When did you decide to become a creationist?

JamesDaJust · Nov 12, 2007

consol said:
and what convinced you that creationism was right for you?

People that are intellectually honest convince me everyday along with my faith.

Exposed Religion.

On Darwinism
Approx. 57 min.
In this fascinating interview, UC Berkeley's Professor Johnson offers his unique insight into the philosophical basis of modern Darwinian theory and the many scientific problems which confront it. With his breadth of knowledge and keen intellect, he brings a fresh perspective to the timeless issue of origins. Presented by UCSB as part of the Focus on Origins series.

10th down from top.
http://www.theapologiaproject.org/video_library.htm

consol · Nov 12, 2007

JamesDaJust said:
People that are intellectually honest convince me everyday along with my faith.

Exposed Religion.

On Darwinism
Approx. 57 min.
In this fascinating interview, UC Berkeley's Professor Johnson offers his unique insight into the philosophical basis of modern Darwinian theory and the many scientific problems which confront it. With his breadth of knowledge and keen intellect, he brings a fresh perspective to the timeless issue of origins. Presented by UCSB as part of the Focus on Origins series.

10th down from top.
http://www.theapologiaproject.org/video_library.htm

Do you never wonder why, with all of these assertions made against evolution,
no one ever published their findings?
don't you find that even a little odd? creationists are saying every day that is untrue and that is false,
surly a scientist somewhere on this planet is willing to stick his head up and say something?
why can't you find a single geologist willing to come forward, after all, if what creationists are saying is true,
they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, their names would go down in history, and think of the
good it would do creationism.

Do you see some people making an awful lot of money out of creationism?
Where does the money go from the sales of the hundreds of books and magazines about creationism?

It seems that anyone can produce a book extolling the virtues of creationism, without one shred of evidence,
they can write whatever they like and not one creationist will argue, it could be complete rubbish,
but just as long as it condemns evolution, it's OK.
Why do you think that is?

LittleNipper · Nov 12, 2007

consol said:
What age were you when you decided to be a creationist?
and what convinced you that creationism was right for you?

I became a "creationist" from the moment I was saved at age 12. I just always accepted GOD's Word and realized that non-believers hate GOD's Word (or at least are indifferent to it). I am now 54 and have never found non-believers totally sympathetic towards the Bible. When the daily Bible verse reading was thrown out of school, I was not at all surprised. When people said that the 6 Day Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the destruction of Sodom, the Plagues of Egypt, the Exodus, the fqll of Jericho, the birth of CHRIST, etc., etc., etc., never happened; I was not surprised. I have become impressed that there are men of science who are presently getting more involved with Biblical truth and that Biblical research has progressed from the mere digging up of ancient tombs, city mounds,and historic sites---------to scientific research, experimentation and investigations which are beginning to prove that naturalism is not the only thing available in fields of science. Supernatural things do happen, because GOD is a supernatural GOD and not a Natural GOD. The CREATOR of nature is not in subjection to nature.

Split Rock · Nov 12, 2007

JamesDaJust said:
People that are intellectually honest convince me everyday along with my faith.

Exposed Religion.

On Darwinism
Approx. 57 min.
In this fascinating interview, UC Berkeley's Professor Johnson offers his unique insight into the philosophical basis of modern Darwinian theory and the many scientific problems which confront it. With his breadth of knowledge and keen intellect, he brings a fresh perspective to the timeless issue of origins. Presented by UCSB as part of the Focus on Origins series.

10th down from top.
http://www.theapologiaproject.org/video_library.htm

Johnson is a lawyer who knows little of science. His training and experience allows him to argue any side of a debate regardless of which is correct. That is what lawyers do.

TheOutsider · Nov 12, 2007

consol said:
Do you never wonder why, with all of these assertions made against evolution,
no one ever published their findings?
don't you find that even a little odd? creationists are saying every day that is untrue and that is false,
surly a scientist somewhere on this planet is willing to stick his head up and say something?
why can't you find a single geologist willing to come forward, after all, if what creationists are saying is true,
they have nothing to lose and everything to gain, their names would go down in history, and think of the
good it would do creationism.

It's the Evil Atheist Conspiracy that is holding them down! They don't want the TRUTH to come out about how all of science is bunk and none of our technology really works!!1!1 Magic is real!!!!

