• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Coming out as creationists: fear.

Do you believe Creationists are afraid of coming out?

  • Yes

    Votes: 11 44.0%
  • No

    Votes: 12 48.0%
  • Other

    Votes: 3 12.0%

  • Total voters
    25

ecco

Veteran Member
And the evidence is interpreted by biased people who want to support their own beliefs....how does that put scientist in a superior position? "Beliefs" drive your "religion" just as it drives mine.


a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.


re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

I worship no superhuman god. You know that because my profile states that I am an atheist. So, once again you show your ignorance of basic English.​

What I believe was "proved wrong, repeatedly"???....when did that happen? o_O You mean you proved it was wrong to yourself? How does that make any difference to Bible believers like me?
I didn't have to prove anything wrong to myself. 1914 came and went. It wasn't the start of anything as predicted by your JW leaders. Facts are facts. I accept them, you choose to ignore them.



You are free to believe whatever you like....if you are convinced that there is no Intelligent Creator whose productions seem to you to be entirely accidental to you, then you awe welcome to that.
As you are welcome to your beliefs. My beliefs are based on evidence; yours are based on indoctrination, probably from an early age.


There is no double standard except where evolution is concerned.
You are indoctrinated just as much as you think we are....you just can't see it. You swapped an unprovable God for an unprovable theory. That is about the only substantiated fact demonstrated by atheists.

I came to my atheism because I realized how nonsensical the concept of gods was.
Many years later I learned about evolution. No indoctrination involved.

You believe what you want to believe without actual proof...just like we do. It's called "faith".
That you cannot understand the difference between evidence and blind faith just shows how deeply indoctrinated you really are.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I have "faith" in evolution just as I do gravity, Ohm's Law, germs, and the combustibility of oxygen. I don't have faith in any of those, things that are all theories (save for Ohm's Law which is a law) and all are facts.

I agree....all those things are demonstrable...not really theories anymore, are they?.....they are proven to exist.....shame about macro-evolution though.....not even in the same ballpark....IMO.
 

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
Still sounds like a parody to me. I'm an atheist in a religious forum, and my bookshelf includes a Bible and mtiple books on the history of Christianity.
Not sure how that counts as being desperate to not contemplate...
Ummmm....can I ask why general statements are taken personally? Since there are exception to every rule, I wasn't specifically talking about you LnM.....I have always found you to be fair minded in your disagreement. I respect you for that. :)
 

Subduction Zone

Veteran Member
I agree....all those things are demonstrable...not really theories anymore, are they?.....they are proven to exist.....shame about macro-evolution though.....not even in the same ballpark....IMO.


Since you either ignore all evidence or do not even understand the concept of evidence this post is rather laughable.

It is not that hard to understand. Why not take me up on discussing the topic?
 

YmirGF

Bodhisattva in Recovery
I don't think Creationist should live in fear about what others think. That is a bit extreme. The great problem is the modern Creationism is virtually indefensible and its ranks are littered with cranks, fanatics and charlatans. Personally, I'd want to distance myself from such a crowd, but that's just me.

I might pity a creationist and feel sympathy for them, much as I would with a small child coming to grips with the realization that Santa is not real, but I wouldn't waste my time trying to convince them out of their delirium.

If, however, creationist get so full of themselves to demand we teach their appalling ideas next to Evolution in a science class, its then that we will have to dust off the .50 Cal's

maxresdefault.jpg
 
Last edited:

Deeje

Avid Bible Student
Premium Member
I have "faith" in evolution just as I do gravity, Ohm's Law, germs, and the combustibility of oxygen. I don't have faith in any of those, things that are all theories (save for Ohm's Law which is a law) and all are facts.

I agree....all those things are demonstrable...not really theories anymore, are they?.....they are proven to exist very easily.....shame about macro-evolution. Not even in the same ballpark IMO. But I know scientists want them to be.
 

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
a·the·ist
ˈāTHēəst/
noun
a person who disbelieves or lacks belief in the existence of God or gods.


re·li·gion
rəˈlijən/
noun
the belief in and worship of a superhuman controlling power, especially a personal God or gods.

I didn't have to prove anything wrong to myself. 1914 came and went. It wasn't the start of anything as predicted by your JW leaders. Facts are facts. I accept them, you choose to ignore them.


My beliefs are based on evidence; yours are based on indoctrination, probably from an early age.


