• 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.

Where is your evidence creationists?

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married


I assert that you are an evolutionist in disguise with a bigger axe to grind than some evos....
 
Upvote 0

mdancin4theLord

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2011
923
42
Arizona
✟1,309.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
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?
 
Upvote 0

mdancin4theLord

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2011
923
42
Arizona
✟1,309.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
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
 
Upvote 0

mdancin4theLord

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2011
923
42
Arizona
✟1,309.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
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
 
Upvote 0

mdancin4theLord

Well-Known Member
Jul 23, 2011
923
42
Arizona
✟1,309.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Politics
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.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others
Adam is not an ape and neither were his ancestors. Nothing you have spoken to is any better than the ramblings of evolutionists. You are not a creationist. You are an evolutionist with a twist.

I cannot take you seriously.

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.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
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.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
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.
 
Upvote 0

CabVet

Question everything
Dec 7, 2011
11,738
176
Los Altos, CA
✟35,902.00
Faith
Agnostic
Marital Status
Married
Politics
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.
 
Upvote 0
F

Fastener

Guest
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?
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:
Upvote 0

Astridhere

Well-Known Member
Jul 30, 2011
1,240
43
I live in rural NSW, Australia
✟1,616.00
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
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.
 
Upvote 0

Wiccan_Child

Contributor
Mar 21, 2005
19,419
673
Bristol, UK
✟39,231.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
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.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others

Word.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others

Oh, AV, I've missed your particular brand of candor.
 
Upvote 0

Loudmouth

Contributor
Aug 26, 2003
51,417
6,142
Visit site
✟98,015.00
Faith
Agnostic
The day any evo can present substantiated evidence than mankind evolved from apes . . .

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.

Eves bone (dna) was taken from Adam. The differential Y chromosome is a confirmation that Adam is the initial creation.

Substantiated evidence please.

Adam was created from dust . . .

I will need substantiated evidence for this as well.

Adam was not made from the bone of an ape.
Substantiated evidence please.

I do not deny the power of God nor the biblical miracles.

Then please present the substantiated evidence that they actually occurred.

If a believer accepts a multitude can be fed from a few fish and loaves . . .

Substantiated evidence please.

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.

And this evidence is . . . ?


Substantiated evidence that supports this theory, please.

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.

Substantiated evidence that God exists and protected anything, please.

One either accepts the bible as it is written or throw it away.

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.
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
US-Others

Well, you know, the publicized church...
 
Upvote 0

RickG

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Oct 1, 2011
10,092
1,430
Georgia
✟106,373.00
Faith
Presbyterian
Marital Status
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.


 
Upvote 0

Davian

fallible
May 30, 2011
14,100
1,181
West Coast of Canada
✟46,103.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Ignostic
Marital Status
Married

Resistance? Like how you handled those questions I had about galaxies?
 
Upvote 0

JediMobius

The Guy with the Face
Jan 12, 2006
1,592
112
41
Beer City, Michigan
✟25,618.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Politics
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.

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.
 
Upvote 0