SmoothSamShade · Nov 12, 2007

LittleNipper said:
I became a "creationist" from the moment I was saved at age 12. I just always accepted GOD's Word and realized that non-believers hate GOD's Word (or at least are indifferent to it). I am now 54 and have never found non-believers totally sympathetic towards the Bible. When the daily Bible verse reading was thrown out of school, I was not at all surprised. When people said that the 6 Day Creation, the Flood, the Tower of Babel, the destruction of Sodom, the Plagues of Egypt, the Exodus, the fqll of Jericho, the birth of CHRIST, etc., etc., etc., never happened; I was not surprised. I have become impressed that there are men of science who are presently getting more involved with Biblical truth and that Biblical research has progressed from the mere digging up of ancient tombs, city mounds,and historic sites---------to scientific research, experimentation and investigations which are beginning to prove that naturalism is not the only thing available in fields of science. Supernatural things do happen, because GOD is a supernatural GOD and not a Natural GOD. The CREATOR of nature is not in subjection to nature.

You rule. It seems to me we could all take a few lessons from you. I agree with you completely.

Dal M. · Nov 12, 2007

JamesDaJust said:
People that are intellectually honest convince me everyday along with my faith.

And yet you use Phil Johnson, author of the Wedge document, as your example of intellectual honesty. You're getting dangerously close to self-parody here, James.

Inan3 · Nov 12, 2007

NailsII said:
Intelligent design is an illusion. Things look too complicate to have arisen by chance because if chance alone was responsible, we wouldn't be here to discuss it.
Bacterial flagella. Simple really, have a look at a type IV secretory system.
You'll find they are made up of similar components. For a great explaination of why ID is wrong, click on this link to see Dr. Miller talk about the Dover trial. Note the good doctor gave evidence at that trial, and his testimony was sufficient to debunk Behe's misconceptions

There are things that are "irreducibly complex" and will cease to function when taken apart, or built with pieces missing. Logic tells us that. But evolution doesn't work in this manner, gradual steps are involved over many generations.
Just imagine how engines have been modified by human designers over the last hundred years, what works has continued and what can be improved has been discarded. The main difference is that we still have evidence of genetic information that no longer works, like redundant genes for haemoglobin or vitamin C sysnthesis. Also intelligent design would enable the re-invention of parts from scratch, evolution cannnot do this.
But at the end of the day, humans have not been intelligently designed. Our spines are insufficient for upright walking, our cartlidge is too weak and our immune systems insufficient to fight off many diseases. Our eyes are very badly designed, incorporating a blind spot as well as having to endure light passing through the blood vessels, a totally unnessessary situation.
It is obvious that you will not understand how it works unless you study the evidence, andI do not have the time to real off a great list for you to read and watch here.
If you don't have the mental capacity to envisage such a system that takes millions of years then that is fine. But there really is a mountain of evidence to support this theory.
And by the way, Darwin's theory was also at odds with Lamark's idea of modification.

I'm sorry to have to say this to you, Nails, but this particular video says nothing. Oh yes, he does a lot of talking but he actually doesn't say very much. How he won in the court I'm not sure but we all know that court cases have been won on technicalities and other such things and don't always represent the truth. That's why innocent people are convicted and guilty ones are let go. This court case proves nothing about the theory of evolutions validity. It just proves Behe has to present his case better in the future.

Wiccan_Child · Nov 12, 2007

Inan3 said:
I'm sorry to have to say this to you, Nails, but this particular video says nothing. Oh yes, he does a lot of talking but he actually doesn't say very much.

He shows how one of the human chromosomes looks exactly like the tip-to-tail fusion of two non-human primate chromosomes. It even has two centromeres!

Inan3 said:
How he won in the court I'm not sure but we all know that court cases have been won on technicalities and other such things and don't always represent the truth.

Technicalities? Like the technicality that Creationism isn't scientifically valid?

Inan3 said:
That's why innocent people are convicted and guilty ones are let go. This court case proves nothing about the theory of evolutions validity. It just proves Behe has to present his case better in the future.

Yeah, like present some facts.

NailsII · Nov 12, 2007

Inan3 said:
I'm sorry to have to say this to you, Nails, but this particular video says nothing. Oh yes, he does a lot of talking but he actually doesn't say very much. How he won in the court I'm not sure but we all know that court cases have been won on technicalities and other such things and don't always represent the truth. That's why innocent people are convicted and guilty ones are let go. This court case proves nothing about the theory of evolutions validity. It just proves Behe has to present his case better in the future.

