Any Creationists here?

philologos · 15-03-2007 05:07PM

Wicknight wrote:

Its all very well to say that Jakkass but what actually got people turning to challenge your post, and Creationism in general, is comments like this

"Darwins theory on Evolution is just that, a theory. It requires the same amount of faith to believe in that than in Creationism."

"It is a theory. Give me one scrap of evidence of Evolution. Physical evidence that we evolved from slime to human form."

"it could have been more than 6 days but it wasn't millions of years."

You can believe what ever the hell you like Jakkass, but if you are going to enter into the scientific realm and start posting nonsense about science then you are going to get a ton of replies because put simply other people read your posts and it would be a terrible shame if other people read what you wrote about evolution and came away thinking something along the lines of "so there is no support for evolution?"

There is a thread going on in Atheism forum about Kevin Myers who wrote an article in the Irish Times about how evolution just doesn't make sense, which seems to be entirely based on a Creationist book sent to him. Whats wrong with expressing an opinion? you may ask. The problem was that his article, just as your post, was riddled with inaccuracies about what evolution actually is. Needless to say he got a ton of emails and replies pointing this out, though I doubt he will listen.

You are of course free to post anything you like, but you should expect that if your posts misrepresent science you will get replies.

My point was that Science requires a lot of faith in certain circumstances, the Big Bang would be another example. Particles created the universe from a big bang, thats all very well but where did the particles come from. Creationism is just as valid as Evolution as a theory, you can try convince me that it isn't all you like. As for the Big Bang, which is a theory. It hasn't yet been proven either. It requires an equal amount of faith to Christianity and Creationism. A lot of Science hasn't been proven, just because it's science doesn't mean it is completely accurate.

LFCFan · 15-03-2007 05:15PM

It seems that no matter what evidence is put forth by science, Christian/Creationists or whatever will just fob it off and put it all down to God. If there was a God, do you seriously believe that he can read all our thoughts at the same time, listens to prayers, performs the odd miracle here and there and when we die he will cast you to hell for not believing in him? Do you really think that someone powerful enough to create the Universe would be petty enough and so self centred to expect everyone to worship him? If this God did exist he's not the sort of person/thing I would want anything to do with. He sounds like a complete Megalomaniac.

philologos · 15-03-2007 05:22PM

LFCFan wrote:

It seems that no matter what evidence is put forth by science, Christian/Creationists or whatever will just fob it off and put it all down to God. If there was a God, do you seriously believe that he can read all our thoughts at the same time, listens to prayers, performs the odd miracle here and there and when we die he will cast you to hell for not believing in him? Do you really think that someone powerful enough to create the Universe would be petty enough and so self centred to expect everyone to worship him? If this God did exist he's not the sort of person/thing I would want anything to do with. He sounds like a complete Megalomaniac.

That's your opinion. He is seen as a very caring individual throughout the whole Bible to whose who have accepted him and continue to follow his law.
As for Christians fobbing off Science other scientific laws that have been completely proven, apart from Evolution and the Big Bang are perfectly acceptable by me. Just like Religion in a sense, nobody was alive to prove that Evolution or the Big Bang ever took place. This is why I see it as a leap of faith in terms of some scientists.
I believe that he can, God is all knowing and all seeing in my eyes and is a powerful being who has created this world, sent the Israelites out of Egypt, carried out miracle upon miracle and many people are convinced that He has changed their lives for the better including myself.
If God was that powerful, I would put my life into His hands so he could do something good with it. He is better than I'll ever be, and I could trust him with it more than myself, and to be completely honest with you, I couldn't care what anyone else apart from Him thinks about my beliefs.

bonkey · 15-03-2007 05:27PM

Jakkass wrote:

Particles created the universe from a big bang, thats all very well but where did the particles come from.

You should first need to be able to accurately describe what the Big Bang model says before you believe you can pose meaningful questions about it.

Your description of what it is...is wrong. As a result the question you ask of it is meaningless.

Creationism is just as valid as Evolution as a theory,

Only if you mean theory in the non-scientific sense and only if you mean "creationism, with a side-order of loads of evidence made to look just like evolution had actually occurred".

you can try convince me that it isn't all you like.

I'd settle for you acknowledging that you're dismissing as incorrect something you don't understand.

