• 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.

Where is your evidence creationists?

Discussion in 'Creation & Evolution' started by revo74, Dec 8, 2011.

  1. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married

    I assert that you are an evolutionist in disguise with a bigger axe to grind than some evos....
     
  2. mdancin4theLord

    mdancin4theLord Well-Known Member

    923
    +31
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    Such arrogance....proves my point all along. The hate on your side is unbelievable.

    Every hear of Peter Hitchens, Matthew Parris, A.N Wilson, Antony Flew? All well educated men who either changed from being atheists to believers in God or questioned atheism.

    Creation Scientists with Outstanding Credentials


    Arrogant and way off base. Do you think that there are no people scientists or famous evolutionists that have believed in God?
     
  3. mdancin4theLord

    mdancin4theLord Well-Known Member

    923
    +31
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican

    How am I hypocritical. I am pointing out the hatred on your side. I don't hate anyone here.

    I believe it is weird that people spend the better part of their days posting and debating God....especially when they deny God exists. Why?
    What is the agenda?

    The arrogance from this side is unreal. To imply here like one poster did that we are stupid that no scientist in the world would fall for this stuff....well its wrong...and shows how far that side will go to attack believers. many famous atheists have become believers. And there are smart men and women of science who know that something can never come from nothing.

    Raymond Vahan Damadian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    John Baumgardner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    Creationist molecular biologist and microbiologist: Dr. Ian Macreadie

    Creation scientists and other biographies of interest

    Raymond Vahan Damadian - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
  4. mdancin4theLord

    mdancin4theLord Well-Known Member

    923
    +31
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican
    To say that people who believe in God are stupid....is an example of utter stupidity. The hate is coming from those who reject God and who are so angry at Him that....they feel they must debate it day and night. Why?


    Creation Scientists with Outstanding Credentials

    Creation scientists and other biographies of interest
     
  5. mdancin4theLord

    mdancin4theLord Well-Known Member

    923
    +31
    Non-Denom
    Married
    US-Republican

    I can't understand it either. I love discussing this subject with people who are respecting of my position. That is not the case here. We are told time and time again that all beleivers are stupid and that no people of science believe in God and creation. That simply is not true. I would not call it gusto...I would call it disgust and hatred...towards people they cant stand.
     
  6. JediMobius

    JediMobius The Guy with the Face

    +96
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    Perhaps you can find some common ground in the following: (I can't find the source, though.)

    "Gerald Schroeder, an MIT trained physicist, believes that modern science contains nothing inimical to a literal reading of Genesis. Indeed, modern science allows one to understand the "true literal meaning of the Creation narrative." To Schroeder, it is Einstein's relativity, the "distortion of time facing backwards in a forward rushing cosmos," that accounts for the compression of time in a 15-billion year-old universe into six days of creation.

    To Schroeder, the emergence of modern man can be dated to the beginning of writing. Archeologists date the first writing, he notes, "at five or six thousand years ago, the exact period that the Bible tells us the soul of Adam, the neshama, was created." To Schroeder, who cites the Targum of Onkelos, Adam was the first man who could write, and the creation of Adam from more primitive man was a divine ensoulment."

    I have thought for years that the relativity of time itself accounts for why 7 days appear as billions of years, and it does make sense that the significance of the creation of man is about our spiritual likeness, not our physical likeness. God is not physical, so how can the physical likeness be what is meant?

    Evolution has its flaws, but staunch creationism that denies scientific evidence has its flaws as well. The only Christian approach, I think, is to meet where the two intersect according upon scripture. Whatever science observes and discovers, after compensating for bias, can only be what God has created. This will line up with scripture, even if biased scientific analysis does not.

    Faith necessitates that we object to the origin of life from purely natural causes, and theology that we object to a history that contradicts Genesis, but evolution pertains to much more than these two things. The simplest concept of evolution is one of growth and adaptation within the different types of life, and part of fruitfully multiplying appears to be diversifying as well. But, butterflies are always butterflies. So, not only do I believe speciation as the means of diverse life from one common ancestor is preposterous on account of faith, it is also unsupported by scientific evidence.

    All this to say: physically, we are dust. We are from dust, and will return to dust. For this reason, there is no need to object to a physical relationship to the rest of creation. It's inherent. However, from within we are different creations. It is not the human mind that makes us so unique, all mammals have minds and some even quite intelligent ones. It is not by our physical nature that we have a relationship with God, so why is it necessary to reject a physical relationship to other primates (though it may only be a similarity, i.e. no biological common ancestry either)? Instead, why not focus on our unique spiritual creation? It would make for a much more poignant argument anyway.
     
  7. JediMobius

    JediMobius The Guy with the Face

    +96
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    Well, no, the thread pertains to creationism in general. The OP didn't define terms well.

    Old earth vs new earth is an unnecessary distinction. God created everything in 7 days, it just looks like a whole lot more through the cosmological history of a universe's speeding expansion.
     
  8. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    +150
    Agnostic
    Married
    US-Others
    You like putting words in our mouths. I want you to quote a single of one of my messages where I say that "people who believe in God are stupid". While you are at it, how about quoting any of those scientists with outstanding credentials saying that the world was created in 7 days?

    They are not "creation scientists" by the way, as none of them studies "creation". They are scientists that happen to believe that God had something to do with the formation of the universe.
     
  9. CabVet

    CabVet Question everything

    +150
    Agnostic
    Married
    US-Others
    It is not an unnecessary distinction. It is a distinction. Some people believe that the universe was created in 7 24 hour human periods. Others (like you I gather) tend to believe that those 7 days can be anything other than actual days.
     
