Any Creationists here?

So Glad

If so, feel free to explain why and I'll do likewise.

philologos

Yeah, I believe that God created our world. I think the majority of theists do.

wolfsbane

So Glad said:

If so, feel free to explain why and I'll do likewise.

Your poll only offered either/or, but I tick two:
Yes, because the bible said so.
Yes, because I've evidence to prove it.

The former carries the greater weight, but the latter is a welcome assurance.

philologos

To elaborate, I believe the world and its people are far too great to have been created from nothingness, and without a creator. Everything around me, and even the civilisation we live in seems so carefully crafted, that it must have been guided by God.

robindch

> Yes, because the bible said so.
> Yes, because I've evidence to prove it.
> The former carries the greater weight, but the latter is a welcome assurance.

I know we've mentioned it quite a few times on the creationism thread, but just to point it out briefly here: evidence cannot prove a conclusion. Instead, it can only disprove it.

This applies to "evidence from design" as much as any other kind evidence, and towards any conclusion, creationist or otherwise.

However, it would be interesting to see if creationists accept this -- comments?

Michael G

What do you mean by a creationist? Do you mean a fundamentalist Christian, or someone who believes in intelligent design, or just someone who doubts the theory of evolution?

robindch

> What do you mean by a creationist?

By "creationist", I would assume that the OP means somebody who asserts that the world is so apparently complicated that it must have been designed and could not have arisen through evolutionary selective pruning or any other non-interventionist model. OP - please correct me if this isn't right.

So Glad

I'm not an atheist, I believe in a God that forged this universe BUT I don't think that happened 6,000 years ago, and for good reasons.

I see nobody has bothered proving themselves...

I will when challenged...

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

I see nobody has bothered proving themselves...

It can't be proven either way. I assume you mean that no-one has bothered to argue their case...

I would point you to the thread currently running to 246 pages (yes, two hundred and forty six pages...thats not a typo) on the subject of creationism. If you think thats "nobody has bothered", then I suggest that you set your standards too high.

Alternately, if you think they should reproduce some/all 4904 (as of post-date) posts here in order to gain some sort of validity, may I suggest that it would be easier for you to read that thread then for them to retype/copy-paste the content.

I will when challenged...

I challenge you to prove your case.

So Glad

Ah, I hadn't seen that thread. Is there any way I can delete this one?

PoleStar

Why delete it? I know its all been done before, but its always interesting to hear creationist "evidence" or is that an oxymoron as usually the creationist argument is based on the absence of any other explanation.

Going back to the whole "gap" theory.

" I say the world is flat. Cant prove it's not? well then it must be, so there"
(Caveman A to Caveman B, 6 million BC).

Etc

So Glad

Well, ok lets keep this running.

The reason I and many others believe we were a result of evolution is because of the sheer age and genetic progress of a lot of things that inhabit the Earth. Take for example, Trilobites (Imagine huge wood lice). They have been verified as having been millions of years old. Not only can we prove this by DNA dating, but also by dating the rock it was embedded in. We can verify that species have evolved because we have obtained many, many species of creatures that are essentially the same creature, bar a few features which it has obtained over time due to its habits & habitat. Furthermore, recent experiments involving flies have also verified that evolution DOES happen. The experiment consisted of flied being subject to different scenarios like less light, more oxygen etc. Each of these groups developed body parts to make up for the deprivation or over indulgence to the given scenario. This experiment was done to flies because they are one of the fastest evolving creatures on Earth.

We also observe a distinct pattern of dinosaur evolution throughout the early ages of our planet, until the comet/meteor that was said to have wiped them out. After that, we see from the collection of humanoid bones and other things, that we could quite possibly be the byproduct of monkeys, although it is arguable that intervention by either Gods or extraterrestrial interference could have sparked our present form. Which makes me think. If dinosaurs were not millions of years old, but according to creationists "Around at the early times of the old testament", then you'd THINK that there might have been SOME mention of a mammoth predator of the size a verbosity of a T-Rex or even similar predators. Not a word is said.

Not only does rock, dinosaurs & animal fossils rule out the possibility that our universe is 6,000 years old, but so does our ancient architecture. We know that the earth HAS to be older than 6,000 years because we have found ruins and scriptures from the ancient Sumerian race (among other) that date back to 10,000 - 8000 BC. That brings us back 10,000 - 12,000 years. There is also lots of evidence that shows possible human workings in the years of 12,000 BC +, if you are to believe the writings of Graham Hancock, among others.