I came to my atheism because I realized how nonsensical the concept of gods was.
Many years later I learned about evolution. No indoctrination involved.
ev·o·lu·tion·ist
ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst/
noun

  1. 1.

    a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.

    "......................

    the definition of evolutionist

evolutionist


[ev-uh-loo-shuh-nist or, esp. British, ee-vuh-]
noun
1.
a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.

EDIT: Just noticed you said “my beliefs”....good. Many evo supporters deny even that, that it’s based on faith. :::

Definition of believe for Students. believed; believing. 1 : to have faith or confidence in the existence or worth of.
From Definition of BELIEVE

Regarding the importance of the date1914:

The New York World of August 30, 1914, explains: “The terrific war outbreak in Europe has fulfilled an extraordinary prophecy. For a quarter of a century past, through preachers and through press, the ‘International Bible Students’ [as Jehovah’s Witnesses were then known] . . . have been proclaiming to the world that the Day of Wrath prophesied in the Bible would dawn in 1914.”–The World, a New York newspaper, August 30, 1914.

As it turned out, these things were only a “beginning of pangs of distress.”

“For nation will rise against nation and kingdom against kingdom, and there will be food shortages and earthquakes in one place after another. All these things are a beginning of pangs of distress. (Mat 24:7)

Yes, their expectations were wrong. They expected that year to be the end, but came to believe that that year was only the beginning of what the Bible calls the “end of this system of things” or the “last days.”

More passages painting a picture of these Last Days, and the invisible Heavenly events leading to them. Here is one:


“When he opened the second seal, I heard the second living creature say: “Come!” Another came out, a fiery-colored horse, and it was granted to the one seated on it to take peace away from the earth so that they should slaughter one another, and he was given a great sword.” (Revelation 6:3, 4)


Due to their zeal, Christians have at times had wrong expectations.

Examples:
Shortly before Jesus died, his disciples “were imagining that the kingdom of God was going to display itself instantly.” Then, after his resurrection they asked whether the Kingdom would be set up right away. Also, about ten years before Peter wrote his second letter, some were “excited” by “a verbal message” or “a letter,” reputedly from the apostle Paul or his companions, “to the effect that the day of Jehovah is here.” (Luke 19:11; 2 Thessalonians 2:2; Acts of the Apostles 1:6)
They were a bit early.

Anyway, How do secular authorities or historians view 1914?

To Be Continued.....
 
Last edited:

Hockeycowboy

Witness for Jehovah
Premium Member
To @ecco:

The London Evening Star commented that the conflict “tore the whole world’s political setup apart. Nothing could ever be the same again. If we all get the nuclear madness out of our systems and the human race survives, some historian in the next century may well conclude that the day the world went mad was August 4, 1914.”–London Evening Star, quoted in the New Orleans Times-Picayune, August 5, 1960, and The Seattle Times, August 4, 1960, p. 5.



“Half a century has gone by, yet the mark that the tragedy of the Great War left on the body and soul of the nations has not faded . . . The physical and moral magnitude of this ordeal was such that nothing left was the same as before. Society in its entirety: systems of government, national borders, laws, armed forces, interstate relations, but also ideologies, family life, fortunes, positions, personal relations—everything was changed from top to bottom. . . . Humanity finally lost its balance, never to recover it to this day.” (General Charles de Gaulle, Le Monde, Nov. 12, 1968, p. 9)


“Everyone agrees in recognizing that in the whole history of mankind, few dates have had the importance of August 2, 1914.” (Maurice Genevoix, Promise of Greatness)

“Those who lived through the war could never rid themselves of the belief that one world had ended and another begun in August 1914.” (The Generation of 1914, Robert Wohl, Professor of History)


“The whole world really blew up about World War I and we still don’t know why. Before then, men thought that utopia was in sight. There was peace and prosperity. Then everything blew up. We’ve been in a state of suspended animation ever since . . . More people have been killed in this century than in all of history.” (Dr. Walker Percy, American Medical News, November 21, 1977)


“Everything would get better and better. This was the world I was born in. . . . Suddenly, unexpectedly, one morning in 1914 the whole thing came to an end.” (British statesman Harold Macmillan, The New York Times, November 23, 1980)

“The last completely ‘normal’ year in history was 1913, the year before World War I began.” (Times-Herald, Washington, D.C., March 13, 1949)


