Why I believe in Creation not Evolution.

[Guest]

Perhaps that's the problem. Simply telling me that I'm wrong and ridiculing and demeaning creationists are no substitute for a well reasoned response.

Not understanding a point is one thing, and most people are more than happy to patiently explain something. But mixing science and faith is not doable for a simple reason, there is not way to test and measure faith. That's not hard to understand, but when creationists keep on insisting on it, its tough to remain patient. And I've made the point over and over again. If you have a way to fit faith into the scientific method, I promise I will listen patiently. But really, you can't claim faith should be Incorporated into science but not have any way to measure an outcome that occurs because of faith.

Well

And thou shalt love the LORD thy God with all thine heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy might. Deuteronomy 6:4-6

It Seems Crystal Clear To Me

Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me. John 5:39

Missing

Thou art worthy, O Lord, to receive glory and honour and power: for thou hast created all things, and for thy pleasure they are and were created. Revelation 4:11

The Whole Point Of Creation

The heavens declare the glory of God; and the firmament sheweth his handywork.

Day unto day uttereth speech, and night unto night sheweth knowledge.

There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard. Psalms 19:1-3

Is Very Suspect Doings

Whosoever therefore shall be ashamed of me and of my words in this adulterous and sinful generation; of him also shall the Son of man be ashamed, when he cometh in the glory of his Father with the holy angels. Mark 8:38

For Any Scientific

For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Romans 1:20

Believer

God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high; Hebrews 1:1-3

But A Piece Of Cake

Now the serpent was more subtil than any beast of the field which the LORD God had made. And he said.... Yea, hath God said.... ? Genesis 3:1

For Scoffers

Surely your turning of things upside down shall be esteemed as the potter's clay: for shall the work say of him that made it, He made me not? or shall the thing framed say of him that framed it, He had no understanding? Isaiah 29:16

You Think?

And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory. 1 Timothy 3:16

____________

_________

______

___

Believe

He was in the world, and the world was made by him, and the world knew him not.

He came unto his own, and his own received him not.

But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name: John 1:10-12

And Be Blessed Beloved

Which were born, not of blood, nor of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of man, but of God.

And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth. John 1:13-14

Love, Joe

[Believer112]

Declaration S1

We YECs (if any YECs here object let me know) distinguish between origins science and operational science. We define origins science as the speculations about the unobservable and untestable past that attempt to explain how natural phenomena and processes came about, (macroevolution, abiogenesis, big bang theory etc).

We define operational science as the study of processes that is observable, repeatable, testable, falsifiable in the present (chemistry, medicine, physics, information science etc)

We do not have any objections to proper repeatable, testable, falsifiable operational science, however we do object to naturalistic origins science.

Given declaration A above, I trust you understand that we do not have a problem with medicine, as it is testable and repeatable in the present.

D-9 this is how I feel and he speaks for me. Since I am attempting to take a break from debates that get my mind going I am going to bow out of this thread for the time being.

This Declaration is how i feel also.

[Guest shiloh357]

Not unbderstanding a poinyt is one thing, and most people are more than happen to patiently explain something. But mixing science and faith is not doable for a simple reason, there is not way to test and measure faith. That's not hard to understand, but when creationists keep on insisting on it, its tough to remain patient. And I've made the point over and over again. If you have a way to fit faith into the scientific method, I promise I will listen patiently. But really, you can't claim faith should be incoporated into science but not have any way to measure an outcome that occurs because of faith.

Yet, mixing science and faith is exactly what you are trying to do. You keep arguing that natural selection is the method God employed to bring about life. Your problem is not in mixing science and faith so long as one begins and ends with an evolutionary worldview. The truth is that you are only opposed to mixing science and faith only when the underlying worldview is creationist. Theistic Evolution is the mixing of science and faith (assuming one believes evouition to be science).

[LuftWaffle]

Yet, mixing science and faith is exactly what you are trying to do. You keep arguing that natural selection is the method God employed to bring about life. Your problem is not in mixing science and faith so long as one begins and ends with an evolutionary worldview. The truth is that you are only opposed to mixing science and faith only when the underlying worldview is creationist. Theistic Evolution is the mixing of science and faith (assuming one believes evouition to be science).

Yes!