As for the Big Bang, which is a theory. It hasn't yet been proven either.

You cannot prove a scientific theory.

It requires an equal amount of faith to Christianity and Creationism.

Only if you assume that Creationism is accompanied by a load of evidence which is put there to mislead us.

A lot of Science hasn't been proven

You cannot prove a scientific theory. You are once again showing that you don't understand what it is you are criticsing.

philologos · 15-03-2007 05:34PM

Was there anyone alive before the world was created to prove how it was done?
Was there anyone alive at the time of evolution to prove that it occurred?

If not it requires faith to believe in. Just like the faith I have in Christianity.

LFCFan · 15-03-2007 05:34PM

Jakkass wrote:

I believe that he can, God is all knowing and all seeing in my eyes and is a powerful being who has created this world, sent the Israelites out of Egypt, carried out miracle upon miracle and many people are convinced that He has changed their lives for the better including myself.

I am at a loss for words when I see how much faith so many people put in a book that was written by ordinary humans about something that was passed down through generations. Chinese whispers prove that a story told and passed among 10 people in a room within 20 minutes ends up coming out the other side a lot different to the way it started so how can the Bible be accurate? Any why were the Gospels Cherry picked from the many that were written? Any why is religion needed at all to believe in God? And answer me this. If you had been born to Islamic parents, would you by now have converted to Christianity or would you still be part of Islam? I know it's impossible to answer this but it begs the question about how true anyone's religion is if they were forced into it.

bonkey · 15-03-2007 05:35PM

Jakkass wrote:

other scientific laws that have been completely proven, apart from Evolution and the Big Bang are perfectly acceptable by me.

I defy you to name a single one of those laws. Just one scientific "law" that has been completely proven.

All you're doing is showing how great your misunderstanding of science is and that ultimately your reasons for declaring it wrong are because you believe something else.

As a matter of interest, in the bible, Pi is suggested to be 3. Do you believe that too?

philologos · 15-03-2007 05:36PM

I have already discussed that I have read the Qu'ran. Meaning that I have researched into other religions. I also claimed that I doubted religion for a time in my life. I found Religion, I don't neccessarily think it's because of my upbringing.

philologos · 15-03-2007 05:39PM

bonkey wrote:

I defy you to name a single one of those laws. Just one scientific "law" that has been completely proven.

Law of the Lever, and to an extent the theory of gravity has been proven and can be seen to be true, unlike the Big Bang, or Evolution which can't. Hence it requires faith like Christianity, I really can't explain my reasons for believing so any more than this.

15-03-2007 05:42PM

Jakkass wrote:

Law of the Lever, and to an extent the theory of gravity has been proven and can be seen to be true, unlike the Big Bang, or Evolution which can't. Hence it requires faith like Christianity, I really can't explain my reasons for believing so any more than this.

Yeah evolution isn't true at all. Which is exactly why those antibios you take when you're sick are so effective.
Want to test out your claims and take decades old antibios etc and see how far that cures you?

LFCFan · 15-03-2007 05:43PM

Jakkass wrote:

Was there anyone alive at the time of evolution to prove that it occurred?

Of course not as it would require someone to be billions of years old. There is however much evidence to support evolution. What evidence is there to support God?

philologos · 15-03-2007 05:45PM

if you read I claimed that the faith required for elements of Science are equal to that of Christianity.

Jakkass wrote:

Law of the Lever, and to an extent the theory of gravity has been proven and can be seen to be true, unlike the Big Bang, or Evolution which can't. Hence it requires faith like Christianity.

However I would consider the Bible evidence, but I know yet again that you will all find that rediculous so what's the point. I accept a lot of Science, infact all of it except Evolution and the Big Bang theory.

LFCFan · 15-03-2007 05:48PM

Jakkass wrote:

I have already discussed that I have read the Qu'ran. Meaning that I have researched into other religions. I also claimed that I doubted religion for a time in my life. I found Religion, I don't neccessarily think it's because of my upbringing.

I take it you were born into a Christian family? If so it's kind of convenient that this was the religion you 'found'.

