Can any creationist tell me ...

[sayak83]

Hmm.. What did Brahman do that is so great?

Being the ultimate reality and essence of all things, it is and does everything.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

At first I wasn't certain but now that I know Jesus I am. The Holy Spirit tells us the truth and makes it known to us. Jesus is truth.

The Holy Spirit told ME that it was written by humans and God didn't say half that stuff. Various sciences can affirm this. Now what?

If you worship a God, why are you so enamored of a book?

Jesus is truth. There is no other.

Truth is Truth. Messenger is irrelevant.

 

[Polymath257]

The evidence for is what you ignore. The evidence against is just speculation based on assumption.

I have looked at the evidence for and have found it to be weak and very unconvincing. It is one of your assumptions that those who disagree with you are simply ignorant or wanting to avoid some truths. You seem to think that nobody can disagree with good intentions and a good conscience. And in that you are simply wrong.

In actuality, those scientists you rail against are usually more devoted to the truth than you are: they will follow the evidence where it goes rather than having pre-set conclusions and ignore anything that disagrees. Many of the original investigators who concluded the Earth to be much older than the Biblical stories were originally believers in those very stories. But they looked at the evidence and were convinced otherwise. Many of those who became convinced that species change over time (and they did so long before Darwin) originally believed as you do. Again, they were convinced by the evidence otherwise.

I suggest you look within and determine why you are so afraid of the truth.

 

[metis]

1. Not at all. If men are foolish enough to interpret the evidence that way instead of believing God, that's hardly God's fault.

If a god tricks us into believing something that is not real, and we swallow it without any evidence that supports it, then that's really what "foolish" is.

If men choose to believe wild theories instead that is on them.

Except the basic ToE is not considered in any scientific field a "wild theory". The reality is that it is theism, not evolution, that is a "wild theory" because there simply is no objectively-derived evidence that there are any gods. If you think there is, please provide such evidence as no one has been able to do so thus far because, if it could have been done, it would have been done by now..

2. No, I don't think they're idiots. All of us are deceived by Satan into thinking sinful thoughts so no, I don't think they're idiots.

Again, you have slipped into polytheism. Also, evolution is not a "sinful thought" but is at least a large part of how life has changed.

I do think it foolish to believe in something to be true that has only a 90% probability of being correct (90% according to them, not me). Several football teams with the odds of 10:1 against them have won before. 90% is hardly foolproof.

As a couple of people have already stated, our limited knowledge means that our perceptions of reality are limited, therefore nothing should be 100% for us. If we were omniscient, that would be different-- but we ain't.

 

[DavidFirth]

Then it is against *all* religious belief.

/E: You have to speculate and make assumptions to know that there is a 'real world'. It *could* all be a delusion. But the consistency and testability is why we believe.

Not good enough for me. I want to hear the truth from someone I can trust who was there. Genesis is that truth.

 

[DavidFirth]

I have looked at the evidence for and have found it to be weak and very unconvincing. It is one of your assumptions that those who disagree with you are simply ignorant or wanting to avoid some truths. You seem to think that nobody can disagree with good intentions and a good conscience. And in that you are simply wrong.

In actuality, those scientists you rail against are usually more devoted to the truth than you are: they will follow the evidence where it goes rather than having pre-set conclusions and ignore anything that disagrees. Many of the original investigators who concluded the Earth to be much older than the Biblical stories were originally believers in those very stories. But they looked at the evidence and were convinced otherwise. Many of those who became convinced that species change over time (and they did so long before Darwin) originally believed as you do. Again, they were convinced by the evidence otherwise.

I suggest you look within and determine why you are so afraid of the truth.

I don't see any truth outside of the Bible. I see speculation based on assumptions. Not good enough for me. Knock yourself out, though, if it's good enough for you.

 

[DavidFirth]

Being the ultimate reality and essence of all things, it is and does everything.

Hmm.. And how many people actually believe that and why do they believe it?

 

[blü 2]

Hmm.. And how many people actually believe that and why do they believe it?

How do you answer that?

After all, truth isn't democratic.

 

[DavidFirth]

The Holy Spirit told ME that it was written by humans and God didn't say half that stuff. Various sciences can affirm this. Now what?

If you worship a God, why are you so enamored of a book?


Truth is Truth. Messenger is irrelevant.