[Don Fanucci]

Not unbderstanding a poinyt is one thing, and most people are more than happen to patiently explain something. But mixing science and faith is not doable for a simple reason, there is not way to test and measure faith. That's not hard to understand, but when creationists keep on insisting on it, its tough to remain patient. And I've made the point over and over again. If you have a way to fit faith into the scientific method, I promise I will listen patiently. But really, you can't claim faith should be incoporated into science but not have any way to measure an outcome that occurs because of faith.

Yet, mixing science and faith is exactly what you are trying to do. You keep arguing that natural selection is the method God employed to bring about life. Your problem is not in mixing science and faith so long as one begins and ends with an evolutionary worldview. The truth is that you are only opposed to mixing science and faith only when the underlying worldview is creationist. Theistic Evolution is the mixing of science and faith (assuming one believes evouition to be science).

On the countrary, you are the one that insists my science is wrong (faith too, but that is a separate thread). I said I believe both and you claim its not possible. To support your reasoning you insist evolution is false. Evolution is in the purview of science, and therefore you rely on creationist arguments to refute it. These arguments are continuously and completely disproven, yet in spite of particpating in a scientific argument, someonhow scientific proofs are not aceptable. That's the proving-creationism-by-disproving evolution school of thought. Having failed at that, you then claim creation is true based on scriputure. As I've said, I believe the bible and I believe in evolution, and in the areas where they appear in conflict, I believe that God is big enough to resolve them both, but its just not clear to us now. This belief is derived from a belief in one truth, and that both approaches will eventually meet at this truth. Your response; my understanding of the bible is wrong, because it disagrees with you, and evolution is wrong, because, well, it disagrees with you. So I'm wrong on both counts, according to you. You you don't do very well defending your arguments on either end. The problem is with you not me. I'm fine with my beliefs, you're not, because they don't agree with yours.

[Guest shiloh357]

On the countrary, you are the one that insists my science is wrong (faith too, but that is a separate thread). I said I believe both and you claim its not possible. These arguments are continuously and completely disproven, yet in spite of particpating in a scientific argument, someonhow scientific proofs are not aceptable. That's the proving-creationism-by-disproving evolution school of thought. Having failed at that, you then claim creation is true based on scriputure. As I've said, I believe the bible and I believe in evolution, and in the areas where they appear in conflict, I believe that God is big enough to resolve them both, but its just not clear to us now. This belief is derived from a belief in one truth, and that both approaches will eventually meet at this truth. Your response; my understanding of the bible is wrong, because it disagrees with you, and evolution is wrong, because, well, it disagrees with you. So I'm wrong on both counts, according to you. You you don't do very well defending your arguments on either end. The problem is with you not me. I'm fine with my beliefs, you're not, because they don't agree with yours.

Yawn.... None of that addresses my comment as to the hypocrisy of accusing creationists of mixing science and faith. The problem is not science vs. faith. The problem is creationist and evolutionist worldviews. I can mix science and faith becasue it is my faith that sees science as a marvelous way understanding the scope of God's creation. The problem is with mixing Evolutionary worldviews with the Bible. Your position is entirely hypocritical in that you are attempting to do the very thing you claim it is wrong for creationists to do.

To support your reasoning you insist evolution is false. Evolution is in the purview of science, and therefore you rely on creationist arguments to refute it.

Actually I have been relying Evolutionists and the Bible, not creationists arguments. I have not cited one creationist book, website, teacher or anyone in answering you. I have discovered just how out of touch you are with the theory of evolution as it is taught most places. You are simply making up your own version of the theory and pushing it off on us as "science." Frankly, most classic evolutionists would laugh you into the ground.

These arguments are continuously and completely disproven, yet in spite of particpating in a scientific argument, someonhow scientific proofs are not aceptable.

Strainge, because I have not made any scientific arguments that need to be disproven. My arguments are based on everyday observation, the Scriptures, and the classic theory of evolution.

That's the proving-creationism-by-disproving evolution school of thought.

I have never claimed to be able to prove creationism, in fact, on other threads with you, I have stated that creationism cannot be utlimately "proven" which is why I stay away from words like "proof" or "proven."

Having failed at that, you then claim creation is true based on scriputure.

And that is a bad thing?

As I've said, I believe the bible and I believe in evolution, and in the areas where they appear in conflict, I believe that God is big enough to resolve them both, but its just not clear to us now.