In 1914 the world lost a coherence which it has not managed to recapture since. . . . This has been a time of extraordinary disorder and violence, both across national frontiers and within them.” (The Economist)


“The Great War of 1914-18 lies like a band of scorched earth dividing that time from ours. In wiping out so many lives which would have been operative on the years that followed, in destroying beliefs, changing ideas, and leaving incurable wounds of disillusion, it created a physical as well as psychological gulf between two epochs.” (Foreword to The Proud Tower, by Barbara W. Tuchman)


“Ever since 1914, everybody conscious of trends in the world has been deeply troubled by what has seemed like a fated and predetermined march toward ever greater disaster. Many serious people have come to feel that nothing can be done to avert the plunge towards ruin.” (Bertrand Russell, The New York Times Magazine, September 27, 1953)


“Neither the old nor the young had any suspicion that what they were witnessing, during that incomparable season of 1914, was, in fact, the end of an era.” (Before the Lamps Went Out, by Geoffrey Marcus)


“[There was] little or no evidence of a steady rise or a ‘snowballing’ of conflicts and tensions leading directly to the outbreak of war.” On the contrary, “by late 1913 and early 1914 . . . relations among the major powers appeared to be more settled than they had been for many years.” (International Crisis, by Eugenia Nomikos and Robert C. North, 1976)


“The effects of World War I were literally revolutionary and struck deep in the lives of almost all peoples, economically as well as socially and politically.” (Meyers Enzyklopädisches Lexikon)


The year 1913 marked the close of an era.” (1913 - An End and a Beginning, Virginia Cowles)


“Before 1914 the monetary and the financial systems were compatible. . . . If one takes August 1914 as marking the dividing line between them, the contrasts between the nineteenth and the twentieth centuries are striking. In many aspects of human affairs there has been a complete reversal of trend. . . . One major reason was the severance of the linkage between the financial system and money with intrinsic value that began in 1914. . . . The breaking of the linkage was a momentous event. . . . 1914 marked a radical, and in the end catastrophic, transformation of that system.” (Ashby Bladen, senior vice president The Guardian Life Insurance Company of America)


“By all contemporaneous accounts, the world prior to 1914 seemed to be moving irreversibly toward higher levels of civility and civilization; human society seemed perfectible. The nineteenth century had brought an end to the wretched slave trade. Dehumanizing violence seemed on the decline. . . . The pace of global invention had advanced throughout the nineteenth century, bringing railroads, the telephone, the electric light, cinema, the motor car, and household conveniences too numerous to mention. Medical science, improved nutrition, and the mass distribution of potable water had elevated life expectancy . . . The sense of the irreversibility of such progress was universal.


“World War I was more devastating to civility and civilization than the physically far more destructive World War II: the earlier conflict destroyed an idea. I cannot erase the thought of those pre-World War I years, when the future of mankind appeared unencumbered and without limit. Today our outlook is starkly different from a century ago but perhaps a bit more consonant with reality. Will terror, global warming, or resurgent populism do to the current era of life-advancing globalization what World War I did to the previous one? No one can be confident of the answer.” (Alan Greenspan, The Age of Turbulence: Adventures in a New World, 2007)


“Those who have an adult’s recollection and an adult’s understanding of the world which preceded World War I look back upon it with a great nostalgia. There was a sense of security then which has never since existed.”(Professor Benjamin M. Anderson, Economics and the Public Welfare)


“Historic events are often said to have ‘changed everything.’ In the case of the Great War this is, for once, true. The war really did change everything: not just borders, not just governments and the fate of nations, but the way people have seen the world and themselves ever since. It became a kind of hole in time, leaving the postwar world permanently disconnected from everything that had come before.” (A World Undone, G. J. Meyer, 2006)


“The outbreak of the war in 1914 is the great turning point of the history of humanity. . . . We entered an age of disaster, horror, and hatred, with insecurity everywhere.” (Peter Munch, Danish historian)


“Everywhere, the standards of social behavior—already in decline—were devastated.... The slaughter of the First World War thoroughly debased the value of human life.” (Norman Cantor, The Outline of History)


[Following the acceptance of the evolution theory] “a real de-moralization ensued...Man, they decided, is a social animal like the Indian hunting dog . . . , so it seemed right to them that the big dogs of the human pack should bully and subdue.” (H. G. Wells, 1920)

“The Christian Churches are the finest blood-lust creators which we have and of them we made free use.” (Frank Crozier, British Brigadier General)

“Increasingly, the 75-year period from 1914 to 1989, covering two world wars and the cold war, is being seen by historians as a single, discrete epoch, a time apart in which much of the world was fighting war, recovering from war or preparing for war.” (The New York Times, May 7, 1995)


“.Virtually all of the conflicts that we have been concerned with all of our lives stemmed from that [first world] war...Nearly all of the intellectual and cultural currents that we have lived with were born out of that war.”