Also, I believe the argument for creationism is weak and arrogant:

Me: "How do you know the universe is 6,000 years old?"

Creationist Christian: "Because the Bible said so."

Me: "But how do you know the Bible is true?"

Creationist Christian: "Because it was written by God."

Me: "How do you know that?"

Creationist Christian: "Because it says so."

Me: "So the gospels written by "Mark", "John", "Mathew" and sorts doesn't deter you from thinking God wrote it?"

Creationist Christian: "Nope."

Me: "Right. . ."

I don't get the logic here. . .

Cantab.

So Glad wrote:

I'm not an atheist, I believe in a God that forged this universe BUT I don't think that happened 6,000 years ago, and for good reasons.

I see nobody has bothered proving themselves...

I will when challenged...

Hi. The Catholic Church has not declared that the world is 6,000 years old.

The "ordinary week" interpretation of Genesis 1 is the most common point of view amongst those out to bombard the Catholic Church (a rampant phenomenon on the so-called "Christianity" section of boards.ie). I would give much more credence towards the "framework" interpretation myself, but the magisterium has not spoken infallibly on the issue. Therefore, Genesis 1 is still open to interpretation.

Whilst a literal interpretation is convenient, simplistic and appears to justify a firmly-held point of view, it is misguided to have ommitted the (well documented) reality of what the Catholic Church has to say on the matter.

Importantly, what has been ifallibly defined (with regard to Genesis I) is that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Vatican I).

That God created the world in six days shouldn't be interpreted as literal time periods, but as a symbolic means of presenting what God did in creation. Pope Pius XII warned us: "What is the literal sense of a passage is not always as obvious in the speeches and writings of the ancient authors of the East, as it is in the works of our own time. For what they wished to express is not to be determined by the rules of grammar and philology alone, nor solely by the context; the interpreter must, as it were, go back wholly in spirit to those remote centuries of the East and with the aid of history, archaeology, ethnology, and other sciences, accurately determine what modes of writing, so to speak, the authors of that ancient period would be likely to use, and in fact did use. For the ancient peoples of the East, in order to express their ideas, did not always employ those forms or kinds of speech which we use today; but rather those used by the men of their times and countries. What those exactly were the commentator cannot determine as it were in advance, but only after a careful examination of the ancient literature of the East" (Divino Afflante Spiritu 35–36).

Remember, the sun was only created on the fourth day: this to me means that the 24-hour day as we know it today did not apply to the book of Genesis (also, the Hebrew word "yom" sometimes means a longer than 24-hour period, as in Genesis 2:4). I am quite happy that the book of Genesis represents a literary framwork into which the events of creation are fitted - again, a "careful examination of the ancient literature of the East". The Catholic Church does not fear science (as many boardsies on here seem intent on insisting).

So Glad

Cantab. wrote:

Hi. The Catholic Church has not declared that the world is 6,000 years old.

The "ordinary week" interpretation of Genesis 1 is the most common point of view amongst those out to bombard the Catholic Church (a rampant phenomenon on the so-called "Christianity" section of boards.ie). I would give much more credence towards the "framework" interpretation myself, but the magisterium has not spoken infallibly on the issue. Therefore, Genesis 1 is still open to interpretation.

True, there has been a lot of interpretation regarding Genesis but I don't think people should warp words or presume this is what God meant to suit their agenda. If the face value of what is written says that it was 7 DAYS, it is 7 DAYS, not millions of years. If it was meant to have a symbolic meaning, surely it was state so. It doesn't so therefore, it means 7 days...

Cantab.

So Glad wrote:

True, there has been a lot of interpretation regarding Genesis but I don't think people should warp words or presume this is what God meant to suit their agenda. If the face value of what is written says that it was 7 DAYS, it is 7 DAYS, not millions of years. If it was meant to have a symbolic meaning, surely it was state so. It doesn't so therefore, it means 7 days...

What agenda might that be do you think?

Why would God say the world was created in exactly 168 hours when clearly science tells us otherwise? Remember, all science is inspired by God. And by the way: modern 20th century science also tells us that space and time are in fact intimately related to one another - we live in 4-dimensional space/time (there may be even more dimensions according to string theory). So at the time of creation, time and space as we know it, may have been curled in on one another. Now, how could you explain this (in the absence of Einstein) to someone living in AD 0? Therefore the literal translation of 7 solar days would be meaningless in the context of the huge amounts of energy that science predicts were present at the beginning of the universe, which would lend itself to a distortion of the space/time that humans have evolved in. Hence the literary framework.