That is a fallacious argument. What you are doing is injecting something into the Bible that is not there. There will be no reconciliation between Evolution and the Bible because there cannot be. The wording of the Bible precludes evolution. People like you have to ignore the wording of Scripture or try to alter the wording in order to make Evolution fit, and as I have seen, you have to alter the theory of Evolution as well. In essence, you are attempting to mold the Bible around Evolution. Evolution is not in the Bible because it is not true, and you will NEVER find a way to reconcile your godless theory and make it biblical.

This belief is derived from a belief in one truth, and that both approaches will eventually meet at this truth.

It is dervived from intellectual suicide. It is dervived from refusal to learn from the creation that is staring you in the face, and it is derived from a sound rejection of the truth of Scripture. It is derived from putting more faith in the words of fallible men than an infallible God. It is a belief that is both spiritually and intellectually impotent.

Your response; my understanding of the bible is wrong, because it disagrees with you, and evolution is wrong, because, well, it disagrees with you. So I'm wrong on both counts, according to you.

Yeah, see you want to make this about disagreeing with me. I am simply pointing you to the Bible, but the Bible is exactly what you do not want to face up up to. You want to pretend this about disagreeing with me. That is the only way you can skirt around the authority of Scripture and what Scripture has to say. It is smokescreen meant to preserve your own blind, unbelief.

[Guest]

On the contrary, you are the one that insists my science is wrong

No Matter What Insistence A Man And His Job Title May Make

And to make all men see what is the fellowship of the mystery, which from the beginning of the world hath been hid in God, who created all things by Jesus Christ: Ephesians 3:9

According To The Word Of God, The Pagan Evolutionary Mythos (Faux Science) Is A Dismal Flop

For since by man came death, by man came also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, even so in Christ shall all be made alive. 1 Corinthians 15:21-22

Clearly Denounced Around 2,700 Years Ago

Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! Let the potsherd strive with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? Isaiah 49:9

And Soon To Become Clear

For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished: But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men. 2 Peters 3:5-7

To All

Who hath ascended up into heaven, or descended? who hath gathered the wind in his fists?

who hath bound the waters in a garment? who hath established all the ends of the earth?

what is his name, and what is his son's name, if thou canst tell?

Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee,

and thou be found a liar. Proverbs 30:4-6

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

On the countrary, you are the one that insists my science is wrong (faith too, but that is a separate thread). I said I believe both and you claim its not possible. To support your reasoning you insist evolution is false. Evolution is in the purview of science, and therefore you rely on creationist arguments to refute it. These arguments are continuously and completely disproven, yet in spite of particpating in a scientific argument, someonhow scientific proofs are not aceptable.

When are we actually going to see any of these scientific proofs, I wonder?

You you don't do very well defending your arguments on either end.

Don't worry Shiloh, it's only because he thinks so that he still talks to you. When you strike a nerve, he'll put you on ignore and insist he's proven his point, though he needn't lower himself to do so with evidence or facts.

The problem is with you not me. I'm fine with my beliefs,

Is that what this forum is about? Allowing Don to be fine with his beliefs?

If that's the mission statement, I guess we should just all stop posting so that Don can continue being fine with his beliefs.

OK, everyone, time to pack it in until Don has a misgiving about his beliefs.

Shiloh, do you notice how this presents Don's definition of a problem as something that's not fine with his beliefs? That's the only criteria by which a problem is here defined... not, as you mention, what the Bible says, but what Don wants to believe about the Bible.

[Don Fanucci]

Yawn.... None of that addresses my comment as to the hypocrisy of accusing creationists of mixing science and faith. The problem is not science vs. faith. The problem is creationist and evolutionist worldviews. I can mix science and faith becasue it is my faith that sees science as a marvelous way understanding the scope of God's creation. The problem is with mixing Evolutionary worldviews with the Bible. Your position is entirely hypocritical in that you are attempting to do the very thing you claim it is wrong for creationists to do.

As you are aware, I've said that "creation science" isn't science. My problem is not really with creationists. Its when they try to start with their faith in creation, which is fine, then jump to using science to prove that position, usually by trying to disprove evolution. The problem is that "creation science" is pseudoscience, or junk science to be exact. Reinterpreting someone else's research, with no credible expertise to do so, is commentary, not science. Not understanding something is not a valid approach for rejecting it, which seems to be the general strategy of creationists.