What about Protestantism? It is a subset of Catholicism because someone was pissed off with it and then England embraced it because it's King wanted to Re-Marry. How can this be the basis for an entire belief system? It just adds more weight to the arguement that Religion is flawed.

bonkey · 15-03-2007 05:51PM

Jakkass wrote:

Law of the Lever,

Law of the lever assumes that the theory of gravity, the theory of causality and any number of other theories are correct. If any one of those theories are incorrect or do not apply in a particular circumstance then the law of the lever will not hold true. Given that you don't list those theories as being undoubtedly proven to be true, the law of the lever cannot in turn be said to be proven.

and to an extent the theory of gravity has been proven

"To an extent"??? You mean "not fully proven" then, but are wording it differently.

Indeed, given that gravity is not - by your own admission - universally proven, then the law of the lever also is not.

So 0 for 2. Care to try again?

bonkey · 15-03-2007 05:53PM

Jakkass wrote:

Was there anyone alive before the world was created to prove how it was done?
Was there anyone alive at the time of evolution to prove that it occurred?

If not it requires faith to believe in. Just like the faith I have in Christianity.

A man lies dead. There is a hole in his chest with unburned gunpowder around it. There is a hole through his chest, passing through his heart and exiting out his back. There is a bullet embedded in the wall behind him. On this bullet, there are biological traces which can be DNA-matched to the dead person. Lying beside the man is a gun with a single bullet missing from the magazine. Testing can show that the bullet taken from the wall can be matched with a bullet fired from this gun under test conditions.

No-one saw him die.

Is the conclusion:

a) The man was shot at close range with the gun found lying beside him

b) The man could have died in any number of ways and any decision about how he died is really based on how you believe he died. If you believe he drowned, your belief is just as compelling as any other explanation.

c) The man was shot at close range with the gun found lying beside him, because the scientific theories involved do not contradict the bible, and thus the "its a question of faith" argument doesn't apply.

philologos · 15-03-2007 05:55PM

Convenient? Theres nothing convenient about putting ones faith in a religion. I felt God's presence around me. It convinced me far more than the other beliefs out there, thats basically why Christianity has come through.

Protestantism? where did this come out of creationism. Protestantism was the result of high figures in the Catholic church sinning against God at the time. I think you are discussing Anglicanism, and that is essentially true. It doesn't add to the argument that Religion is flawed, it adds to the fact that all people are flawed and at times fail to follow the Laws of God. If you make that assumption you are saying that all theists are meant to be infallable, which of course is false.

DNA is rather different to creation theories, it can be seen through microscopes, compared, tested etc etc. Whereas Evolution or the Big Bang can't really be proven.

And I can't prove that God created the world either, I trust my faith that He did but you'll never accept that. It seems we are at a deadlock, you can't prove that the world was created by Evolution and that mankind was formed through Evolution, I can't prove God created the world.

Zombrex · 15-03-2007 05:59PM

Jakkass wrote:

My point was that Science requires a lot of faith in certain circumstances

No it doesn't. In fact it requires that scientists DO NOT put faith in scientific theories.

One of the cornerstones of modern science is the idea of falsifiability.

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

This basically says that that for any theory to be considered proper science it must be possible to show that it is wrong. This doesn't mean that it has to be wrong, which would not make any sense, simply that it has to be possible that it is wrong and possible to show that it is wrong.

The easier it is to show a scientific theory is wrong the better the scientific theory is considered to be. Scientific theories where it would be hard to show the theory is wrong are considered weak theories.

Jakkass wrote:

, the Big Bang would be another example. Particles created the universe from a big bang, thats all very well but where did the particles come from.

The theory of the "big bang" (which is a non-scientific term that actually encompasses a number of scientific theories) does not cover the question of where the singularity came from.

Jakkass wrote:

Creationism is just as valid as Evolution as a theory

No it isn't.

Creationism is not a valid scientific theory. This is not just me being mean to Creationists, they themselves admit that it isn't a valid scientific theory which is why they spend a large amount of their time and large amounts of money, in places such as the USA School Board system, attempting to change the definition of what is considered a valid scientific theory.

For a start the idea that God created anything is at the present time a completely un-falsifiable (if you will excuse the double negative). That rock over there. How do I show that God didn't create it?

This by itself rules it out of being a something that can be scientifically tested or modeled and is therefore not a scientific theory.