So Glad

It's true that time/space could've been so different at the time of the big bang that would be a probable time line.

I like the way you think young man!

bonkey

So Glad wrote:

The reason I and many others believe we were a result of evolution is because of the sheer age and genetic progress of a lot of things that inhabit the Earth.

While I agree with your basic premise here, I would point out that Creationists are not necessarily limited as a group to Young Earth Creationists (or YECs). There are also OECs who will agree with the statement above and still be creationists.

So I'm going to assume for the time being that it is only YECs who's beliefs you are challenging.

They have been verified as having been millions of years old.

...on the assumption that our dating methods are accurate. YOu and I may accept that they are, but if you've started going through that other thread I mentioned, you'll see that challenging the veracity of dating methodology is a key strategy in many YEC arguments.

Not only can we prove this by DNA dating

This is where I winced. No, we most certainly cannot prove it by DNA dating. We don't have DNA. We have fossils. Indeed, if we did have DNA of trilobites, it would fairly-conclusively establish that they did not die out 250 million years ago as our current scientific stance says they did.

We can verify that species have evolved because we have obtained many, many species of creatures that are essentially the same creature, bar a few features which it has obtained over time due to its habits & habitat. Furthermore, recent experiments involving flies have also verified that evolution DOES happen.

Again, you seem to assume there is no response to this. YECs have a response. It mightn't be one I give much credence to, but they have a response.

This response typically focusses on the fact that our model of evolution works over such long timescales that what we can observationally verify is only a tiny fraction of that. They allow that what we're seeing looks like it matches the model, but that we are making incorrect assumptions and that our main flaw lies in extrapolating the current situation backwards.

We also observe a distinct pattern of dinosaur evolution throughout the early ages of our planet, until the comet/meteor that was said to have wiped them out.

If our dating techniques (amongst other things) are sufficiently accurate - a key point which would be (and is) challenged by YECs.

although it is arguable that intervention by either Gods or extraterrestrial interference could have sparked our present form.

Careful. If you allow intervention by god/gods, then you implicitly allow that God may have planeted the evidence to make it look like a young earth is really an old earth.

I would also suggest that aliens have no place in the current discussion, but hey...if you think they help establish the logical, scientific basis of your argument, don't let me stop you

Which makes me think. If dinosaurs were not millions of years old, but according to creationists "Around at the early times of the old testament", then you'd THINK that there might have been SOME mention of a mammoth predator of the size a verbosity of a T-Rex or even similar predators. Not a word is said.

There's no end of things which science would place concurrent with the early times of the old testament which also aren't mentioned. Does this mean they too didn't exist and that science is wrong?

Not only does rock, dinosaurs & animal fossils rule out the possibility that our universe is 6,000 years old,

No, they don't. Our dating techniques rule the possibility out.

so does our ancient architecture. We know that the earth HAS to be older than 6,000 years because we have found ruins and scriptures from the ancient Sumerian race (among other) that date back to 10,000 - 8000 BC. That brings us back 10,000 - 12,000 years.

Again...if our dating techniques are correct.

Also, I believe the argument for creationism is weak and arrogant:

You will have YECs who tell you that your argument for evolution and an old earth is equally weak and arrogant. Insulting someone else's position doesn't lend itself to detailed debate. Leave it to those who disagree with you to stoop to such tactics, rather than engaging in pre-emptive retaliation.

Me: "But how do you know the Bible is true?"

How do you know our dating techniques are accurate?

Think about it...if you just trust that others have verified it, you're basically saying that it was established by a system in which you have sufficient belief and trust...which isn't a million miles from a position like the following:

Creationist Christian: "Because it was written by God."

I should also point out that you have on occasion, in another forum, discarded conventional scientific wisdom on grounds not much different to that you simply don't believe it.

It's true that time/space could've been so different at the time of

Don't go there. Really...

Once you go there, you allow that time may not always have functioned the way it does currently. Once you do that, you implicitly allow that all of our dating techniques may be completely wrong.

I like the way you think young man!

He's effectively gotten you to accept that the cornerstone of all of your date-based arguments may be false. In effect, he's gotten you to admit that what you believe to be proof is based on an assumption holding true which you've acknowledged may not be.

Now...given that you acknowledge that it may be false...go back to your comment about the YEC argument being weak and arrogant as it insists the truth of something which may not be....

Cantab.

bonkey wrote:

Don't go there. Really...

Once you go there, you allow that time may not always have functioned the way it does currently. Once you do that, you implicitly allow that all of our dating techniques may be completely wrong.

I'd say the modern dating techniques we have today are very accurate. The earth has been of stable energy for quite some time now, low energies where the x,y,z vectors of space are far more predominant than the time vector - under these conditions, modern dating techniques are perfectly plausible.

Time, as humans perceive it, is quite different to the precise way in which time and space interact at a physical level.

Talliesin

bonkey wrote:

This is where I winced. No, we most certainly cannot prove it by DNA dating. We don't have DNA. We have fossils.

Good point.

bonkey wrote:

Indeed, if we did have DNA of trilobites, it would fairly-conclusively establish that they did not die out 250 million years ago as our current scientific stance says they did.

This is where I winced. "Your proof is invalid, therefore I am right" does not follow.

It's much more accurate to say that if we did have DNA of trilobites and if we could establish dating data on the basis of it then we'd have another piece of evidence that could be used here.

To suggest that it would be accepted by those who are currently Creationists and those who are currently not stretches credulity further than anything currently suggested by either side in this debate.

Cantab.

The above poll is il-thought-out and infers nothing.

Yes, because the bible said so. But not in the way the ignorami would like to believe.

mickoneill30

Jakkass wrote:

To elaborate, I believe the world and its people are far too great to have been created from nothingness, and without a creator. Everything around me, and even the civilisation we live in seems so carefully crafted, that it must have been guided by God.

Well then God would be far too great to have been created from nothingness. What did he evolve from?

Cantab.

mickoneill30 wrote:

Well then God would be far too great to have been created from nothingness. What did he evolve from?

Well if that's the case, that is, there is no God, then by implication, your life is but a cosmic joke. You might as well just top yourself now.

God created the world, and Jesus, the Son of God was revealed to us 2000 years ago. If you fail to see this, I fear you have been somehow deluded or you have somehow deluded yourself.

If you believe there is no God, it's silly really - you ought at least to have a punt on Pascal's wager. The risk of not believing in God tends to infinity.

bonkey

Talliesin wrote:

This is where I winced. "Your proof is invalid, therefore I am right" does not follow.

I didn't say that it would suggest "therefore I am right". I said it would suggest only that "your proof is invalid". If we had DNA, it couldn't be hundreds of millions of years old. If its hundreds of millions of years old, we cannot have DNA. The two are mutually incompatible. If you prefer, there is no scientific model under which they two are not mutually incompatible.

It is an important point, though. From almost everywhere I've seen the YEC perspective argued, I am more-or-less that the aim is not to prove their own theory, but rather to cast as much FUD as possible on the scientific model.

I'm not sure if its because they think they can then hoodwink people into accepting that this is some binary position (Bush referring to ID as "the other theory" and not "an other idea" springs to mind) so if science is wrong, YEC must be right...or if there is an aim to make sure that even if people don't accept YEC they at least reject the scientific model.

To suggest that it would be accepted by those who are currently Creationists and those who are currently not stretches credulity further than anything currently suggested by either side in this debate.

They'd just gleefully point and scoff at the incompatability of claiming we had DNA and that it was 250,000,000 years old. It would show there was a serious flaw in scientific modelling, as DNA simply wouldn't survive that long. So either our DNA research would be wrong, or our dating, or both. I don't think they'd care which...as long as it was grounds to say "you are wrong" to the scientific POV.

LFCFan

If the Christian movement hadn't been so successful in converting people through the ages we could be a country of Muslims or some other religion that did a better job of recruitment and then this argument would be about something completely different. It beggers belief that so many people base their faith on something that only came about because of extremely effective marketing techniques. The Bible is a book full of cherry picked stories written by men who lived long after Jesus was on earth. Any of you in here that are so sure of God and Christianity would be a different religion if your parents were. How can you base your faith on something that was forced upon you before you could even talk?

bonkey

Cantab. wrote:

Well if that's the case, that is, there is no God, then by implication, your life is but a cosmic joke.

Why?

If not having a creator makes existence a joke, then by your own logic isn't God's existence in turn a joke?

You might as well just top yourself now.

Again...if having no creator means you might as well top yourself, the implication is that God - having no creator - should top himself/herself/itself.

As it is, I can find meaning in my life without sharing your beliefs. I don't particularly appreciate you telling me I should top myself because you don't share my beliefs.

God created the world, and Jesus, the Son of God was revealed to us 2000 years ago. If you fail to see this, I fear you have been somehow deluded or you have somehow deluded yourself.

I'm sure the 2/3 of the world's population who aren't Christian would appreciate that argument - that they are deluded.

I'm especially sure that the 50% of the world's population who are religious but are not Christian would be especially swayed by your argument that they are deluding themselves.

If you believe there is no God, it's silly really - you ought at least to have a punt on Pascal's wager.

Pascal's Wager is short-sighted. For the infinite number of possibilities of what I should base my beliefs on, why should I pick this particular one "just in case"? There's an infinite number of possibilities where picking this one belief "just in case" would end me in everlasting trouble. THats one against infinity....not what I'd consider great odds.

Pascals wager is not a good bet unless one already believes in which case it doesn't apply anyway.

<edit>
I'm not sure if you didn't fully read the Wiki page you linked to, or simply didn't think we would, but the following line in the criticisms section is quite instructive:

This requirement for such an assessment of utilities suggests that Pascal's Wager should be regarded as a criterion by which the coherence of one's existing beliefs can be judged, rather than as a method of choosing what to believe.

So...explain to me why I should have a punt on it?

</edit>

jc

LFCFan

Cantab. wrote:

You might as well just top yourself now.

Why should life only be worth living if there is a God? My life has plenty of meaning and I get to enjoy it without worrying about some Beardy Auld Fella in the Sky who is going to judge me for my sins and cast me down to Hell if I don't do things the way he wants me to do them. And I also don't have to listen to the pure rubbish that comes out of the Bible and get preached to every Sunday.

po0k

We are biochemical processes living out our entropy.

Our purpose is to apply any positive influence we can exert to better the conditions for the processes to follow.

Cantab.

SyxPak wrote:

We are biochemical processes living out our entropy.

Our purpose is to apply any positive influence we can exert to better the conditions for the processes to follow.

Cosmic joke it is so.

philologos

Faith is a very personal thing. It is impossible to show ones faith, or to prove that God exists by this faith to someone who has never experienced it before. That's my take on it.

Son Goku

Cantab. wrote:

Cosmic joke it is so.

Well it'd be a Cosmic non-statement, you'd need a Cosmic Prankster for a Cosmic joke.

robindch

> Well if that's the case, that is, there is no God, then by implication, your
> life is but a cosmic joke. You might as well just top yourself now.

This is a point which is brought up frequently by religious believers, but as ever, the logic is stopped half-way -- if life is a joke because somebody does not believe there is a god, then why should it stop being a joke if somebody does believe there is one?

> you ought at least to have a punt on Pascal's wager.
> The risk of not believing in God tends to infinity.

Somebody as bright as you ought to have no trouble seeing the fairly obvious holes that Pascal's Wager has. As bonkey points out, as well as the possibility of a god which rewards unjustified belief, there could also be an infinite number of other gods which condemn it, or which might condemn you for justifying your belief upon a logical argument, when you're supposed to just believe. The risk of using Pascal's wager tends to infinity.

Talliesin

bonkey wrote:

I didn't say that it would suggest "therefore I am right". I said it would suggest only that "your proof is invalid". If we had DNA, it couldn't be hundreds of millions of years old. If its hundreds of millions of years old, we cannot have DNA. The two are mutually incompatible. If you prefer, there is no scientific model under which they two are not mutually incompatible.

Ah.

Sorry, I read that wrong.

You are right, DNA cannot survive that long.

Of course if it had survived that long it could be evidence that our knowledge of how long DNA can survive is wrong, so it wouldn't prove anything. Still there's no point arguing hypotheticals (a hypothetical world where DNA is found in trillobites is not the world that creationists and evolutionists debate its origins).

Cantab.

robindch wrote:

This is a point which is brought up frequently by religious believers, but as ever, the logic is stopped half-way -- if life is a joke because somebody does not believe there is a god, then why should it stop being a joke if somebody does believe there is one?

Belief in God is the basis to one's life: life is given a purpose, a meaning. Without God, there is no meaning whatsoever: It's a sad, cold, meaningless place that ends in ultimate misery. To consciously deny the existence of God by some cloud of logic and neverending scientific discovery is akin to crawling on one's belly and eating dirt for the rest of your life. This you are guaranteed if you don't believe.

robindch wrote:

Somebody as bright as you ought to have no trouble seeing the fairly obvious holes that Pascal's Wager has. As bonkey points out, as well as the possibility of a god which rewards unjustified belief, there could also be an infinite number of other gods which condemn it, or which might condemn you for justifying your belief upon a logical argument, when you're supposed to just believe. The risk of using Pascal's wager tends to infinity.

Well let's suppose for a second that there are several gods. Pascal's wager still applies: the risk of not choosing one and believing still tends to infinity. Pascal's wager is but a crude mechanism for getting non-believers to see the profoundness of the conscious decision they have made to deny the existence of God. Pascal's wager is not santioned by Rome.

I find it hard to believe that there could be an infinite number of Gods. Where is the evidence for this? If you could prove there were an infinite number of Gods, then yes, belief in any one of them would be pointless (as would disbelief).

If there is no mind directing the entire universe, then there is no universe, no totality. There is only a constantly fluctuating sum of individual entities, accidental in their very origin (since nobody brought them into being), purposeless (since nobody meant them for anything and accidents have no purpose), a drift of things drifting nowhere. Nothing can be known except out of its context, for there is no context.

Any more Creationists out there?

JimiTime

Cantab. wrote:

Any more Creationists out there?

Personally, I think this whole 'creationist' thing is another problem creeping into Christianity. Let evolutionary science be. It has no relevance. its another web that religion has tangled itself in. The fact is, that God created us. Whether that was in 7 days or 7 billion years, it really doesn't matter that much. Personally, I would recommend all Christians to ignore the atheist ramblings on evolution. Let them have it, let them feel we are decieved or misguided, or stupid or deluded or whatever. It really doesn't matter. They will have heard the Christian message and chosen to reject it. They know where to find it again if there is a change of heart. Bothering to argue with them, gives them credability. It invokes, the, 'what are christians trying to hide' type of thinking in some. IMO.

Cantab.

JimiTime wrote:

Personally, I think this whole 'creationist' thing is another problem creeping into Christianity. Let evolutionary science be. It has no relevance. its another web that religion has tangled itself in. The fact is, that God created us. Whether that was in 7 days or 7 billion years, it really doesn't matter that much. Personally, I would recommend all Christians to ignore the atheist ramblings on evolution. Let them have it, let them feel we are decieved or misguided, or stupid or deluded or whatever. It really doesn't matter. They will have heard the Christian message and chosen to reject it. They know where to find it again if there is a change of heart. Bothering to argue with them, gives them credability. It invokes, the, 'what are christians trying to hide' type of thinking in some. IMO.

Christians have nothing to fear about evolution. There's nothing to "let them have", apart from their superior feeling that we are somehow "misguided, stupid, deluded etc."

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

Let them have it, let them feel we are decieved or misguided, or stupid or deluded or whatever.

Sure most Christians aren't actually Creationist though and most atheists became familiar with evolution out of interest.
If there is one thing you should take away from the debates it is that evolution is not there so that we can attack Christianity, it's there because it's practical(for medicinal purposes, e.t.c.) and interesting from a scientific point of view.
You still seem to view science and atheism as a related "enemy".

Gordon

Cantab. wrote:

I find it hard to believe that there could be an infinite number of Gods. Where is the evidence for this? If you could prove there were an infinite number of Gods, then yes, belief in any one of them would be pointless (as would disbelief).

Where's the proof that there is one god? I haven't read the other thread so apologies if I missed it.

I think it's weird that people who believe in god and Jesus refer to non-believers as "walking on their bellies eating dirt". It's quite a disrespectful and demeaning phrase to people that, in the person saying that, shows a percentage of 'gods' children to be unevolved and inferior to other people. I thought that Jesus guy wanted us all to love each other.

Incidentally, on the dinosaur front, I recall hearing from a creationist that there actually are signs and proof of large, strange animals in the bible that they explain are actually dinosaurs. I can't find my source now but maybe someone can fill us in on that.

magicbastarder

all these christians must get seriously bored with all the rabid atheists who come in and insist they explain themselves.

find something else to do with your time, lads.

JimiTime

Son Goku wrote:

Sure most Christians aren't actually Creationist though and most atheists became familiar with evolution out of interest.
If there is one thing you should take away from the debates it is that evolution is not there so that we can attack Christianity, it's there because it's practical(for medicinal purposes, e.t.c.) and interesting from a scientific point of view.
You still seem to view science and atheism as a related "enemy".

My point had 2 parts. 1st one being that Christianity should keep its nose out of evolution. Secondly, evolution can be the stone in the atheist sling, and its usually used as the means to 'disprove' God, however wrong that is. Science or scientists don't bother me, what is bothering me is that Christendom has embroiled itself in a debate that really has little bearing on Christianity, yet has made people think that somehow it does.

philologos

I don't see why atheists in particular, continue to ask questions when they know we cannot prove it to them. We are not all knowing like our God is. However we believe that His word, gives us an accurate description of how our world was created. That is my belief, it may not be yours, but that's life right? All I can give to show you that the earth was created in that way is the account in Genesis.

Scofflaw

Jakkass wrote:

I don't see why atheists in particular, continue to ask questions when they know we cannot prove it to them. We are not all knowing like our God is. However we believe that His word, gives us an accurate description of how our world was created. That is my belief, it may not be yours, but that's life right? All I can give to show you that the earth was created in that way is the account in Genesis.

Which is fine...I have no disagreement with that belief - how could I?

However, an awful lot of creationists (most?) do not stop at that point. Instead, they claim that the science supports their position - and that's where I personally come into conflict with them, because they end up having to distort and misrepresent science in order to make that claim. That fight forms the majority of the 4900 posts on the other thread...

Belief is belief, science is science. Science is a tool for discovering material knowledge, not for discovering spiritual truths.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cantab.

Yup. It appears that the "with it" alternative to organised religion of any kind is a nonchalent belief in the supremacy of humanity itself. Rationalists, make individuals and not God the center of everything. Asserting that: a lack of definite evidence for God's existence and the coincidence of religious belief with some psychological/social need proves that God does not exist, is plainly wrong because God is not constrained by man's limited knowledge and would not create beings contrary to his nature. God does not overwhelm the unwilling with his presence nor force his creation (man) to be in self-conflict when worshiping him.

Son Goku

JimiTime wrote:

My point had 2 parts. 1st one being that Christianity should keep its nose out of evolution. Secondly, evolution can be the stone in the atheist sling, and its usually used as the means to 'disprove' God, however wrong that is. Science or scientists don't bother me, what is bothering me is that Christendom has embroiled itself in a debate that really has little bearing on Christianity, yet has made people think that somehow it does.

Ah, grand.

Jakkass wrote:

I don't see why atheists in particular, continue to ask questions when they know we cannot prove it to them. We are not all knowing like our God is. However we believe that His word, gives us an accurate description of how our world was created. That is my belief, it may not be yours, but that's life right? All I can give to show you that the earth was created in that way is the account in Genesis.

magicbastarder wrote:

all these christians must get seriously bored with all the rabid atheists who come in and insist they explain themselves.

find something else to do with your time, lads.

If the forum was truly like this:
Christian #1:What do you guys think of Kings 1 verse.....
Christian #2:I think it shows...e.t.c........

Most of us wouldn't be here. Which is why you won't find us in threads like the Latin Mass one.

However there is an awful lot of "atheists are evil degenerates and not to be trusted". It's hard to avoid a thread like that. Imagine a thread like "Farmers/Scum what's the difference?", if you were a farmer you'd find it hard to avoid responding. When the amount of such threads and attitudes reaches critical mass you eventually get into the habit of debating everything Chrisitans say.

Which is bad for the Christians who just want to talk about their faith, I suppose.

Scofflaw

Cantab. wrote:

Belief in God is the basis to one's life: life is given a purpose, a meaning. Without God, there is no meaning whatsoever: It's a sad, cold, meaningless place that ends in ultimate misery. To consciously deny the existence of God by some cloud of logic and neverending scientific discovery is akin to crawling on one's belly and eating dirt for the rest of your life. This you are guaranteed if you don't believe.

I think the majority of humanity find their lives meaningful. Most do it by reference to some God (but mostly not the Christian God), some don't.

You pays your money and you takes your choice - and some respect that, some don't.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Cantab.

Scofflaw wrote:

Belief is belief, science is science. Science is a tool for discovering material knowledge, not for discovering spiritual truths.

Science complements spiritual truth. It is too simplistic to separate the two absolutely. All science comes from God, therefore you can find God in scientific discovery, whether it's looking at the moon at night or observing particles in a particle accelerator.

Scofflaw

Cantab. wrote:

Science complements spiritual truth. It is too simplistic to separate the two absolutely. All science comes from God, therefore you can find God in scientific discovery, whether it's looking at the moon at night or observing particles in a particle accelerator.

Sure - but science is not there to confirm or deny spiritual truth.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Call Me Jimmy

Taking for example islam and christianity, I find it extremely coincidental that both were created seperately yet both have a god and a big book of 'his word'. Does that not get to anyone else?

Off Topic: I'm surpised that cantab hasn't been banned, he's spewing some pretty offensive crap. How about I say all religious people are wasting their time? That they are dogs? That's right - banned.

dr.bollocko

Cantab. wrote:

Science complements spiritual truth. It is too simplistic to separate the two absolutely. All science comes from God, therefore you can find God in scientific discovery, whether it's looking at the moon at night or observing particles in a particle accelerator.

Why would religion be so self-admiring to assume that God is above or somehow creates science as opposed to another way around?
How can God, an essentially living creature, be shoe-horned in as some cosmic re-balancer, the x in every missed equation from evolution and the perfect re-balancing argument to all the toughest questions in life?

It starts to become a ridiculous argument, when you view the passion with which we make misguided judgements.

I mean the numerous fallback and circular arguments are too long to mention. Arguments which act to confuse the issues, muddy the waters, and when viewed by interested parties are all you need, but when really looked at, are just as circular as "Cos god said so."

Cantab. wrote:

Without God, there is no meaning whatsoever: It's a sad, cold, meaningless place that ends in ultimate misery. To consciously deny the existence of God by some cloud of logic and neverending scientific discovery is akin to crawling on one's belly and eating dirt for the rest of your life. This you are guaranteed if you don't believe..

Now there's a cold volley of rhetoric in the face for those who dare to question. A warning you could even call it.
But those who dare to question dont need to know an answer.
Your answers are looking like a pretty thin veil hiding a huge flaw in your argument. Its nice how omnipotence can balance every equation for you.
But you have no idea of its scope, or of any force currently acting against it, or any way in which to balance an argument scientifically which includes a deity theory. Oh but thats right, you dont have to.... the bible says....

Cantab. wrote:

Christians have nothing to fear about evolution. There's nothing to "let them have", apart from their superior feeling that we are somehow "misguided, stupid, deluded etc."

So who has what superior feeling about the other side being somehow deluded?

Nobody can hope to argue against what you are saying when you refuse to acknowledge, even hypothetically, an alternative to the "Science, the world and everything comes from God" stance that you have taken to.

Sofaspud

Cantab. wrote:

Belief in God is the basis to one's life: life is given a purpose, a meaning. Without God, there is no meaning whatsoever: It's a sad, cold, meaningless place that ends in ultimate misery. To consciously deny the existence of God by some cloud of logic and neverending scientific discovery is akin to crawling on one's belly and eating dirt for the rest of your life. This you are guaranteed if you don't believe.

So basically, the whole point of your life is to dedicate it to grovelling to this invisible sky-beastie? Does your own enjoyment come into it at all, or does sky-man allow his petty grovelling servants to have enjoyment of their own?

Personally, I'd prefer not to dedicate my entire life to something that demands that I spend my entire life grovelling and sucking up to it, lest I BURN for an ETERNITY. Sky-beastie-man seems to be a bit of a bully, in fairness.

I live my life the way I want to live it, while trying not to ruin other peoples enjoyment of their lives. This way, I get what I can from my life, as much enjoyment as I morally allow myself to have, respecting others, and giving love only to those who deserve it, not demand it.

philologos

Sofaspud wrote:

So basically, the whole point of your life is to dedicate it to grovelling to this invisible sky-beastie? Does your own enjoyment come into it at all, or does sky-man allow his petty grovelling servants to have enjoyment of their own?

He made the earth so that we could enjoy it. He saved the Israelites from the Egyptians. He set down the Law, and the Gospels, so that we could live in harmony and in peace. He told us to enjoy his creation, which can be done while being obedient to his Law, and to the rules layed down by Jesus Christ. Infact God wants us to have a positive relationship with all around us and our world, so yes our own enjoyment does come into this. Invisible, sky-beastie, hmm. Except for the fact, that God has created us in His own image, and there is a bit of God in the hearts of all Christians, Jews and Muslims. By following his Law, we ensure that all humankind can enjoy his world.

dr.bollocko

Jakkass wrote:

He made the earth so that we could enjoy it. He saved the Israelites from the Egyptians. He set down the Law, and the Gospels, so that we could live in harmony and in peace. He told us to enjoy his creation, which can be done while being obedient to his Law, and to the rules layed down by Jesus Christ. Infact God wants us to have a positive relationship with all around us and our world, so yes our own enjoyment does come into this. Invisible, sky-beastie, hmm. Except for the fact, that God has created us in His own image, and there is a bit of God in the hearts of all Christians, Jews and Muslims. By following his Law, we ensure that all humankind can enjoy his world.

Prove any of that.

And kindly leave me out of your glee club if this rhetoric and the psuedo science misused on this thread have anything to do with how you and God are gonna save the world together. Posts like the one Cantab made, referenced above my myself and sofaspud are frankly offensive to non-believers in christianity, athiests or other denominations.