Actually I have been relying Evolutionists and the Bible, not creationists arguments. I have not cited one creationist book, website, teacher or anyone in answering you. I have discovered just how out of touch you are with the theory of evolution as it is taught most places. You are simply making up your own version of the theory and pushing it off on us as "science." Frankly, most classic evolutionists would laugh you into the ground.

We've already established that you don't know what a citation is. But to the point, you havn't named them that I can recall, but you have told me repeatedly that you have talked to them, so you are misinterpreting your information from someplace. Why don't you tell your "classic evolutionists" that you don''t believe in natural selection and get back to me about how well that goes over.

My arguments are based on everyday observation

There's your problem righ there. I can copy a paste a bunch of quotes from creationists here about relying on ones own intellect/knowledge etc and how bad it is. The scriptural references have been posted many times. I'm not surprised you think they don't apply to you.

I have never claimed to be able to prove creationism, in fact, on other threads with you, I have stated that creationism cannot be utlimately "proven" which is why I stay away from words like "proof" or "proven."

Ah, but as I've noted, creationists believe, as you do, that if evolution can be proven false, creationism must be true.

Evolution is not in the Bible because it is not true, and you will NEVER find a way to reconcile your godless theory and make it biblical.

Neither is physics, computer science, and the internal combustion engine. Do they need to be?

It is dervived from intellectual suicide. It is dervived from refusal to learn from the creation that is staring you in the face, and it is derived from a sound rejection of the truth of Scripture. It is derived from putting more faith in the words of fallible men than an infallible God. It is a belief that is both spiritually and intellectually impotent.

Alternatively, it is derived froma belief that God cannot be deceptive. Given that every field of science that could deal with the origin of man is in agreement with evolution and not creation, I'm thinking God really does not have a desire to be deceptive, therefore, belief in evolution is fine with him.

It is smokescreen meant to preserve your own blind, unbelief.

An unusual statement since I have said over and over that I believe the bible is true an inerrant. Probably has somethingto do with me not believing how you want me to believe that has you so bothered.

Edited April 26, 2011 by Don Fanucci

[OldEnglishSheepdog]

As you are aware, I've said that "creation science" isn't science.

As though it were possible to have missed that oft-repeated, least compelling of assertions.

My problem is not really with creationists. Its when they try to start with their faith in creation, which is fine, then jump to using science to prove that position,

Right, because we would neither want to believe what God has told us, nor would we be interested in scientific investigation of His creation.

Having a problem with that is pretty forced.

usually by trying to disprove evolution.

Dawkins stated "Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist".

If you demonstrate that the reasoning behind modern skepticism is totally groundless, you've removed the substantiation of the skepticism.

The atheists can see that.

Luftwaffle, what is it again that Dennett calls guys who try to balance two warring beliefs with the Bible and evolution? Failed Atheists, right?

The problem is that "creation science" is pseudoscience, or junk science to be exact.

To be exact? The exact, technical definition is "junk science"? That's the exact term, is it?

Reinterpreting someone else's research, with no credible expertise to do so, is commentary, not science.

What is he talking about?

Can someone take him to task about this? I can list bunches of well-published scientists and professors who are recent six day creationists doing original research, and at least as many others likewise in the ID movement that are doing research which supports YEC or ID equally well.

I pity this kind of delusion, that's so manifestly incorrect and so readily demonstrated to be so, and yet so unwillingly received by those who make their delusions known. What kind of howling wilderness must occur in place of their reasoning, I shutter to even imagine.

Not understanding something is not a valid approach for rejecting it,

One might point out that practical logic would qualify.

which seems to be the general strategy of creationists.

And yet the empirical evidence is that we put forth challenges that are answered only with emotional accusations that we don't know what we're talking about (though no correction is offered in place of our supposed ignorance), then when we re-issue the challenges we're put on 'ignore' and get to provide commentary invisibly to those who turn a blind eye to what challenges their assertions.

But hey, if you repeat accusations against creationists enough times, then it becomes true, right?

Something interesting to note here is that it has been my experience that Christians consider themselves creationists. Whether old or recent creation, it's young earth creation that's the issue among Christians. If someone slips into criticizing 'creationists' it's because they don't believe in 'creation'.

There's your problem righ there. I can copy a paste a bunch of quotes from creationists here about relying on ones own intellect/knowledge etc and how bad it is.

He can