“I think it did such damage because it shattered people’s belief that humans can control their destiny. . . . The war disabused people of that belief. (Charley Reece, The Orlando Sentinel)
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Well, thank you for the concession.....let's see....



The "science doesn't deal in proof" argument has been done to death. The truth is, if you can't "prove" something, you have no business calling it a fact, which is by definition "a thing that is known or proved to be true"..."something that has actual existence : a matter of objective reality."...."a truth known by actual experience or observation".

[snip]

Well, now you are talking about things that science can prove. Their deductions were based on mathematics, were they not? Wasn't it in the 1980's that science developed the technology to "see" atoms? Now we have nanotechnology that allows scientists to see so much more than they ever thought possible. What has this got to do with macro-evolution? Please understand that I am not anti-science....what I am, is skeptical of what science "assumes" as opposed to what it actually "knows".

This is too long to respond to all in one go without becoming unmanageable for people to read. I'm going to select first your comments about science in general, to see if we can reach an understanding on what science does.

You say the Geiger-Marsden experiment "proved" something by "mathematics". That is wrong. It did not. To everyone's shock and amazement, most of the alpha particles went straight through as if the gold foil was empty space, but a few bounced right back at the alpha particle source. This was evidence that atoms are mostly empty space, with a tiny core in the middle in which all the mass is concentrated - enough to make an alpha particle bounce back if hit directly. Mathematics was naturally involved in interpreting the observations quantitatively, but nothing was thereby "proved".

Consider Brownian motion. No maths here at all, just observation that smoke particles seen through a microscope jiggle about randomly. This is evidence for the "kinetic theory of matter" - the model according to which matter consists of tiny particles in random motion. But it is not proof.

So there is a reason why you keep on tediously hearing the same point that "science doesn't deal in proof". If you had understood this point you would not be saying that the Geiger-Marsden experiment "proves" something, or making inappropriate analogies with courts of law.

The theory of evolution has the same status in science as the kinetic theory of matter or the structure of the atom. All of these are "only theories" if you wish to characterise them that way.

They are not "facts", they are "models".

The only "facts" in science are reproducible observations. The theories are not facts, for the very good reason that they are continually subject to revision in the light of observations that do not fit. In science, all "truth" is strictly provisional. Even Newtonian mechanics, trusted for centuries and still trusted by engineers to this day, has been shown not to work for the very small, or the very fast.

Are you OK with this so far?
 
Last edited:

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
ev·o·lu·tion·ist
ˌevəˈlo͞oSHənəst/
noun

  1. 1.

    a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
Are you a magnetist, heliocentrist, or informationist? No? Didn't think so. We don't use such terms for other science theories - proponents of Creationism, however, need a way to reduce evolution to a belief, so thus we have the term "evolutionist," something everyone should outright reject because no one goes around saying they are a gravitationist.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
Are you a magnetist, heliocentrist, or informationist? No? Didn't think so. We don't use such terms for other science theories - proponents of Creationism, however, need a way to reduce evolution to a belief, so thus we have the term "evolutionist," something everyone should outright reject because no one goes around saying they are a gravitationist.
What about "scientist"? :rolleyes::D
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
I agree....all those things are demonstrable...not really theories anymore, are they?.....they are proven to exist very easily.....shame about macro-evolution. Not even in the same ballpark IMO. But I know scientists want them to be.

For example, the 'theory of gravity' isn't just the statement about gravity existing. People have known that stuff falls forever. The *actual* theory is a mathematical description of *how* things fall and encompasses not just falling on earth, but the orbits of planets, the bending of light as it goes past the sun, etc.

This theory is very precise and general. But, because of that precision, it is *impossible* to prove it true in all cases. All we can do is show it is accurate to within the accuracy of our ability to test. i tis quite possible that more refined tests will show this particular theory is wrong and will have to be discarded or modified. In fact, that is precisely what happened to Newton's 'Law' of gravity. It was found to NOT be accurate and needed to be discarded with Einsteins *theory* of general relativity replacing it.

