis", you are the first person to mention the word "evolution" in post #5. I believe you brought up the subject by saying "...what other things are missing from Genesis that we have to assume, perhaps the process by which creation occured aka evolution???" I then gave you a link to a documentary about evolution and intelligent design in post #7 of the same thread to which you replied in post #11 "But like a good creationist you are bending this discussion towards an evo/creavo debate (another trait that said friend from a previous thread had ) and I am not going there"

Now without picking holes, you were the one who first mentioned evolution in that thread and then made a sarcastic comment about "good creationists" bending conversation towards another area when it was you who did this in the first place. This leads me onto my next thought...

Again, I really am not trying to pick on you, but I see a repeated cycle of behaviour in some of your posts. I'll explain...

Many of your posts have been on controversial topics within Christianity e.g. evolution/creation, "Women preachers", "where did Cain get his wife" etc...while this is totally fine, and I do give you the benefit of the doubt, it does seem as if you feel it's acceptable to throw out comments such as:
"In fact what you say applies more so to creationists who repeat parrot fashion what is said on creation science websites..." (31st July 2011)
and...
"While there is no love lost between me and the fairytale that is creationism..." (25th August 2011)

"I don't spend hours trawling through books and I doubt very much if other TE's do either. If you don't have the knowledge then don't pretend that you do and you shouldn't be trying to "baffle" folk with made up "facts" like you did earlier in the thread - people with even very basic scientific knowledge see straight though it and it paints a very bad picture of Christianity to them." (responding to Ian, 15th October 2011)

Yet, when someone questions your stance on things, you don't like it. I'm not saying that Ian was in the right for labelling theistic evolutionism as being "borderline heresy" (as much as I think it is wrong scrupturally and academically)...but you can't have it both ways.

If you or anyone else puts forward a thread entitled "Is evolution a lie?" and you yourself know or believe it isn't, then why ask the question in the first place, or why just continue to make throwaway comments like you have done and not expect people to react and say things back?

Like I said...I think quite highly of you for you wanting to reach others. Sadly, not many people are concerned with the "lost" which I find very disturbing...but going on about being picked on won't wash when you make comments like you have about others.

The only people misrepresenting the data is these creationist websites! None of these sites use credible "proof" for their arguements