People discover evolution, not creation...

[aeroz19]

But even if he is a creationist, it is still true that he did not come to that position by examing the evidence in nature, but on the basis of an erroneous belief that the bible and science are incompatible.

This is erroneous. Why do so many Christians on these forums believe the Bible and science are incompatible, and that the Bible contradicts science? The truth is that the Bible and science go hand-in-hand. Nowhere does the Bible contradict science.

However, everywhere it seems to contradict science, but that is because people like to take certain verses, single them out, and make them say things they don't say. People don't like to study the Bible and compare scripture with scripture. But if you do study, you will see that Biblical science and science go perfectly together. In fact, the Bible predicts things in science before we discover them.

Anyway, it seemed to me that the person in my example had become a creationist, but even if he isn't, here is another example of someone who examined the facts and became a creationist: Dr. Walt Brown. He was an evolutionist for years before he became a Creationist.

 

[Brahe]

This is erroneous. Why do so many Christians on these forums believe the Bible and science are incompatible, and that the Bible contradicts science? The truth is that the Bible and science go hand-in-hand. Nowhere does the Bible contradict science.

If the Bible is read as literal history, it most certainly does. Plants did not come before the Sun. Humans are not almost as old as the Earth itself. There was no global flood in human history. Humans have never lived to be hundreds of years old. Etc.

But if you do study, you will see that Biblical science and science go perfectly together. In fact, the Bible predicts things in science before we discover them.

Biblical science and actual science go perfectly together? The Bible predicted science before scientists discovered it? You will, no doubt, provide examples. I mean, it's not like a creationist has ever lied before!

Oh, and I do hope that you don't think of using the number of stars as an example, for that will just finalize your reputation.

Anyway, it seemed to me that the person in my example had become a creationist, but even if he isn't, here is another example of someone who examined the facts and became a creationist: Dr. Walt Brown. He was an evolutionist for years before he became a Creationist.

Amazing. So what facts did he uncover that made him a creationist? Why hasn't he published these amazing observations in a journal? Why have these facts not been found by other scientists?

 

[gluadys]

Anyway, it seemed to me that the person in my example had become a creationist, but even if he isn't, here is another example of someone who examined the facts and became a creationist: Dr. Walt Brown. He was an evolutionist for years before he became a Creationist.

Read the opening post again.

There is no denying that some people have moved from a pro-evolution to a pro-creationist stance.

The question is: what motivated them to change their mind?

Did they change for a scientific reason (they found the evidence supported creationism more than evoution) or did they change for a theological reason (they decided for reasons of faith to stand by a literal interpretation of the bible in spite of the scientific evidence against it.)

I have seen this question put to creationists on another board as well. Not one person was able to verify that anyone changed to a pro-creationist point of view for any scientific reason.

All persons, including scientists, who have publicly given reasons for making the switch, have affirmed that it was an act of faith, not a matter of discovering evidence that falsifies evolution.

If Dr. Walt Brown is an exception, then he should have somewhere on his web site or in his publications, some examples of the evidence which made him change his mind. I have his web site bookmarked and have read a fair bit of it. I have not found any discussion of evidence supporting creation or genuinely falsifying evolution. I have found considerable misrepresentation of the theory of evolution.

 

[Tomk80]

Read the opening post again.

There is no denying that some people have moved from a pro-evolution to a pro-creationist stance.

The question is: what motivated them to change their mind?

Did they change for a scientific reason (they found the evidence supported creationism more than evoution) or did they change for a theological reason (they decided for reasons of faith to stand by a literal interpretation of the bible in spite of the scientific evidence against it.)

I have seen this question put to creationists on another board as well. Not one person was able to verify that anyone changed to a pro-creationist point of view for any scientific reason.

All persons, including scientists, who have publicly given reasons for making the switch, have affirmed that it was an act of faith, not a matter of discovering evidence that falsifies evolution.

If Dr. Walt Brown is an exception, then he should have somewhere on his web site or in his publications, some examples of the evidence which made him change his mind. I have his web site bookmarked and have read a fair bit of it. I have not found any discussion of evidence supporting creation or genuinely falsifying evolution. I have found considerable misrepresentation of the theory of evolution.

In answer to your post, I'd like to add one reason for creationists to switch to evolution. As you said about dr Walt brown's website, it consisted of a lot of misrepresentation of evolution theory. This is something I've seen on a lot of other websites also. I think evolutionists who converted to creationism have two major reasons (one of these or both):
1. Putting faith in a literal reading of the bible above science.
2. Failing to understand evolution theory. Creationism offers a less abstract concept, and hence a way out.

 

[Pentecostal_Wind]

this post should end all Evelution v.s Creation debates ,we might as well look to God and try an receive him no matter what,cuz with evolution,whats there to look for when we die?or do you just rather live 70 years average in your life in this crazy world and take a chance and go to hell?

 

[Freodin]

this post should end all Evelution v.s Creation debates ,we might as well look to God and try an receive him no matter what,cuz with evolution,whats there to look for when we die?or do you just rather live 70 years average in your life in this crazy world and take a chance and go to hell?

If you stay on these boards, you will see that there are many people who have no problems with accepting Evolution AND "receiving God".

It has been posted on this forum in oversized red letters, but I think that is not enough. It should be the headline of this part of the forum, flashing, bold, in italics - emphazised in every possible way.

EVOLUTION IS NOT ATHEISM

 

[Aron-Ra]

This is erroneous. Why do so many Christians on these forums believe the Bible and science are incompatible, and that the Bible contradicts science? The truth is that the Bible and science go hand-in-hand. Nowhere does the Bible contradict science.

Except for in the words on the pages. But apart from them, no.

However, everywhere it seems to contradict science, but that is because people like to take certain verses, single them out, and make them say things they don't say.

Funny, in all my debates of "scripture", its always the creationist trying to get the Bible to say what it just can't be twisted into saying, while ignoring what they really do say, not just there, but consistently throughout the whole tome.

People don't like to study the Bible and compare scripture with scripture. But if you do study, you will see that Biblical science and science go perfectly together.

But only as long as you ignore one or the other.

Actually, in a small way, that is true. The mythic flood of Noah was based on the real flood of Ubar-Tutu, in the 29th century BCE. The Tower of Babel(on) was based on the ziggurate constructed in honor of Marduk, and their was a loss of language, (in a manner of speaking) because these were the very people who had invented syllabic text. Yet when their empire fell, (before the completion of the ziggurat) they soon became illiterate tribesmen, and remained so for the next thousand years, so that their own sacred traditions no longer made sense to them in writing. Their ancestral legends were kept alive orally all that time, which is why they have evolved so much, and have been so altered by the influences of neighboring religions, (Zoroaster, Dionysus, Amen-Ra, Mithras, Prometheus, Krsna, etc.) So while there is no science of any kind anywhere in the Bible, there are at least a few elements of actual cultural history mixed into the fables in a few places.

In fact, the Bible predicts things in science before we discover them.

You're going to have to give me an example of that. Because I don't believe you. I can think of a few things the Bible meant for us to expect that never came to pass, and I can think of several things were supposed to expect would never be found that were anyway.

Anyway, it seemed to me that the person in my example had become a creationist, but even if he isn't, here is another example of someone who examined the facts and became a creationist: Dr. Walt Brown. He was an evolutionist for years before he became a Creationist.

No, he wasn't. Neither was Dr. Jobe Martin, Jonathan Sarfati, Andrew Snelling, or anyone else. No one EVER became a creationist from a neutral, or opposite position, after surveying the evidence objectively. That is because it is possible to analyze the evidence in any critical or objective fashion, and somehow come away believing in magic, myths and mud-made-men afterward.