C
crimsondeath
Guest
to me it seems that creationists arn't really trying to find the truth, they just want to disprove evolution or any other theory that doesn't comply with their "truth".
-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,217
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
We have already found Him.
- [bible]John 14:6[/bible]
- [bible]1 Timothy 2:3-5[/bible]
crimsondeath said:
You guys keep looking --- but in the wrong spot.
- [bible]2 Timothy 3:7[/bible]
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,217
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
That is correct they aren't looking for truth.
They are looking for either Truth, TRUTH, Truth, TRUTH, Truth, TRUTH, Truth or TRUTH.
They are looking for either Truth, TRUTH, Truth, TRUTH, Truth, TRUTH, Truth or TRUTH.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,217
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
That is correct they aren't looking for truth.
They are looking for either Truth, TRUTH, Truth, TRUTH, Truth, TRUTH, Truth or TRUTH.
The whole truth, and nothing but the truth, eh?
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
Creation is insupportable using modern scientific method. To support it requires a bending of true scientific theory. Thus, we get a creationist attacking anything that denies creation, but it is difficult to advance anything that evinces creation over other theories.
(I'm ID btw)
(I'm ID btw)
Upvote
0
Upvote
0
tocis
Warrior of Thor
Please note that the original term was "theory", not "truth".
After all the masks have been torn away and one gets to the core of creationism, for all I know it always turns out that creationist ideas only work if we are to assume that miracles are possible and have been worked. This is a slap in the face of every bit of science out there, for if we assume that there are no rules in the universe that work reliably, we can forget about it all. Science seeks to describe the observable universe. If anything can happen anytime, why even try to?
For a more thorough explanation please check one of the experts' postings, some of which are bound to post in here soon I trust.
Upvote
0
Creation supposes an insupportable conclusion to a rational question. It also requires that we assume that natural laws have not always been so definite and have changed. Assuming that all observable evidence is specious one cannot derive anything, you are reduced to the brain in a jar problem proposed by philosophers. Science takes for granted that evidence does not lie, and moves from there. Young earth theory requires land forms such as the Grand Canyon to have been carved in a year. To even purport that theory requires such a gross misunderstanding of any theory yet conceived of by any geologist. To dream that so much rock could be destroyed in one year by water erosion defies my sense of reason.
I suppose you are technically correct in asserting that my termonology of "bend" was incorrect, I should have used "shatter"
Scientific principle is not likely to allow for a "God did it" answer to the questions that we cannot solve. I follow Christ fervently, but I do not allow for miracles within the realm of science. When I'm doing a basic sublimation I do not assume that the theories that I've worked so intimately with before will suddenly fail me when subliming caffeine.
(btw I'm pretty into the whole science thing BS in Biochem and all)
I suppose you are technically correct in asserting that my termonology of "bend" was incorrect, I should have used "shatter"
Scientific principle is not likely to allow for a "God did it" answer to the questions that we cannot solve. I follow Christ fervently, but I do not allow for miracles within the realm of science. When I'm doing a basic sublimation I do not assume that the theories that I've worked so intimately with before will suddenly fail me when subliming caffeine.
(btw I'm pretty into the whole science thing BS in Biochem and all)
Upvote
0
It does bend any, it's unscientific.
The same science that brought the computer you are right now you wouldn't argue against, yet you argue against that which really flies in the face of "beliefs," which doesn't matter for anything.
The whole world can communicate using science without needing a translator. Yet, they don't see eye to eye on "beliefs."
Belief, who cares! I believe my pants are blue. I believe this computer works. I believe the time is right. I believe the stars shine. I believe that 2+2=4. I believe that congress served us right. I believe that the president has our interests in mind. I believe that God is on his side. I believe that God is up in Heaven. I believe that God has 7 heads with 10 horns. I believe that dark matter is Jello. I believe that my engine made of spam will work indefinetly.
All of those are my "beliefs" hypothetically. You probably agree with some of them and not with all of them, BUT DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME I'M WRONG! You know why? Because "they are my beliefs!" WAAA!
I know my pants are blue and I can prove it. I know the stars shine because I can see them. I know that God has 7 heads with 10 horns because................oh fuddy-dud!
This whole idea where I can get offended and YOU DEAL with it is just pathetic and obvious.
You take this term "belief," the end-all of blanket terms and use it to protect yourself at all cost. It's just a blanket term for Pete's sake! LOL It means nothing!