  10. Fastener

    Fastener Guest

    +0
    Why? because creationism is bad, bad for you and bad for the society you live in, all it does to believers is damage.

    How can I hate or reject something I do not believe exists? how can I hate you for having been indoctrinate?
    did you ask to be indoctrinated? if you just believed in your religion and kept it to yourself there would be no arguments but you are not content with that are you, you think you should corrupt everything around you by denying the very thing that is keeping you alive, science, there are about 350 million people living in the US today how do you think they are fed? if the US was left to creationists at least 3/4 of them would never have been born and the rest would be using horses and carts and have a sky high death rate.

    Creationist are third world people living in a first world country, only able to be creationists because the thing they fight against, science, is keeping them going, creationists are people who do not think, creationist are people to be pitied.
     
    Last edited by a moderator: Jan 11, 2012
  11. Astridhere

    Astridhere Well-Known Member

    +40
    Christian
    Married
    The day any evo can present substantiated evidence than mankind evolved from apes is the day I will become an atheist. There is no middle ground for me.

    Eves bone (dna) was taken from Adam. The differential Y chromosome is a confirmation that Adam is the initial creation. Adam was created from dust which speaks to a new and individual creation. Adam was not made from the bone of an ape.

    I do not deny the power of God nor the biblical miracles. If a believer accepts a multitude can be fed from a few fish and loaves then one may also accept God can do all that is stated in the bible.

    Besides evolution has been falsified many times as I have spoken to. It is just that evos do not call it a falsification they call it enlightenment.



    Further to that there is substantial support for creation, a young earth and an earth centred universe that I am within my rights to favour instead of naturalistic explanations.

    Mathematicians’ theory means Earth may be the center of the universe « Thoughts En Route

    If God did not protect the contents of His word then there is no reason relating to believe the bible that has any connection to salvation. Such assertions for me are no better than evolutionary theory.

    One either accepts the bible as it is written or throw it away. There is no middle ground for me. Either God knows what he is doing or He does not, again there is no middle ground.
     
  12. Wiccan_Child

    Wiccan_Child Contributor

    +602
    Atheist
    In Relationship
    UK-Liberal-Democrats
    Whoever says such things? I can imagine consol or one of his many sock-puppets spouting such vitriol, but I can assure you, the rest of us are well aware that there are many scientists who are theists. The issue isn't numbers, its evidence. We contend that you have no evidence for things such as Noah's Flood, while we have an abundance of evidence for things such as evolution. If you want to discuss things civilly, you're welcome to PM me.
     
  13. JediMobius

    JediMobius The Guy with the Face

    +96
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    Word.
     
  14. JediMobius

    JediMobius The Guy with the Face

    +96
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    Oh, AV, I've missed your particular brand of candor.
    :thumbsup:
     
  15. Loudmouth

    Loudmouth Contributor

    +5,935
    Agnostic
    Here we find Astrid's requirement. She needs substatiated evidence in order to accept something as true. Let's see if that follows for what she has already accepted as true.

    Substantiated evidence please.

    I will need substantiated evidence for this as well.

    Substantiated evidence please.

    Then please present the substantiated evidence that they actually occurred.

    Substantiated evidence please.

    And this evidence is . . . ?

    Substantiated evidence that supports this theory, please.

    Substantiated evidence that God exists and protected anything, please.

    Since you claim that you need substantiated evidence to accept something as true, you had better present this evidence or be forced to throw it away. That is, unless, you have a double standard when it comes to what you will or will not accept as true.
     
  16. JediMobius

    JediMobius The Guy with the Face

    +96
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    Well, you know, the publicized church...
     
  17. RickG

    RickG Senior Veteran Supporter

    +1,392
    Presbyterian
    Married
    From your outstanding creationist credentials:

    What is so interesting about Gentry is that his work at Oakridge was with a team of scientists who were given the task of finding a way to accelerate decay rates of radioactive material so it could be rendered harmless after being expended in nuclear reactors. What Gentry's team found out was that they could not change decay rates using many methods far exceeding any natural environment they may encounter.

    Gentry should know better than anyone that decay rates cannot be changed and that radiometric dating is exceedingly valid. His idea on radio halos in Polonium are completely ridiculous and well refuted many times over.


     
  18. Belk

    Belk Senior Member Supporter

    +6,448
    Agnostic
    Married
    :kiss:
     
  19. Davian

    Davian fallible

    +1,158
    Ignostic
    Married
    Resistance? Like how you handled those questions I had about galaxies? :)
     
  20. JediMobius

    JediMobius The Guy with the Face

    +96
    United States
    Christian
    Private
    US-Others
    Well, no, not anything.

    Anyway, the more common young-earth creationist view is that there were 7 God-days, which according to prophetic verses is "like a thousand years," therefor positing only a few thousand years of universal history. It is this YEC view that, by the relativity of time, is easily reconciled with the apparent age of the universe, which is ancient. (Besides, "like" a thousand years is a substantial qualifier, those creation days could actually be any length beyond man's lifespan and, especially for old testament audiences, unfathomable length of time.)

    24-hour creation days don't make any sense scripturally, so I just dismiss that view as misguided and unobservant. The sun didn't even exist the first couple creation-days, so how is it they can be 24-hour days? Further, 24-hour days originate from man's perception of time, so 24-hour days need not be assumed before partway through the 6th day.

    Not that you necessarily care about the particulars, but I do have reasonable grounds for calling it an unnecessary distinction, and this I mean from a theological standpoint.
     
Loading...