Shucks, I'm glad you broke it to me gently.
I found the video incredibly informative, and I can honestly say that there was no mis-representation of Professor Behe's case. When psuedo-science comes face to face with real science, there can only be one winner.

Behe chose what he believed to be an inpenatrable position and that no natural argument could explain his idea of irriducible complexity.
He was wrong.
ID is not science, nor is it based on science.

But you are right - this case doesn't prove evolution, it only disproves ID.
The reason why evolution is referred to as 'Darwin's theory' and not 'Darwin's law' is that scientist are rarely so conceited to think that good science is automatically fact.
There could be a multitude of discoveries ahead of us that seriously cast doubt on evolution, but until that day comes evolution is the greatest show on earth.
The only game in town.

The evidence for evolution really is that overwhelming.
I don't understand why anyone would want to ignore the evidence. I don't see how taking away the idea of a literal genesis would undermine your faith, or even change it in any meaningful way.

CACTUSJACKmankin · Nov 12, 2007

LittleNipper said:
When the daily Bible verse reading was thrown out of school, I was not at all surprised.

I'm not either, the first amendment is very clear on such issues.

to scientific research, experimentation and investigations which are beginning to prove that naturalism is not the only thing available in fields of science. Supernatural things do happen, because GOD is a supernatural GOD and not a Natural GOD. The CREATOR of nature is not in subjection to nature.

supernaturalism is unscientific. that doesnt mean it doesnt exist, it just cant be investigated using science. supernaturalism has never been demonstrated scientifically.

NailsII · Nov 12, 2007

LittleNipper said:
Supernatural things do happen, because GOD is a supernatural GOD and not a Natural GOD. The CREATOR of nature is not in subjection to nature.

How convenient.

Inan3 · Nov 12, 2007

NailsII said:
But you are right - this case doesn't prove evolution, it only disproves ID.

It did neither. All a court case can do is say one side presented better than the other.

The reason why evolution is referred to as 'Darwin's theory' and not 'Darwin's law' is that scientist are rarely so conceited to think that good science is automatically fact.

This is so not true that it makes me want to barf. I can't believe you say this. It's like you are following this cult and scientists can do no wrong. You can't see the flaw in this? Scientists are human and can be just as bad as the next guy. Some of the scientists on this forum are so full of themselves it's laughable. Oh, they try to put on a humble front but they totally reveal who they really are when you challenge them. I'm not against scientists no matter what any of you think but I am against making them into statues of gold and worshipping them.

There could be a multitude of discoveries ahead of us that seriously cast doubt on evolution, but until that day comes evolution is the greatest show on earth.
The only game in town.

That day is already here. Just use it for what it is and get on with it.

The evidence for evolution really is that overwhelming.
I don't understand why anyone would want to ignore the evidence. I don't see how taking away the idea of a literal genesis would undermine your faith, or even change it in any meaningful way.

I will say this again. Why would I ever consider changing my belief that Genesis was literal? Though, I have seen this "overwhelming" evidence, I do not consider the TOE translation of it compelling enough to change my belief nor do I see the need to. The evidence that I see is supported by Creation if one will only look at it open mindedly.

SmoothSamShade · Nov 12, 2007

Inan3 said:
It did neither. All a court case can do is say one side presented better than the other.

This is so not true that it makes me want to barf. I can't believe you say this. It's like you are following this cult and scientists can do no wrong. You can't see the flaw in this? Scientists are human and can be just as bad as the next guy. Some of the scientists on this forum are so full of themselves it's laughable. Oh, they try to put on a humble front but they totally reveal who they really are when you challenge them. I'm not against scientists no matter what any of you think but I am against making them into statues of gold and worshipping them.

That day is already here. Just use it for what it is and get on with it.

I will say this again. Why would I ever consider changing my belief that Genesis was literal? Though, I have seen this "overwhelming" evidence, I do not consider the TOE translation of it compelling enough to change my belief nor do I see the need to. The evidence that I see is supported by Creation if one will only look at it open mindedly.

Well spoken as usual. you are a handful. I love it. The truth will set some of us free. Good Job.

Inan3 · Nov 12, 2007

SmoothSamShade said:
Well spoken as usual. you are a handful. I love it. The truth will set some of us free. Good Job.

Thank you. It's so nice to see those "after His kind" on this forum.