Jakkass wrote:

As for the Big Bang, which is a theory. It hasn't yet been proven either.

Nothing in science is ever proved. That is a common missunderstanding of what science can actually do, that I admit myself that I feel under.

One of the differences between science and religion is that science will never assert that it knows something for certain, because it is not actually possible to know something for certain. The only realm science deals with is likelyhoods. Nothing is ever proven because at a fundamental level nothing can be known for certain.

Take for example Newton's laws of physics. This was considered a very good scientific theory until it was discovered that it didn't work at all well for quantum mechanics. So Newton's laws were simply a very close model of reality but they did not model reality exactly. Quantum mechanics hopes to get the model (a collection of theories that aim to predict behaviour) closer to reality. Something like string theory may get that model even closer to reality, as scientists search for the elusive "theory of everything"

But, just like Newtonian physics and quantum mechanics, the scientists studying these things can never tell if they have got the model of reality perfect. It is an on going and probably never ending process of refining the models and theories based on evidence until they get closer and closer to predicting reality.

They will never know when this happens and as such they can never say that any scientific theory is "proven" to be correct.

This is a fundamental difference between science and religion. Science recognises that human models of reality can never be perfect, or at least if they are perfect we can never be certain they are perfect.

Religion on the other hand maintains that they have perfect theories and models of reality. Creationism (which remember is not science) asserts that the theory that God created the universe is a perfect theory, in that it cannot be wrong.

That is scientific nonsense, since it is impossible to know this. This is even before we get to the point where we look at the evidence behind this theory.

Even if one ignores this fact Creationism is still a completely unsupported idea.

You can tell this by the fact that you have to actually follow a particular religion to accept a particular religions version of Creationism. How many Hindus believe in Biblical creation? How many Christians believe in the Viking explanation of the formation of the universe? How many Muslims think that the Zeus creation myth is accurate?

The simple fact is that there is no scientific theory of creationism, there is no model in any kind of meaningful sense that explains what Biblical (or any other form) of creationism actually says. It is simply "God did it" That is neither a scientific theory nor is it a scientific model. God did what exactly?

Can I write a computer simulation that models what God did? Can I get out a pen and paper and work out the maths of what happened when God created the universe. Can I use this model to predict what the universe should look like now (as scientists do with big bang theories) and then compare this to observation to see if my model of "What God did" is accurate?

Using this model can I predict what the temperture of the Earth was like just after Biblical Creation and then check that against rock and soil samples. Can I simulate the gravity distortion that would have been caused God creating the Earth and then see if evidence of this is found in the orbits of other planets?

The answer to all these questions is of course a big fat no, because Creationists, who claim to be scientists, actually have no freaking clue what they think is actually supposed to have happend. They don't have a theory of Biblical creationism. They stop with the "God did it" and go no further.

To claim that the nonsense that is Creationism is just as valid as scientific theories such as the big bang or evolution, which are actual proper honest to God science, not simply "God did it" nonsense, does the greatest disservice to the proper men and women in the scientific community who toil and strive for the advancement of human understanding of the universe.

humanji · 15-03-2007 06:05PM

LFCFan wrote:

I am at a loss for words when I see how much faith so many people put in a book that was written by ordinary humans about something that was passed down through generations. Chinese whispers prove that a story told and passed among 10 people in a room within 20 minutes ends up coming out the other side a lot different to the way it started so how can the Bible be accurate? Any why were the Gospels Cherry picked from the many that were written? Any why is religion needed at all to believe in God? And answer me this. If you had been born to Islamic parents, would you by now have converted to Christianity or would you still be part of Islam? I know it's impossible to answer this but it begs the question about how true anyone's religion is if they were forced into it.

Is your own faith in there being no god so shallow that you actually need to harrass those who do believe? Just give it a rest. I can't understand why time and time again chritians and athiests constantly bicker over how wrong the opposing side is. Just get on with your own lives or be agnostic like me, and sit on the cosmic fence

philologos · 15-03-2007 06:07PM

Wickwight wrote:

To claim that the nonsense that is Creationism is just as valid as scientific theories such as the big bang or evolution, which are actual proper honest to God science, not simply "God did it" nonsense, does the greatest disservice to the proper men and women in the scientific community who toil and strive for the advancement of human understanding of the universe.