Knowledge however, implies proof. Some of your "God's Creation" or "Their God's Creation" demands proof, probably by genetic disposition. It's a shame we can't all be like that, but that's my "belief!" LOL
So Creationists arguements for God? "I KNOW HIM, I FEEL HIM IN MY HEART!" Well, the courts would laugh you out on that evidence. It's like a suspected murderer saying, "Your honor, I know I didn't do it because I wasn't there" and getting away with it. EVEN our courts know what to do! They would ask him for proof, "who were you with and where at what time?"
All Creationists can be relegated back to the above argument with very little effort if they truly care about communicating and not prostyletizing/indoctrinating/empirically stating. That's where they end up.
Try this, try talking to one face to face. Which them show themselves the door in a hurry.
This board, it's just novocaine for them.
The same science that brought the computer you are right now you wouldn't argue against, yet you argue against that which really flies in the face of "beliefs," which doesn't matter for anything.
The whole world can communicate using science without needing a translator. Yet, they don't see eye to eye on "beliefs."
Belief, who cares! I believe my pants are blue. I believe this computer works. I believe the time is right. I believe the stars shine. I believe that 2+2=4. I believe that congress served us right. I believe that the president has our interests in mind. I believe that God is on his side. I believe that God is up in Heaven. I believe that God has 7 heads with 10 horns. I believe that dark matter is Jello. I believe that my engine made of spam will work indefinetly.
All of those are my "beliefs" hypothetically. You probably agree with some of them and not with all of them, BUT DON'T YOU DARE TELL ME I'M WRONG! You know why? Because "they are my beliefs!" WAAA!
I know my pants are blue and I can prove it. I know the stars shine because I can see them. I know that God has 7 heads with 10 horns because................oh fuddy-dud!
This whole idea where I can get offended and YOU DEAL with it is just pathetic and obvious.
You take this term "belief," the end-all of blanket terms and use it to protect yourself at all cost. It's just a blanket term for Pete's sake! LOL It means nothing!
Knowledge however, implies proof. Some of your "God's Creation" or "Their God's Creation" demands proof, probably by genetic disposition. It's a shame we can't all be like that, but that's my "belief!" LOL
So Creationists arguements for God? "I KNOW HIM, I FEEL HIM IN MY HEART!" Well, the courts would laugh you out on that evidence. It's like a suspected murderer saying, "Your honor, I know I didn't do it because I wasn't there" and getting away with it. EVEN our courts know what to do! They would ask him for proof, "who were you with and where at what time?"
All Creationists can be relegated back to the above argument with very little effort if they truly care about communicating and not prostyletizing/indoctrinating/empirically stating. That's where they end up.
Try this, try talking to one face to face. Which them show themselves the door in a hurry.
This board, it's just novocaine for them.
Upvote
0
kermit
Legend
- Nov 13, 2003
- 15,477
- 807
- 51
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
Christians, myself included, have found Truth. Most of us accept that the Truth we've found is spirtitual. Where the problem lies those Christians who think that the Bible is literally true in every way.
This premise is demostratably false
There is obviously some factual inaccuracy in this verse above so why should we accept that Genesis is factually accurate?
This premise is demostratably false
10 cubit diameter and 30 cubit circumfrence. This states that pi is exactly 3 which we know not to be true.
There is obviously some factual inaccuracy in this verse above so why should we accept that Genesis is factually accurate?
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,217
- 52,662
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
I say it's 1971 miles from Boston to Denver, Kermit; am I right or wrong?
Upvote
0
Provide longitude / latitude with second level accuracy of both your starting and ending locations and I can answer your question.
Upvote
0
kermit
Legend
- Nov 13, 2003
- 15,477
- 807
- 51
- Faith
- Christian
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Democrat
All I know is that it's along drive.
If it's 1900 miles or 2200 miles it's still a long drive.
Details do not matter in greater truths. The word of God is the greatest Truth so if the details of the Bible are wrong in some places the Truth still remains.
Upvote
0
Sorry but we've already found the truth in reality where apes don't breed humans, each species breeds its own kind and humans rules over the animals. So we no longer need to search for it.
Upvote
0
That's because scientists are trying to find a way for apes to breed humans so they can contradict reality rather than support the fact that no animal breeds human beings but humans.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