Inan3 · Nov 12, 2007

NailsII said:
I don't see how taking away the idea of a literal genesis would undermine your faith, or even change it in any meaningful way.

Not that you will read it (I hope you do) but I thought this was a site that might answer some of your questions.
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_caic/#iv

TheOutsider · Nov 13, 2007

Inan3 said:
Not that you will read it (I hope you do) but I thought this was a site that might answer some of your questions.
http://www.icr.org/home/resources/resources_tracts_caic/#iv

Neither creation nor evolution is testable, in the sense of being observable experimentally.

Evolution is testable and has been shown both in the lab and in nature numerous times. Would you like to see some examples?

Both can be stated and discussed as scientific models however, and it is poor science and poor education to restrict instruction to only one of them.

How is Creationism a scientific model? What predictions can we make using it? How does it actually explain anything?

Since creation was completed in the past, we would not expect to see it take place now,

How nice of them to admit that they have no evidence at all.

whereas evolution is supposed to be still going on. Yet it has never been observed and the entropy principle seems to guarantee that it will never occur at all.

An out and out lie. Evolution has been observed countless times. Would you like some examples or will you just hand-wave them like all of the other evidence we have given you?

NailsII · Nov 13, 2007

Inan3 said:
It did neither. All a court case can do is say one side presented better than the other.

I'm afraid you are quite mistaken on this.
The evidence for ID was as good as the evidence for astrology - and Behe admitted that his definition of scientific and testable criteria allowed this. But to give the an credit, at least he told the truth.

Inan3 said:
This is so not true that it makes me want to barf. I can't believe you say this. It's like you are following this cult and scientists can do no wrong. You can't see the flaw in this? Scientists are human and can be just as bad as the next guy. Some of the scientists on this forum are so full of themselves it's laughable. Oh, they try to put on a humble front but they totally reveal who they really are when you challenge them. I'm not against scientists no matter what any of you think but I am against making them into statues of gold and worshipping them.

But the whole point of the concept is that scientists are humans and can do wrong.
That is why a hypothesis has to be supported by evidence and replicated by others to confirm results. If this is successful, it may be considered a theory - which is great until evidence that doesn't conform is uncovered. The we have a dilema; and can only be resolved by validating the new evidence (and debunking the theory) or visa versa.
As I have posted many times before - nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution. If evolution were a myth, then modern medicine and medical research would be a shambles.
And please be careful of how you accuse people of worshipping false idols (made of gold, no less!!)
i could go straight to hell for that one!!

Inan3 said:
That day is already here. Just use it for what it is and get on with it.

Evidence please.
Credible evidence, that is.

Inan3 said:
I will say this again. Why would I ever consider changing my belief that Genesis was literal? Though, I have seen this "overwhelming" evidence, I do not consider the TOE translation of it compelling enough to change my belief nor do I see the need to. The evidence that I see is supported by Creation if one will only look at it open mindedly.

I don't understand how you can be so misguided.
If genesis predicted the discovery of common decent and debunked it - then it would be very different.

Professor Richard Dawkins. said:
There is such a thing as being so open-minded that your brains fall out.

Professor Richard Dawkins. said:
…the individual organism is a very important unit in the hierarchy of life…But however unitary and discrete an individual wolf or buffalo may be, the package is temporary and unique. (pp. 216-217)…Abraham was left in no doubt that the future lay with his seed, not his individuality. God knew his Darwinism.

Professor Richard Dawkins. said:
...when two opposite points of view are expressed with equal intensity, the truth does not necessarily lie exactly halfway between them. It is possible for one side to be simply wrong.

Inan3 · Nov 13, 2007

Neither creation nor evolution is testable, in the sense of being observable experimentally.

TheOutsider said:
Evolution is testable and has been shown both in the lab and in nature numerous times. Would you like to see some examples?

Yes, I would like some examples of evolution being observed experimentally.

whereas evolution is supposed to be still going on. Yet it has never been observed and the entropy principle seems to guarantee that it will never occur at all.

TheOutsider said:
Evolution has been observed countless times. Would you like some examples or will you just hand-wave them like all of the other evidence we have given you?

Firstly, I do not hand-wave evidence that you give me, I just don't feel the evidence given is acceptable.

What evolution have you observed?

