• Welcome to Christian Forums
  1. Welcome to Christian Forums, a forum to discuss Christianity in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to be able to join in fellowship with Christians all over the world.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon and God Bless!

  2. The forums in the Christian Congregations category are now open only to Christian members. Please review our current Faith Groups list for information on which faith groups are considered to be Christian faiths. Christian members please remember to read the Statement of Purpose threads for each forum within Christian Congregations before posting in the forum.
  3. Please note there is a new rule regarding the posting of videos. It reads, "Post a summary of the videos you post . An exception can be made for music videos.". Unless you are simply sharing music, please post a summary, or the gist, of the video you wish to share.
  4. There have been some changes in the Life Stages section involving the following forums: Roaring 20s, Terrific Thirties, Fabulous Forties, and Golden Eagles. They are changed to Gen Z, Millennials, Gen X, and Golden Eagles will have a slight change.
  5. CF Staff, Angels and Ambassadors; ask that you join us in praying for the world in this difficult time, asking our Holy Father to stop the spread of the virus, and for healing of all affected.
  6. We are no longer allowing posts or threads that deny the existence of Covid-19. Members have lost loved ones to this virus and are grieving. As a Christian site, we do not need to add to the pain of the loss by allowing posts that deny the existence of the virus that killed their loved one. Future post denying the Covid-19 existence, calling it a hoax, will be addressed via the warning system.
  7. There has been an addition to the announcement regarding unacceptable nick names. The phrase "Let's go Brandon" actually stands for a profanity and will be seen as a violation of the profanity rule in the future.

Presumptuous Creationists

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by DialecticMaterialist, Sep 8, 2002.

  1. I notice all creationist proofs/articles are never, ever published in a repsected scientific journal, like scientific america.

    In fact the only place creationist theory is taken seriously is in churches and religious journals. That to me in itself speaks voulmes.

    Do you really believe that 1 or 2 posts are going to refute a 120 year strong theory supported by 99.9 percent of biologists? Doesn't that seem a bit presumptuous?

    If someone made apost saying they could "disprove einstein" like the one here: http://www.thedeepdark.com/cgi-bin/ikonboard/topic.cgi?forum=4&topic=184&replies=31


    wouldn't you be more then a bit apprehensive?

    Isn't such a belief more then a bit presumptuous?

    It seems odd that Xians talk about the value of trust and faith, yet believe that the world's top biologists are spreading falsehoods for no really reason other then the fact that some fringe scientists have questioned the theory.

    I mean, do they not realize in light of every scientific theory, there are a few quacks who question it? Vilovosky and modern astronomy for example. It seems thus their faith and trust are very selective indeed.
     
    We teamed up with Faith Counseling. Can they help you today?
  2. VeraciousMaven

    VeraciousMaven Jesus Saves!

    753
    +2
    Creationism is thought so poorly of that any scientific journal would be put to shame by publishing it. That's probably why you don't see any proofs in Scientific America.

    But regarding the other points, why not let people question these scientific practices? If it is the truth, then this questioning will only confirm it.
     
  3. Late_Cretaceous

    Late_Cretaceous <font color="#880000" ></font&g

    +106
    Catholic
    Science is all about questioning. THat is how science progresses. Yes, it is true that sometimes certain scientific notions become almost dogmatic with a few proponents - but the weight of new evidence generally convinces the whole scientific community eventually.

    Scientists such as Biologist John Davison from the Uof Vermont do question evolution without censure. If his or someone elses arguments had enough merit they could eventually overturn or rewrite the whole theory. Yet evolutionary theory has remained in place in face of challenges. That is what makes it good and valuable science - because it is questioned. The basic concept of evolution has remained as new evidence has accumulated, the basic concpet has remained even as the theory has been updated. It is unlikely - but not impossible - that evolutionary theory could be overturned in favor of a whole new theory - but creationism does not pose a serious challenge. Anyone who did find a better, but contradictory theory to evolution would likely face opposition but in the end would probably walk home with the NObel prize.
     