It's just as valid to a lot of theists. What I could consider truthful, you could consider nonsense. It's just the way it is. That is your view. Mine is much different.
"proper men and women", hmm is that an implication that Christians or indeed Creationists of any kind aren't proper?

aurel · 15-03-2007 06:12PM

I have no problem with people being religious but it amazes me how many people choose really awful ones like christianity. Get with the drugs and orgies cults people c'mon.

LFCFan · 15-03-2007 06:29PM

humanji wrote:

Is your own faith in there being no god so shallow that you actually need to harrass those who do believe? Just give it a rest. I can't understand why time and time again chritians and athiests constantly bicker over how wrong the opposing side is. Just get on with your own lives or be agnostic like me, and sit on the cosmic fence

I actually think that getting to the bottom of why people believe in something like God and follow a religion like Chritianity is very important, especially living in a country like Ireland. If and when I have children I would prefer not to subject them to religion but unfortunatly I know this would be tough on the child because he/she would be seen as different. Also my wife is not an Athiest and most of my family have some faith of some sort so my questioning of Christians has a purpose. If the Church are so confident of their teachings and what they beleive in then why not give people a chance to make up their own mind about it instead of forcing them.

bonkey · 15-03-2007 06:34PM

Jakkass wrote:

DNA is rather different to creation theories, it can be seen through microscopes, compared, tested etc etc. Whereas Evolution or the Big Bang can't really be proven.

Prove to me that the DNA on the bullet wasn't from someone with teh exact same DNA as the man lying dead.

Prove to me that two people cannot have the same DNA.

Prove to me that the man didn't die from drowning, then was put where we found him and all the evidence of his drowning somehow covered up, and all the evidence that he died from a gunshot somehow fabricated.

You can't....because it can't be proven. Its "only a theory".

Now...lets say we found finger prints on the gun, and a man nearby who not only had those fingerprints but also had gunshot residue which could be traced to the gun, as well as blood-spatter which has the same DNA as teh victims.

The man is arrested and brought to trial. The defence argues that its only scientific theory which leads us to the notion that his client comitted murder. Indeed, he says that not only does he believe that his client did not commit the murder, he also has faith that his client never fired the gun in the first place and that he additionally believes that the victim wasn't actually shot in the first place.

You are on the jury. The case is down to whether you put faith in science or put faith in something else. If there is nothing to choose between faith in one thing and another, then there is reaosnable doubt. If there isn't reasonable doubt, then there is a reason to put faith in science.

Do you say "guilty", or do you say "not guilty because of reasonable doubt"?

Because thats what it boils down to. Either science is "just another faith", or its not. You've argued that it is, so the logical conclusion is that you will not find the accused guilty.

I trust my faith that He did but you'll never accept that.

I accept that fine.

Its not your faith I question, but rather the grounds on which you dismiss science. My example above is attempting to show that you won't apply your grounds for dismissing science equally...that its only when its inconvenient to your religious belief that you will dismiss science as "just a different faith", but outside of that, you're willing to accept that its a hell of a lot more than that.

you can't prove that the world was created by Evolution and that mankind was formed through Evolution, I can't prove God created the world.

I dunno abotu anyone else here, but I've lost track of the number of times I've said that you can't prove a scientific theory. If you think science is about proof, its because you don't understand science.

humanji · 15-03-2007 06:35PM

If they forced them to believe then you would be a practicing christian.

Zombrex · 15-03-2007 06:36PM

Jakkass wrote:

It's just as valid to a lot of theists. What I could consider truthful, you could consider nonsense.

I consider Creationism not science because I'm aware of the criteria that something must pass to be considered science and Creationism does not pass these criteria. It is pretty simple really.

If you wish to simply not believe that, I suppose that is up to you. I don't think science will lose much sleep over that fact.

I would be curious though would you have the courage of your convictions to turn away all the many wonderful advancements that modern science has given the world based on your rejection of science now?

Would you refuse a medical treatment because it is based on modern biological models that require evolutionary models to be accurate (surely such a treatment itself would be an impossibility if modern biology was completely wrong about that).

