-
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!
The Creationist's Argument and its Greatest Weakness
- Thread starter Skwim
- Start date
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
How can I when you constantly demonstrate that you won't let yourself learn?
Yes, the fictional stories of the Bible are simply horrible. And its depiction of the nature of God is horrible.
Audie
Veteran Member
It is the mixture of an utterly consistent, loving and
just god, with the capricious, vengeful and murdering
monster that makes this g-d so horrifying.
Maybe, when they decided to go "monotheistic"
they combined all their "gods" into one?
The result is a complete psycho.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
In other words, the pledge you made--to explain if I admitted I lacked the tools--was not a true pledge.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
Did you? If you did let's start on your lessons in the sciences. Last thing I remember is you asking dishonest questions again.
Audie
Veteran Member
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I know, he is probably misrepresenting what I said. That was his latest technique with questions I would not answer.
Audie
Veteran Member
Be it known unto all nations, kindreds, tongues,
and peoples, unto whom these words may come:
It is impossible for a creationist to be both well
informed, and intellectually honest.
No argument against ToE has yet been made by a creo, that
did not involve misrepresentation, distortion, or fabrication.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
I know. If they could make such an argument these debates would be more interesting. That is why I try to get our opponents to at least learn the basics of science. They seem to think that is a trap. And it is, sort of. I have never seen a scientist both follow the basics of science and espouse creationism. Not even Christian scientists. When they follow the basics of science evolution becomes the obvious answer to the diversity of life as we see it.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
is that it tries to prove its validity by throwing darts at evolution . . . . Oops. Excuse me, "Darwinism." This isn't to say its underlying basis, faith in an ancient book, isn't enough to sink it forthwith, but this little aspect of their argument is assiduously avoided at all costs. Why? Because it lacks the power to convince. So, time and again those who champion evolution are subjected to chest-beating challenges such as, "You weren't there so you can't know," or "If we evolved from apes/monkeys, why are there still apes/monkeys today?" or "abiogenesis is an unproven theory," or my favorite "when you can show me a (name your animal) giving birth to a (name another animal) I'll believe in evolution." Of course, few of us care if the creationist believe us or not--- evolutionists are mainly concerned with their attempt to insinuate creationism into public schools, and, secondarily, with their attempt to pass along misinformation to the unwary.
In short then, the creationist ploy is one of, "I can't prove my side so I'll give it credibility by tearing down evolution," which (1) is hardly a compliment to the intelligence of its audience, (2) falsely assumes that if evolution is wrong, by default creationism must be true.
I know the forgoing is nothing new to most of those who visit the Evolution Vs. Creationism Forum, but I think it needs mentioning now and then to remind the evolutionist of the creationist's pitiful tactics and how futile arguing with them will likely be---entertaining as it may be.
If any creationist disputes my characterization here and finds it offensive I apologize and invite them to post a reasonable response.
Yes, it's a classic maneuver of lost causians and desperados.
sealchan
Well-Known Member
Amen.
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
I've posted (this is the fourth such post?) I lack literary tools, so as promised, explain why Jesus means something poetic only with statements in John 3, like "YOU MUST be born again".
Really? Have you read and studied all of it? Isaac Newton did — thoroughly — and didn’t come to that conclusion.
What stories, do you think, are “simply horrible “?
I’m sorry, but this phrase is not in the Bible.
Audie
Veteran Member
It is necessary to go back 250 years to find a
scientist of any stature who did know any
better than that
Heck, in those days people thought all sorts
of things that educated people today find
quaint and silly.
It was widely believed there was a great undiscivered
southern continent. Nobody had done the basic
research to find out.
It was a nairve age. Newton was an alchemist.
He lacked the basic information to show him
the absurdity of it.
Last edited:
BilliardsBall
Veteran Member
John 3 is explicit, and mentions the new birth three times, saying we cannot see God's Kingdom without it.
I find that although born again is a jargon term, it helps explain the difference between, for example, being born under a Christian denomination, and choosing personally to trust Jesus Christ, which is salvation IMO.
tas8831
Well-Known Member
The punishment of Samaria?