"The Holy Spirit told ME that it was written by humans and God didn't say half that stuff."

This is an outright lie and blasphemy. You get to be on ignore list, all of your posts shall be ignored from now and forward.. Have a good day.

 

[DavidFirth]

How do you answer that?

After all, truth isn't democratic.

I didn't ask you. Please kindly stay out of it.

 

[DavidFirth]

If a god tricks us into believing something that is not real, and we swallow it without any evidence that supports it, then that's really what "foolish" is.

Except the basic ToE is not considered in any scientific field a "wild theory". The reality is that it is theism, not evolution, that is a "wild theory" because there simply is no objectively-derived evidence that there are any gods. If you think there is, please provide such evidence as no one has been able to do so thus far because, if it could have been done, it would have been done by now..

Again, you have slipped into polytheism. Also, evolution is not a "sinful thought" but is at least a large part of how life has changed.

As a couple of people have already stated, our limited knowledge means that our perceptions of reality are limited, therefore nothing should be 100% for us. If we were omniscient, that would be different-- but we ain't.

God hasn't tricked you; you and the scientists have deluded yourselves. God has already told you what happened.

I don't care what other people think about the ToE. It is a wild theory based on abiogenesis with zero proof whatsoever. You've got DNA evidence so you should be able to prove it yet you can't. Hmm... sounds fishy to me.

Polytheism? I have no idea where you came up with that.

I am 100% certain because the Spirit of God has revealed the truth to me. So why should I listen to you when you admit you're not 100% certain about anything?

 

[sayak83]

Hmm.. And how many people actually believe that and why do they believe it?

Most Hindus do.
Reasons vary. Some through faith in scripture, some by direct experience, some by both.
Other traditions may name it differently. So for example Tao is very close in conception to Brahman.

 

[DavidFirth]

Most Hindus do.
Reasons vary. Some through faith in scripture, some by direct experience, some by both.
Other traditions may name it differently. So for example Tao is very close in conception to Brahman.

What scripture are you referring to?

 

[sayak83]

What scripture are you referring to?

Upanishad. You may know it as Vedanta.

 

[DavidFirth]

Upanishad. You may know it as Vedanta.

Are there any references to it in the Bible that you know of?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Evolution among like kinds happens, we all know that. When we see cats change into lions or tigers, then we'll start getting concerned.

Meanwhile, we don't see anything like that happening so macroevolution is an assumption that needs no reproof, rather the macroevolutionists have to prove it is happening and they haven't. Because they can't.

Lions and tigers are cats.

House cats and tigers share 95.6 percent of DNA, study reveals
Your Cat is 95% Tiger | TIME.com
Genomes of big cats revealed - BBC News

 

[DavidFirth]

Lions and tigers are cats.

House cats and tigers share 95.6 percent of DNA, study reveals
Your Cat is 95% Tiger | TIME.com
Genomes of big cats revealed - BBC News

Okay, so prove they evolved from cats.

 

[sayak83]

Are there any references to it in the Bible that you know of?

No there is not. Why would there be?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Everybody does that. Scientists approach everything with their preconceived ideas, interpret the evidence based on those ideas that are based on conclusions they have already decided by their preconceived ideas. That's the norm.

No. Just no. You have a lot to learn.

"The great advantage of the scientific method is that it is unprejudiced: one does not have to believe a given researcher, one can redo the experiment and determine whether his/her results are true or false. The conclusions will hold irrespective of the state of mind, or the religious persuasion, or the state of consciousness of the investigator and/or the subject of the investigation. Faith, defined as belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence, does not determine whether a scientific theory is adopted or discarded.

A theory is accepted not based on the prestige or convincing powers of the proponent, but on the results obtained through observations and/or experiments which anyone can reproduce: the results obtained using the scientific method are repeatable. In fact, most experiments and observations arerepeated many times (certain experiments are not repeated independently but are repeated as parts of other experiments). If the original claims are not verified the origin of such discrepancies is hunted down and exhaustively studied."
What is the ``scientific method''?




Please don't try to superimpose religious/faith type of thinking onto the scientific method. The scientific method has given us every known fact about reality that we currently claim to know. Religious, faith-based thinking has not.

 

[DavidFirth]

No there is not. Why would there be?

I just asked the question is all.