  4. LightBearer

    LightBearer Veteran

    +47
    Jehovahs Witness
    Do you think a 120 year old Theory is going to refute a 6,000 year old Fact.
     
  5. Douglaangu

    Douglaangu Dance Commander

    330
    +3
    Atheist
    Whoops, looks like you're ignoring all dating methods, and the known age of the earth.

    The earth is 4.5-5 billion years old. This is not a theory. This is a fact.
     
  6. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    I notice that no satanic worship articles are published in Christian magazines. I think that speaks volumes, don't you?
     
  7. LightBearer

    LightBearer Veteran

    +47
    Jehovahs Witness
    True, but man has only been around for 6,000 years so the FACT of creation as known to men has been for that period.

    And you clearly stated it was only a Theory and that it was only 120 years old.  And hasn't it changed many, many times in such a little time.  What a confusing theory it is.
     
  8. blader

    blader Evilutionist

    809
    +0
    Let me think.

    Satanism isn't Christian, so it's not being published in Christian magazines.

    Creationism isn't science, so it's not being published in science journals.

    Hey, makes sense to me. Glad we're on the same side. *High fives Nick*
     
  9. Caffeine Socialism

    Caffeine Socialism Imagine all the people.

    380
    +0
    That makes me feel all warm and fuzzy inside.
     
  10. blader

    blader Evilutionist

    809
    +0
    Perhaps it's not the theory that is confusing, but it's you that is confused?
     
  11. chickenman

    chickenman evil unamerican

    +6
    ahahaha, ahaha aha
     
  12. Late_Cretaceous

    Late_Cretaceous <font color="#880000" ></font&g

    +106
    Catholic
    The old "it's only a theory strawman" draws upon the fact that the word theory had several meanings. When used in science, "theory" means a group of principles based on observation that are used to explain natural phenomenon. When used in vernacular, "theory" often means speculation or conjecture. These are very different meanings.

    From the merriam webster's dictionary:
    the·o·ry
    Pronunciation: 'thE-&-rE, 'thi(-&)r-E
    Function: noun
    Inflected Form(s): plural -ries
    Etymology: Late Latin theoria, from Greek theOria, from theOrein
    Date: 1592
    1 : the analysis of a set of facts in their relation to one another
    2 : abstract thought : SPECULATION
    3 : the general or abstract principles of a body of fact, a science, or an art <music theory>
    4 a : a belief, policy, or procedure proposed or followed as the basis of action <her method is based on the theory that all children want to learn> b : an ideal or hypothetical set of facts, principles, or circumstances -- often used in the phrase in theory <in theory, we have always advocated freedom for all>
    5 : a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena <wave theory of light>
    6 a : a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation b : an unproved assumption : CONJECTURE c : a body of theorems presenting a concise systematic view of a subject <theory of equations>



    Can you enlighten me as to the evidence for the fact that the world is only 6000 years old?
     
  13. Cantuar

    Cantuar Forever England

    +3
    Agnostic
    Says so in the Bible. Who needs science?
     
  14. RufusAtticus

    RufusAtticus PopGen Grad Student

    +9
    No. That's the bacterial infection.
     
  15. I know its ok to question science, but one should do so in a respectful/realistic manner, posting something from a MB and going "well this refutes evolution" is very presumptuous to say the least.
     
  16. LightBearer

    LightBearer Veteran

    +47
    Jehovahs Witness
    I did not&nbsp;say that the world was 6,000 years old, I said man is 6,000 year old.&nbsp; The bible allows for any age you or science wants to put upon it.
     
  17. Sky

    Sky Active Member

    603
    +0
    Man is actually 50,000 or more years old.
     
  18. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    Which man? I'd like to ask him a few questions about stuff that happened 40,000 years ago.
     
  19. Sky

    Sky Active Member

    603
    +0
    Why do you have to be so sarcastic?
     
  20. npetreley

    npetreley pumpkin sailor

    +2
    Don't blame me, I evolved this way.
     
Loading...