Would you march into a television store and proclaim that you don't believe anyone should buy a TV because you don't believe that there is in fact any light actually being admitted from the TV boxes, since the scientific model of light established in the 19th century and early 20th century that is used to create TVs is also used in the theories of the "big bang" which you simply don't believe in.

I imagine you wouldn't. We all like High Definition TVs and life saving medical treatments after all. As bonkey points out it is a curious fact that creationists tend to only reject science, or simply choose to say "I don't believe that", when it deals with areas of their religion. They are perfectly happy with science when it is making their car run or fighting off a killer bacterial infection. What you seem to not realises is that it is all the same thing. Scientists don't just get really really stupid when it comes to something like evolution or the big bang, and then get really smart again when they want to use the theory of light to build a working TV. Scientific standards for how to form theories and models apply across the board.

Jakkass wrote:

"proper men and women", hmm is that an implication that Christians or indeed Creationists of any kind aren't proper?

Its a the very strong implication that Creationists of any kind, Christian or otherwise, who claim that they religious beliefs are science or as valid as science and should be treated as such are not "proper" scientists of any shape or form

philologos · 15-03-2007 06:37PM

bonkey wrote:

Prove to me that the DNA on the bullet wasn't from someone with teh exact same DNA as the man lying dead.

Prove to me that two people cannot have the same DNA.

Prove to me that the man didn't die from drowning, then was put where we found him and all the evidence of his drowning somehow covered up, and all the evidence that he died from a gunshot somehow fabricated.

You can't....because it can't be proven. Its "only a theory".

Now...lets say we found finger prints on the gun, and a man nearby who not only had those fingerprints but also had gunshot residue which could be traced to the gun, as well as blood-spatter which has the same DNA as teh victims.

The man is arrested and brought to trial. The defence argues that its only scientific theory which leads us to the notion that his client comitted murder. Indeed, he says that not only does he believe that his client did not commit the murder, he also has faith that his client never fired the gun in the first place and that he additionally believes that the victim wasn't actually shot in the first place.

You are on the jury. The case is down to whether you put faith in science or put faith in something else. If there is nothing to choose between faith in one thing and another, then there is reaosnable doubt. If there isn't reasonable doubt, then there is a reason to put faith in science.

Do you say "guilty", or do you say "not guilty because of reasonable doubt"?

Because thats what it boils down to. Either science is "just another faith", or its not. You've argued that it is, so the logical conclusion is that you will not find the accused guilty.

I accept that fine.

Its not your faith I question, but rather the grounds on which you dismiss science. My example above is attempting to show that you won't apply your grounds for dismissing science equally...that its only when its inconvenient to your religious belief that you will dismiss science as "just a different faith", but outside of that, you're willing to accept that its a hell of a lot more than that.

I dunno abotu anyone else here, but I've lost track of the number of times I've said that you can't prove a scientific theory. If you think science is about proof, its because you don't understand science.

I don't dismiss all Science, just Evolution and the Big Bang theories. That is due to my faith and beliefs.

Wickwight wrote:

Its a the very strong implication that Creationists of any kind, Christian or otherwise, who claim that they religious beliefs are science or as valid as science and should be treated as such are not "proper" scientists of any shape or form

You didn't mention scientists at first, although Christian scientists have come up in the past. You said men and women mind, not scientists.

wolfsbane · 15-03-2007 06:43PM

JimiTime said:

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.

I have a lot of sympathy with what you are saying. Christians ought not get too upset about Evolutionist tales, just as with Islamic, Hindu or Pagan tales. Our prime task is to preach the truth, knowing that those who are of God will hear and believe it.

Sometimes that involves us defending the truth, exposing the error of the opponents, showing the seekers the reasonableness of our case:
Acts 17:24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands. 25 Nor is He worshiped with men’s hands, as though He needed anything, since He gives to all life, breath, and all things. 26 And He has made from one blood every nation of men to dwell on all the face of the earth, and has determined their preappointed times and the boundaries of their dwellings, 27 so that they should seek the Lord, in the hope that they might grope for Him and find Him, though He is not far from each one of us; 28 for in Him we live and move and have our being, as also some of your own poets have said, ‘For we are also His offspring.’ 29 Therefore, since we are the offspring of God, we ought not to think that the Divine Nature is like gold or silver or stone, something shaped by art and man’s devising. 30 Truly, these times of ignorance God overlooked, but now commands all men everywhere to repent, 31 because He has appointed a day on which He will judge the world in righteousness by the Man whom He has ordained. He has given assurance of this to all by raising Him from the dead.”