JamesDaJust · Nov 13, 2007

Rules of atheism "Science":

Rule #1 God is IRRELEVANT
Rule #2 If God is relevant, see Rule #1
Rule #3 If God might be relevant, see Rule #1

Those who argue that there is merely a difference in
degree rather than a difference in kind between chimpanzees and us are fooling themselves.
----------------
Who has deceiv'd thee so oft as thy self? ~ Benjamin Franklin
----------------
The reason the theory of evolution is so controversial is that it is the main scientific prop for scientific naturalism. Students first learn that "evolution is a fact," and then they gradually learn more and more about what that "fact" means. It means that all living things are the product of mindless material forces such as chemical laws, natural selection, and random variation. So God is totally out of the picture, and humans (like everything else) are the accidental product of a purposeless universe. Do you wonder why a lot of people suspect that these claims go far beyond the available evidence?~Phillip Johnson
------------------------
We take the side of science in spite of the patent absurdity of some of its constructs, in spite of its failure to fulfill many of its extravagant promises of health and life, in spite of the tolerance of the scientific community for unsubstantiated just-so stories, because we have a prior commitment, a commitment to materialism. It is not that the methods and institutions of science somehow compel us to accept a material explanation of the phenomenal world, but, on the contrary, that we are forced by our a priori adherence to material causes to create an apparatus of investigation and a set of concepts that produce material explanations, no matter how counter-intuitive, no matter how mystifying to the uninitiated. Moreover, that materialism is an absolute, for we cannot allow a Divine Foot in the door. ~ Richard Lewontin
---------------------
Occasionally, a scientist discouraged by the consistent failure of theories purporting to explain some problem like the first appearance of life will suggest that perhaps supernatural creation is a tenable hypothesis in this one instance. Sophisticated naturalists instantly recoil with horror, because they know that there is no way to tell God when he has to stop. If God created the first organism, then how do we know he didn't do the same thing to produce all those animal groups that appear so suddenly in the Cambrian rocks? Given the existence of a designer ready and willing to do the work, why should we suppose that random mutations and natural selection are responsible for such marvels of engineering as the eye and the wing? ~ Phillip Johnson-
--------------------
We all believe, as an article of faith, that life evolved from dead matter on this planet. It is just that its complexity is so great, it is hard for us to imagine that it did. ~ Harold Urey
I want to return now to the charge that science is just a faith. The more extreme version of that chargeand one that I often encounter as both a scientist and a rationalistis an accusation of zealotry and bigotry in scientists themselves as great as that found in religious people. Sometimes there may be a little bit of justice in this accusation. ~ Richard Dawkins
----------------------------
Evolution is a religion. This was true of evolution in the beginning, and it is true of evolution still today. ~ Michael Ruse
--------------------------

Virtually every major scientific and medical journal has been humbled recently by publishing findings that are later discredited. The flurry of episodes has led many people to ask why authors, editors and independent expert reviewers all failed to detect the problems before publication.
Molecular biology has shown that even the simplest of all living systems on the earth today, bacterial cells, are exceedingly complex objects. Although the tiniest bacterial cells are incredibly small, weighing less than 10-12 gms, each is in effect a veritable micro-miniaturized factory containing thousands of exquisitely designed pieces of intricate molecular machinery, made up altogether of one hundred thousand million atoms, far more complicated than any machine built by man and absolutely without parallel in the nonliving world. ~ Michael Denton

-------------------------
The only thing an evolutionist can be certain of is that he can never be certain of anything.
For now, evolutionists are sitting pretty. They hold the reigns of power in the academy, they control federal research funds, and they have unlimited access to the media. But, like English colonialists trying to keep a colony in check, they are in a distinct minority. A feature of colonialism is that colonists are always vastly outnumbered by the people they are controlling and that maintaining control depends on keeping the requisite power structures in place. The reason intelligent design has become such a threat is that it is giving the majority of Americans, who dont buy the atheistic picture of evolution peddled in all the textbooks, the tools with which to effectively challenge the evolutionists power structures.
----------------------------------

"God judged it better to bring good out of evil than
not to permit any evil to exist."

When did you decide to become a creationist?

Veteran

Well-Known Member

Contributor

Conflation of Blathers

Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure

SmoothSamShade

Guest

...more things in heaven and earth, Horatio...

Veteran Saint

Contributor

Life-long student of biological science

Scientist

Life-long student of biological science

Veteran Saint

SmoothSamShade

Guest

Veteran Saint

Veteran Saint

Pope Iason Ouabache the Obscure

Life-long student of biological science

Veteran Saint

Veteran

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency