How does 'God's will' affect 'free will'?

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Surely it would make someone a better Christian if they chose to run their life in Gods way, as apposed to being forced to running their life in Gods way by God? Not wanting to control your life out of fear of making a mistake seems quite childish.

But I do choose to run my life God's way. Fear certainly is a part of that, just as with abiding by the traffic laws in daily life. But love is the prime motive - I want to do His will because I love Him. I love Him because He first loved me, and gave His Son to save me from eternal death.

We were actually told during the secondary school classes that what we were being told wasn't 100% true, but to avoid confusion and for the purposes of the exam, we were told the simple version.

That's good. I don't have a problem with honest approaches.

I don't know of anyone who thinks that scientists have it all sussed, I've never even heard of a scientist claiming to have it all sussed, the closest I've heard is that one day science will be able to explain everything (but we're very far from that day.

There certainly is a culture being promoted of trust in scientists. One is not allowed to question the current consensus if it involves the origins of life. I'm not even talking about Creationism vs Evolution, but Spontaneous Evolution vs Intelligent Design.

Why discard all of something, if only part of it is unneccessary. There are plenty of good ideals in the bible, unfortnately they are usually described with alagory, and people tend to get stuck on the veracity of the story, forgetting that its the point it makes that is important.

OK, but why reference our ethics back to the Bible? Why not just combine whatever useful idea we find there with all the others we find elsewhere or come up with ourselves? Seems dishonest to call oneself a Christian and yet reject elements of the Christian foundation document. Better to call oneself an Eclecticist and acknowledge whatever bits one has taken from the Bible, Koran, Das Capital, etc.

But how do you differentiate between those who actually hear Gods voice, and people who are just hearing voices because they're crazy (or because they want to hear Gods voice because it makes them feel more important). People have killed because they "heard Gods voice" and they would claim that its real and that they feel the same things that you have felt, how do you know the difference.

Hearing God's voice is simply having an internal witness to the veracity of the Bible and the gospel message it proclaims. Any special, individual message one might hear from God will never contradict that infallible word. For example, God may speak to a Christian and tell him to go to such and such a place to preach the gospel/feed the hungry, etc. He will not tell him to go there and have sex with the women, or steal from their houses.

Akrasia

wolfsbane wrote: »

There certainly is a culture being promoted of trust in scientists. One is not allowed to question the current consensus if it involves the origins of life. I'm not even talking about Creationism vs Evolution, but Spontaneous Evolution vs Intelligent Design.

Intelligent design is creationism
Secondly, what the heck is spontaneous evolution?
All I could find online were in reference to language, computers and bacteria.
Are you talking about punctuated equilibrium?

Evolution is based on small cumulative changes and natural selection.

Pompey Magnus

wolfsbane wrote: »

Any special, individual message one might hear from God will never contradict that infallible word. For example, God may speak to a Christian and tell him to go to such and such a place to preach the gospel/feed the hungry, etc. He will not tell him to go there and have sex with the women, or steal from their houses.

Would he tell someone to kill their firstborn child as a sacrifice to him?

Akrasia

wolfsbane wrote: »

For example, God may speak to a Christian and tell him to go to such and such a place to preach the gospel/feed the hungry, etc. He will not tell him to go there and have sex with the women, or steal from their houses.

so, its possible that a lot of the schizophrenic people in mental hospitals aren't actually insane, but they are actually hearing divine communications?

(but then we have the problem of sorting out who is delusional, and who is genuinely hearing voices from god...... Why would god create a condition that means mentally ill people people can think they hear god telling them to murder their family?

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

There are, apparently, no Jewish records stating that the miracles didn't happen. Which is exactly what we should expect since the historical events of Christ's ministry and death would have been so well known in Jerusalem as to make any attempt at refutation pointless.

Why would any attempt be pointless? The more well known the stories of Christ's appearance the more important it would be for the Jews to refute it, surely? Would it not be a case that the stronger these stories become the more of threat to the Jewish establishment Christian is?

Saying that it would be pointless for the Jews to produce refutes because the stories are already well known doesn't match other cases of refuting religions and cults. Scientology is a far bigger religion than Christianity would have been at the time, and people are falling over themselves to refute the supernatural claims of Scientology.

No one is saying that this is pointless because Scientology is already so established.

You seem to be starting with the assertion you want and then working backwards to make the facts fit this assertion. Which is no doubt something you would be highly critical of if one of us were doing this.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

But I do choose to run my life God's way. Fear certainly is a part of that, just as with abiding by the traffic laws in daily life. But love is the prime motive - I want to do His will because I love Him. I love Him because He first loved me, and gave His Son to save me from eternal death.

Ah, OK, so you are saying that while there is Gods Will, a person acts according to their own will, even if this is against Gods Will. Essentially Gods Will is like the laws, you can go against them but you aren't supposed to.

wolfsbane wrote: »

One is not allowed to question the current consensus if it involves the origins of life. I'm not even talking about Creationism vs Evolution, but Spontaneous Evolution vs Intelligent Design.

Anyone can question whatever they want about science, but if you offer an alternative theory about something you are expected to back it up.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would any attempt be pointless? The more well known the stories of Christ's appearance the more important it would be for the Jews to refute it, surely? Would it not be a case that the stronger these stories become the more of threat to the Jewish establishment Christian is?

Saying that it would be pointless for the Jews to produce refutes because the stories are already well known doesn't match other cases of refuting religions and cults. Scientology is a far bigger religion than Christianity would have been at the time, and people are falling over themselves to refute the supernatural claims of Scientology.

No one is saying that this is pointless because Scientology is already so established.

You seem to be starting with the assertion you want and then working backwards to make the facts fit this assertion. Which is no doubt something you would be highly critical of if one of us were doing this.

It would be pointless to attempt to refute historical claims that were well known to be true.

Scientology does not make such historical claims, and in percentage terms, would be much smaller than Christianity was at the time.

Please tell me which historical claims Scientology makes which involve historical events involving hundreds or even thousands of witnesses (including non-Scientologists). Modern refutations of Scientology are predominantly on theological and ethical grounds, not historical grounds. The only historical events would be details of Hubbard's family life etc. which were only known to a tiny group of witnesses. There is no attempt to refute obvious historical facts evident to all. For example, I know of no attempt to prove that Rom Hubbard never actually existed.

robindch

PDN wrote: »

Scientology does not make such historical claims [...] There is no attempt to refute obvious historical facts evident to all.

There has been an ongoing effort upon the part of skeptics over the last forty years to refute the claims of L Ron Hubbard (not 'Rom').

According to Elron's supporters (see here), he was a first-rate naval officer, an instructor, a commander who was wounded in combat ("blinded and crippled" in early literature, "wounded" in later text).

According to others, his military service was considerably less honorable. See here and here for example.

That's one simple case. There are many other refutations of this and Elron's many other egregiously bogus claims. Just as there are of the assertions of other self-proclaimed prophets such as Sai Baba, Joseph Smith, Aimee Semple McPherson, whose notions of miraculous or heroic activity have been shown to be somewhat less than foursquare.

bonkey

wolfsbane wrote: »

One is not allowed to question the current consensus if it involves the origins of life. I'm not even talking about Creationism vs Evolution, but Spontaneous Evolution vs Intelligent Design.

Firstly, "Spontaneous Evolution" isn't a scientific term.

Secondly, there is no scientific consensus about the origins of life (which is correctly termed abiogenesis).

Thirdly, one is absolutely allowed to question scientific consensus, but the scientific community have little tolerance for non-scientific alternatives trying to masquerade as science which is why your chosen example is so ill tolerated.

This has all been explained to you repeatedly on the large Creationist thread.

Its disappointing to note that rather than continue the discussion on them there, you have simply taken your claims elsewhere.

Akrasia

PDN wrote: »

It would be pointless to attempt to refute historical claims that were well known to be true.

Two words, Holocaust Deniers. Just because something is well known doesn't mean people won't try to refute it if they have an agenda that it is damaging to. People still deny the Armenian genocide, in the U.K. people are in denial about the terrible crimes of Cromwell against the Irish people....

robindch

Akrasia wrote: »

Two words, Holocaust Deniers.

Outside religion, there's also the 9/11 denialists, JFK nuts, moon-hoaxers, homeopaths, astrologers, chiropracters, creationists and a thousand other systematized forms of rotten thinking which have acquired wide support in the face of easily-located evidence to the contrary.

For interesting if sad reasons, the act of producing evidence to support a conclusion is seen by a significant portion of the population as convincing evidence that the conclusion is false.

bonkey

PDN wrote: »

It would be pointless to attempt to refute historical claims that were well known to be true.

But once enough people believe the refutation, or simply accept the possibility of it being true, then what is "well known to be true" ceases to be.

Denial and "teach the controversy" are both identified strategies for challenging established truth, historical or otherwise.

wolfsbane

Depeche_Mode said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Any special, individual message one might hear from God will never contradict that infallible word. For example, God may speak to a Christian and tell him to go to such and such a place to preach the gospel/feed the hungry, etc. He will not tell him to go there and have sex with the women, or steal from their houses.
Would he tell someone to kill their firstborn child as a sacrifice to him?

No, since Christ has made the one true sacrifice, which all the God-sanctioned sacrifices of the Old Testament merely symbolised. There is no place for any return to types and shadows.

wolfsbane

bonkey said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
One is not allowed to question the current consensus if it involves the origins of life. I'm not even talking about Creationism vs Evolution, but Spontaneous Evolution vs Intelligent Design.
Firstly, "Spontaneous Evolution" isn't a scientific term.

Ok, I just used it to distinguish materialistic evolution from theistic evolution, which latter some IDer's hold to.

Secondly, there is no scientific consensus about the origins of life (which is correctly termed abiogenesis).

Never said there was: just that there is concerning one theory of origins (Creationism). It is to be rejected without debate.

Thirdly, one is absolutely allowed to question scientific consensus, but the scientific community have little tolerance for non-scientific alternatives trying to masquerade as science which is why your chosen example is so ill tolerated.

The problem is that your allegation of non-scientific alternatives is disputed by scientific experts in the appropriate fields. The toleration (lack of) shown to them, and to non-creationist colleagues who speak up for them being accorded a hearing, is proof of my assertion.

This has all been explained to you repeatedly on the large Creationist thread.

Its disappointing to note that rather than continue the discussion on them there, you have simply taken your claims elsewhere.

I have no intention of discussing the issue here; I was merely responding to Mark's comments on the certainties of scientific knowledge.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
But I do choose to run my life God's way. Fear certainly is a part of that, just as with abiding by the traffic laws in daily life. But love is the prime motive - I want to do His will because I love Him. I love Him because He first loved me, and gave His Son to save me from eternal death.
Ah, OK, so you are saying that while there is Gods Will, a person acts according to their own will, even if this is against Gods Will. Essentially Gods Will is like the laws, you can go against them but you aren't supposed to.

Yes, as far as it goes. Better to say that God has two wills: His revealed will, i.e, His laws; and His secret will, that which He has determined will happen.

We may violate the former, but never the latter.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
One is not allowed to question the current consensus if it involves the origins of life. I'm not even talking about Creationism vs Evolution, but Spontaneous Evolution vs Intelligent Design.
Anyone can question whatever they want about science, but if you offer an alternative theory about something you are expected to back it up.

That's as it should be. But see the Bible, Creationism & Prophecy thread to see why it doesn't work out like that.

Akrasia

wolfsbane wrote: »

Mark Hamill said:

Yes, as far as it goes. Better to say that God has two wills: His revealed will, i.e, His laws; and His secret will, that which He has determined will happen.

We may violate the former, but never the latter.

Ah I get it. Its like the prime directive in robocop.

1. Serve the public trust
2. Protect the innocent
3. Uphold the law
4. (Classified)


Makes perfect sense.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, as far as it goes. Better to say that God has two wills: His revealed will, i.e, His laws; and His secret will, that which He has determined will happen.

We may violate the former, but never the latter.

If God has some will (revealed or otherwise) that we automatically cannot violate, then humanity doesn't have proper free will.

wolfsbane wrote: »

That's as it should be. But see the Bible, Creationism & Prophecy thread to see why it doesn't work out like that.

Unless someone is editing/erasing others posts, I don't see how anyone could be prevented form voicing their own theories/opinions on any other thread. You can't interrupt or shout someone down on a text based forum.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
Yes, as far as it goes. Better to say that God has two wills: His revealed will, i.e, His laws; and His secret will, that which He has determined will happen.

We may violate the former, but never the latter.
If God has some will (revealed or otherwise) that we automatically cannot violate, then humanity doesn't have proper free will.

Yes, the common idea of man's free-will is not valid. It is free in so far as it is not constrained to do evil - it does that naturally - but it is not able to choose to love and obey God, since it is evil in nature. Man's will is further restricted by God, who does not permit man to do anything that is contrary to His plan. At times this results not only in frustrating their evil efforts, but also permitting their evil desires to only go in the direction that will accomplish His will. Their murder of His Son is the prime example of that:
Acts 2:22 “Men of Israel, hear these words: Jesus of Nazareth, a Man attested by God to you by miracles, wonders, and signs which God did through Him in your midst, as you yourselves also know— 23 Him, being delivered by the determined purpose and foreknowledge of God, you have taken by lawless hands, have crucified, and put to death;

Acts 4:27 “For truly against Your holy Servant Jesus, whom You anointed, both Herod and Pontius Pilate, with the Gentiles and the people of Israel, were gathered together 28 to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose determined before to be done.

Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfsbane
That's as it should be. But see the Bible, Creationism & Prophecy thread to see why it doesn't work out like that.
Unless someone is editing/erasing others posts, I don't see how anyone could be prevented form voicing their own theories/opinions on any other thread. You can't interrupt or shout someone down on a text based forum.

My apologies for not making myself clearer:
The thread has many posts which deal with the issue of scientific censorship - the thread itself is a great example of free speech and debate. :):)

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

My apologies for not making myself clearer:
The thread has many posts which deal with the issue of scientific censorship - the thread itself is a great example of free speech and debate. :):)

Ah ok, I get you now.

wolfsbane wrote: »

Yes, the common idea of man's free-will is not valid. It is free in so far as it is not constrained to do evil - it does that naturally - but it is not able to choose to love and obey God, since it is evil in nature. Man's will is further restricted by God, who does not permit man to do anything that is contrary to His plan.

So man doesn't have any free will then? Look, free will is all-or-nothing, you cant say we have free will as long as it agrees with Gods will, its like saying "You can have any colour you want - as long as its black". It doesn't mean you can have any colour you want, it means all you're getting is black and if you happen to be happy with it then your just lucky.
If this is your opinion then fine, but you've contradicted yourself if it is.

wolfsbane

Mark Hamill said:

So man doesn't have any free will then? Look, free will is all-or-nothing, you cant say we have free will as long as it agrees with Gods will, its like saying "You can have any colour you want - as long as its black". It doesn't mean you can have any colour you want, it means all you're getting is black and if you happen to be happy with it then your just lucky.
If this is your opinion then fine, but you've contradicted yourself if it is.

The concept of free-will varies greatly, so any talk of free-will must be understood in the light of one's definition. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy#Contemporary_philosophy_of_religion

Joe1919

Can we apply the First Cause argument to free will? i.e. Every cause must have a cause and this cause can be traced back to the first cause, which for Christians is God.

Every action, including 'Evil' actions, must have a cause and this cause must ultimately be traced back to the first cause, which is God.

So God as first cause causes everything, including all evil.

PDN

Joe1919 wrote: »

Can we apply the First Cause argument to free will? i.e. Every cause must have a cause and this cause can be traced back to the first cause, which for Christians is God.

Every action, including 'Evil' actions, must have a cause and this cause must ultimately be traced back to the first cause, which is God.

So God as first cause causes everything, including all evil.

That would only apply if you see 'evil' as having actual existence. The Privative Theory of Evil, as articulated by Augustine and others, sees evil as simply being the absence of good - in the same way as 'coldness' is simply lack of heat. In that case no-one caused evil.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

The concept of free-will varies greatly, so any talk of free-will must be understood in the light of one's definition. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_will

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compatibilism_and_incompatibilism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Theodicy#Contemporary_philosophy_of_religion

Fair enough, I'd see having free-will as meaning that the person who ultimately decides what you do or feel is you. External influences can try to effect your free-will, but its still you that actually makes your decisions. If God just overrides your free-will and inserts his own (something no human or event can do) then your free-will (imo) doesn't exist.

L31mr0d

Puck wrote: »

It's kind of like a parent who goes out for the night and tells his kids to look after the house and behave while he's gone (or as Jesus put it, a vineyard owner who went away to a distant land, leaving the vineyard in the hands of the workers). The parent is still the boss but he has given responsibility to the kids and he can come back anytime and lay down the law.

In the parent's "perfect will" the children would behave perfectly, not doing any damage, no wild parties, no furniture broken, no fires started, they would live to serve their dad. But these kids aren't perfect (a lot of the time they can be real brats). The dad has allowed them to choose to obey him and in that way grow in character and develop into responsible adults but this means that while Dad is out they can also choose to disobey him.

Say one of the kids fights with his brother and knocks over some furniture. In the parents "permissive will" this child would apologise and make up with his brother and tidy up the mess they made but the dad's "perfect will" would be that none of that messing about happened in the first place.

An interesting thing though is that this child has somehow changed, he has seen that it is wrong to fight and make a mess of his dad's house and he has willfully chosen to do the right thing. He is now slightly less of a brat and slightly more of a responsible adult. I don't think you'd get the same results if this child was somehow restrained so that he never even had a choice.

So in one way God's will is done but in another way we can still disobey Him. Exactly how that tension works itself out I'll have to wait and ask Dad when I see him.

I really hate when catholics bring up this analogy because they never end the story, you know, when the father comes home and finds his son has been misbehaving and thinks things should be done differently so he hands him over to his serial murderer of a neighbour, Bob, so that he can torture him for the rest of his life. That part of the story is always conveniently left out.

Also, I don't know if this has been broached yet but doesn't the fact that the bible tells us the future already exists negate free will. I mean how did Judas have free will to choose to not betray Jesus if it had already been written that he would do so.

PDN

L31mr0d wrote: »

Also, I don't know if this has been broached yet but doesn't the fact that the bible tells us the future already exists negate free will. I mean how did Judas have free will to choose to not betray Jesus if it had already been written that he would do so.

This has come up in other threads. One party simply observing how a second party uses their freewill does not thereby interfere with that freewill. We can all see how this works in one tense - if I watch a TV clip of a footballer taking a penalty, then my observing after the fact does not affect the footballer's freewill to aim for the left or right of the goal. If I had the ability to see into the future them neither would my observing of the penalty before the fact interfere with the footballer's free will.

L31mr0d

PDN wrote: »

This has come up in other threads. One party simply observing how a second party uses their freewill does not thereby interfere with that freewill. We can all see how this works in one tense - if I watch a TV clip of a footballer taking a penalty, then my observing after the fact does not affect the footballer's freewill to aim for the left or right of the goal. If I had the ability to see into the future them neither would my observing of the penalty before the fact interfere with the footballer's free will.

what i'm saying though is that if my future is already written then who wrote it? I have no free will to change my destiny because I have no way of knowing it, therefore whatever has already been destined for me will happen regardless, I neither have the free will nor the means to alter my destiny

I mean take Judas for example, at the last supper Jesus said "One of you here tonight will betray me"... would not Judas now think "crap, i'm rumbled, jesus can clearly see the future, better not betray him so". But he went ahead and did it anyway. Was there even the possibility that he could of chosen not to do it?

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote: »

One is not allowed to question the current consensus if it involves the origins of life. I'm not even talking about Creationism vs Evolution, but Spontaneous Evolution vs Intelligent Design.

Mark Hamill wrote:

Anyone can question whatever they want about science, but if you offer an alternative theory about something you are expected to back it up.

That's as it should be. But see the Bible, Creationism & Prophecy thread to see why it doesn't work out like that.

Wolfsbane not only is this so much hot air but it is wildly misleading. No evidence has been suppressed, if for no other reason than because there is no evidence.

I challenge you to point to specific posts in the Bible, Creationism & Prophecy thread where any actual scientifically valid evidence for creationism is provided (and I'm not talking about speculation and conjecture). If you can show how, when and where this evidence has been censored or suppressed by the scientific community, so much the better.

As has been discussed ad nauseam in said thread, you can question the prevailing consensus all you like but until someone provides some supporting evidence to challenge it, you cannot expect to be taken seriously. Anyone who manages to provide that evidence will make a great name for him or her self. But we're all still waiting.

A friendly warning to anyone thinking of wading through all 10,000+ posts in search of the suppressed evidence of which Wolfsbane speaks: you will be greatly disappointed. All the actual science is on the side of evolution.

Mods: apologies for the cross-topic post but I strongly feel Wolfsbane is misrepresenting the content of the Bible, Creationism & Prophecy thread.

wolfsbane

rockbeer wrote: »

Wolfsbane not only is this so much hot air but it is wildly misleading. No evidence has been suppressed, if for no other reason than because there is no evidence.

I challenge you to point to specific posts in the Bible, Creationism & Prophecy thread where any actual scientifically valid evidence for creationism is provided (and I'm not talking about speculation and conjecture). If you can show how, when and where this evidence has been censored or suppressed by the scientific community, so much the better.

As has been discussed ad nauseam in said thread, you can question the prevailing consensus all you like but until someone provides some supporting evidence to challenge it, you cannot expect to be taken seriously. Anyone who manages to provide that evidence will make a great name for him or her self. But we're all still waiting.

A friendly warning to anyone thinking of wading through all 10,000+ posts in search of the suppressed evidence of which Wolfsbane speaks: you will be greatly disappointed. All the actual science is on the side of evolution.

Mods: apologies for the cross-topic post but I strongly feel Wolfsbane is misrepresenting the content of the Bible, Creationism & Prophecy thread.

Let the readers visit the thread and judge for themselves. It seems we look at the same evidence and see different things: I see it in support of creation, you in support of evolution.

You write off any scientifically valid evidence for creationism as speculation and conjecture, then claim there is none. If it is just speculation and conjecture, the unbiased observer might wonder why those scientists who offer it are not scientifically confronted and refuted, but instead face censorship and discrimination. They are not admitted to scientific debate, but are shouted down. This tells me who has the weaker argument.

I feel you are misrepresenting the content of the Bible, Creationism & Prophecy thread - albeit in ignorance.

Mark Hamill

wolfsbane wrote: »

You write off any scientifically valid evidence for creationism as speculation and conjecture, then claim there is none. If it is just speculation and conjecture, the unbiased observer might wonder why those scientists who offer it are not scientifically confronted and refuted, but instead face censorship and discrimination. They are not admitted to scientific debate, but are shouted down. This tells me who has the weaker argument.

Could you give examples of these scientifically valid evidence for creationism ? You could post them in the other thread if you like, if you don't want to do it here.

rockbeer

wolfsbane wrote: »

Let the readers visit the thread and judge for themselves. It seems we look at the same evidence and see different things: I see it in support of creation, you in support of evolution.

Spirited words, but you decline to point to the specific posts as I requested. Why is that?

wolfsbane wrote: »

You write off any scientifically valid evidence for creationism as speculation and conjecture, then claim there is none.

I advise you to read carefully over what you've written and spot the obvious problem with it. Then if you read back over what I wrote you'll discover I've done no such thing. I challenged you firstly to indicate any such evidence, which - as I've already pointed out - you have declined to do, and secondly to demonstrate how it has been censored or suppressed. Since you haven't shown there to be any scientifically valid evidence it isn't surprising that you haven't been able to show how it's been censored either.

wolfsbane wrote: »

If it is just speculation and conjecture, the unbiased observer might wonder why those scientists who offer it are not scientifically confronted and refuted, but instead face censorship and discrimination. They are not admitted to scientific debate, but are shouted down. This tells me who has the weaker argument.

This has been gone over at such length in the other thread that I can only imagine you're trolling here, but let me try and explain once again. Since there is no scientifically valid evidence, there is no way to refute it scientifically. It would be like trying to demonstrate mathematically that boiling mushrooms doesn't make chips. Having said that, the other thread amounts a refutation in that it is one massive statement of what the scientifically valid evidence does demonstrate and none of it supports your position. If you're complaining that your 'scientists' don't get published in scientific journals, and choose to call this censorship and discrimination, you should remind yourself that not many chefs get published in maths journals either.

But nonetheless I challenge you once again to show us just one piece of actual scientific, testable evidence in support of young earth creationism, and tell us how it's been suppressed or censored. No more unsupported accusations or vague conspiracy theories, just one solid piece of evidence along with the details of its suppression, that's all. That shouldn't be so hard if your claims are true.

wolfsbane wrote: »

I feel you are misrepresenting the content of the Bible, Creationism & Prophecy thread - albeit in ignorance.

ROFL