God has also given us a mandate to defend the believers from the lies of Satan that are intended to shake their faith:
Acts 20:17 From Miletus he sent to Ephesus and called for the elders of the church. 18 And when they had come to him, he said to them: “You know, from the first day that I came to Asia, in what manner I always lived among you, 19 serving the Lord with all humility, with many tears and trials which happened to me by the plotting of the Jews; 20 how I kept back nothing that was helpful, but proclaimed it to you, and taught you publicly and from house to house, 21 testifying to Jews, and also to Greeks, repentance toward God and faith toward our Lord Jesus Christ. 22 And see, now I go bound in the spirit to Jerusalem, not knowing the things that will happen to me there, 23 except that the Holy Spirit testifies in every city, saying that chains and tribulations await me. 24 But none of these things move me; nor do I count my life dear to myself, so that I may finish my race with joy, and the ministry which I received from the Lord Jesus, to testify to the gospel of the grace of God.
25 “And indeed, now I know that you all, among whom I have gone preaching the kingdom of God, will see my face no more. 26 Therefore I testify to you this day that I am innocent of the blood of all men. 27 For I have not shunned to declare to you the whole counsel of God. 28 Therefore take heed to yourselves and to all the flock, among which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers, to shepherd the church of God which He purchased with His own blood. 29 For I know this, that after my departure savage wolves will come in among you, not sparing the flock. 30 Also from among yourselves men will rise up, speaking perverse things, to draw away the disciples after themselves. 31 Therefore watch, and remember that for three years I did not cease to warn everyone night and day with tears.

There is no doubt that Evolution is the biggest lie of the past couple of centuries, designed to give a credible alternative to the ungodly, and to undermine the Christian's trust in the truth of Scripture.

The world has been deceived by this delusion, and many Christians have lost the comfort of the Scriptures, because they have abandoned Genesis as history.

So we use the Creation/Evolution debate to evangelise the lost and to instruct the believers. We are not worried about how sophisticated or power our opponents may be. God will eventually bring down every false argument and vindicate His Truth.

Talliesin · 15-03-2007 06:44PM

aurel wrote:

I have no problem with people being religious but it amazes me how many people choose really awful ones like christianity. Get with the drugs and orgies cults people c'mon.

Similarly enough, I have no problem with people arguing against religions, but it amazes me that they can't come up with something better than this rubbish.
Your next post in any of the religious forums will contain actual content, or it will be your last.

LFCFan · 15-03-2007 06:46PM

humanji wrote:

If they forced them to believe then you would be a practicing christian.

I will NEVER force a child of mine to believe in anything (well apart from the fact that Liverpool are the greatest football team

) but Irish society has made it very difficult for someone to completely ignore religion. If I had my way, the child would never be baptised and never forced to go to Church. Unfortunatly there's more then just me going to be involved in their lives so I'll probably be overuled. If they decided on their own that this is what they wanted to do then that's fine. I'd be disappointed that they were taken in by it all but I'd understand.

philologos · 15-03-2007 06:49PM

LFCFan wrote:

I will NEVER force a child of mine to believe in anything (well apart from the fact that Liverpool are the greatest football team ) but Irish society has made it very difficult for someone to completely ignore religion.

I won't force anyone to believe in anything either. I hope to just tell my children of it and allow them to make up their own minds.

Son Goku · 15-03-2007 06:51PM

Jakkass wrote:

I don't dismiss all Science, just Evolution and the Big Bang theories. That is due to my faith and beliefs.

Bingo!, Evolution and the Big Bang have plenty of evidence in favour of them. You reject them just because of your beliefs, not because there is some problem with the evidence.

That's okay and you are being exceptionally honest about it. The problem that most of us have with creationism is that most creationists will claim evolution and the Big Bang have scientific flaws, in the sense that evidence doesn't support them or that they conflict with other laws. Rather than being honest and say it is due to conflicts with their beliefs.

Any Creationists here?

Comments