The other examples have similar stories. For example, the Oxygen theory of combustion works in many cases, but is NOT completely accurate. It is quite possible to have combustion with no oxygen around (say, by having fluorine).
 

ecco

Veteran Member
  1. a person who believes in the theories of evolution and natural selection.
    a person who believes in or supports a theory of evolution, especially in biology.
EDIT: Just noticed you said “my beliefs”....good. Many evo supporters deny even that, that it’s based on faith. :::

Definition of believe for Students. believed; believing. 1 : to have faith or confidence in the existence or worth of.
From Definition of BELIEVE
I was wondering why you were putting up definitions of evolutionist, I have no problem with that being applied to me. But then I saw you were concentrating on the word "belief".

Really? This silly argument? Again? Do you really think that you are the first Creo who has tried this nonsense.


I am not one of those "evos" who are afraid to use the words "believe" or "faith". However, I do understand the English language. I am aware that many words have two very different meanings. One of those words is ...
faith
fāTH/
noun
1. complete trust or confidence in someone or something.
"this restores one's faith in politicians"
synonyms: trust, belief, confidence, conviction; More

2.strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.synonyms: religion, church, sect, denomination, (religious) persuasion, (religious) belief, ideology, creed, teaching, doctrine​


I'm willing to bet that you, and other Creos, do know that there are two completely different meanings of the word faith. But that doesn't stop you from trying to conflate them and go: "Ya ya ya ya - you evilutionists have nothing but your blind faith - Ya ya ya ya.

But, please, don't let me stop you from continuing to show your ignorance of all things big and small.

 

ecco

Veteran Member
To @ecco:

The London Evening Star commented that the conflict <snip>

Am I supposed to be impressed that you took the time to cut and paste a bunch of stuff from JW publications?


I can cut and paste too...(my emphases)

1914 - Failed Watchtower prophecy - Falsified History

144,000 All Resurrected to Heaven

The 144,000, also known as the "body of Christ" or "the saints", were to all be in heaven by 1914, prior to the completion of Armageddon.

"That the deliverance of the saints must take place some time before 1914 is manifest, since the deliverance of fleshly Israel, as we shall see, is appointed to take place at that time... Just how long before 1914 the last living members of the body of Christ will be glorified, we are not directly informed;..." Studies In the Scriptures - Thy Kingdom Come (1908 ed.) p.228
One hundred fifty years later the 144,000 are still waiting.

Instead of cutting and pasting JW propaganda (and not showing your source), please comment on just the quote from Studies In the Scriptures - Thy Kingdom Come (1908 ed.) p.228.
 

Audie

Veteran Member
Since you either ignore all evidence or do not even understand the concept of evidence this post is rather laughable.

It is not that hard to understand. Why not take me up on discussing the topic?

You want a discussion of "evidence" v attitude?
Why?
 

Audie

Veteran Member
I agree....all those things are demonstrable...not really theories anymore, are they?.....they are proven to exist very easily.....shame about macro-evolution. Not even in the same ballpark IMO. But I know scientists want them to be.

You sure dont know much if you think any theory was ever proven or became a fact.
 

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber
This theory is very precise and general. But, because of that precision, it is *impossible* to prove it true in all cases. All we can do is show it is accurate to within the accuracy of our ability to test.
That pesky "just a theory" of gravity letting those darned scientist predict the existence of a planet because of a peculiarity in the orbit of Uranus, and then from prediction/hypothesis the planet we would come to call Neptune was observed.
 

exchemist

Veteran Member
That pesky "just a theory" of gravity letting those darned scientist predict the existence of a planet because of a peculiarity in the orbit of Uranus, and then from prediction/hypothesis the planet we would come to call Neptune was observed.
....though it could not predict quantitatively the precession of the perihelion of Mercury......

And that risible "just a theory" of evolution, predicting that a link would be found between whales and land mammals:-
Pakicetus - Wikipedia
and a source suited to the worldview of some respondents:
Whale Evolution Continued - Origine
 

Thermos aquaticus

Well-Known Member
Am I detecting a pattern here? o_O Are the scientists among us ganging up on the person who dares to question the validity of their pet theory?

There is a difference between questioning and denial.
show us some evidence for macro-evolution that does not rely on supposition, suggestion or guesswork.....how hard can it be?

What would be the point when you will just ignore it?
 
Top