Creationists: what prevents you from accepting ToE?

[ImmortalFlame]

No wonder at all, I am fully in agreement with you.

But you know… I am no longer here (on the internet bulletin boards) to be a kind, loving Christian to those who mock God. I fully understand that approach will do nothing for them.

Consequently, I will take chances in being bold and offensive. If they are worth their salt, they will take the challenge and not be so offended that they will refuse to play. If they are offended, what of it? Were they going to change because of my soft, nice approach? No.

I wouldn't call it offensive as much as cynical, thoughtless, cold and shamelessly nihilistic. I'd also call it completely wrong but, hey, each to their own. At least you're honest about it.

I just resent seeing Christianity mocked and lauged at on these boards and in the media --- and I am going to tell you why or anyone who cares to listen. (no further agenda than that)

Firstly, I would argue that Christianity pretty-much dominates almost all kind of media as a religious majority, and that the last group of people who should ever complain about being mocked or ridiculed or victimized in any way are Christians, considering we live in a world where it is unthinkable that the position of most powerful man on the planet should be held by anyone other than a Christian.

Secondly, I would argue that any instances in which Christianity is mocked and laughed at are very well deserved.

 

[McBell]

I had no idea you were so much wiser than St. Augustine, St. Thomas Aquinas, and that you had already demonstrated Fatima, Portugal, the Shroud of Turin, et al. were demonstrably false? I guess I should be more anxious to be a witness to your seminars.

How you start by actually engaging in honest discourse?
Your strawmen are merely making you look like an arse.

The only reason you so quickly embrace evolution is because it supports your godless ways in other areas.

You know less about me than you know about evolution.
And that is saying quite a lot.

Evolution is such a folly and there are some very bright scientists who have said as much.

just can't stop yourself from telling lies, can you?

Sorry, I am not interested in complying with the devil's lies.

Ah, he does not allow double dipping?

I can see how it has made the world so arrogant and callous towards God.

Yeah, no doubt.
I mean with all the work your doing for Gods sworn enemy....

 

[thau]

What about theists who accept evolution? I know I do -- does that make me a follower of the devil?

No, not at all. I have no quarrel with some of Catholic compatriots who believe in evolution, but only at the hands of our God. That is all it takes to disarm the danger evolution poses for those who not only accept us getting here without any God.

Isn't it obvious, for atheism to legitimately exist, they have to accept that life originated and evolved without any supreme intelligence? Consequently, they have no moral code to uphold and order their lives howsoever they choose. That is why I say it is the devil who loves this topic.

 

[thau]

You know less about me than you know about evolution.
And that is saying quite a lot.

You call yourself an apathetic agnostic. THAT is saying quite a lot, and is basis enough for me to draw some further assumptions.

I am a practicing Roman Catholic who is certain of heaven, hell and purgatory. You can use that as a premise to draw your own assumptions.

 

[McBell]

Isn't it obvious, for atheism to legitimately exist, they have to accept that life originated and evolved without any supreme intelligence? Consequently, they have no moral code to uphold and order their lives howsoever they choose. That is why I say it is the devil who loves this topic.

What a big steaming pile of bull ****.

Seriously.

And I am still waiting for you to START presenting your empirical evidence for the Christian God....
Sure am glad i am not holding my breath till it starts showing up.....

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Isn't it obvious, for atheism to legitimately exist, they have to accept that life originated and evolved without any supreme intelligence? Consequently, they have no moral code to uphold and order their lives howsoever they choose. That is why I say it is the devil who loves this topic.

I have no moral code?

Now that I think about it, maybe carpeting my living room with baby skin the other day was kind of a weird thing to do... And I did feel oddly regretful after I bombed that hospital the other day. Maybe I should start looking into this whole "morality" thing...

 

[Debater Slayer]

No, not at all. I have no quarrel with some of Catholic compatriots who believe in evolution, but only at the hands of our God. That is all it takes to disarm the danger evolution poses for those who not only accept us getting here without any God.

Isn't it obvious, for atheism to legitimately exist, they have to accept that life originated and evolved without any supreme intelligence? Consequently, they have no moral code to uphold and order their lives howsoever they choose. That is why I say it is the devil who loves this topic.

I don't think genuine science poses any threat to society at all, unless it falls in the hands of ignorant, manipulative individuals who may misuse and skew it to fit their own agendas.

Evolution may be endorsed by many atheists, but it doesn't make it the sole cause of their atheism. Ancient Greek atheists such as Democritus existed long before even the Big Bang theory was formulated.

 

[McBell]

I have no moral code?

Now that I think about it, maybe carpeting my living room with baby skin the other day was kind of a weird thing to do... And I did feel oddly regretful after I bombed that hospital the other day. Maybe I should start looking into this whole "morality" thing...

The baby skin thing...
All I can say is that I hope you took the time to cure it correctly....

As for the bombing of the hospital,...
So long as there was at least one doctor in it that thinks abortion should be legal, you should be proud that you kept a pro-life fanatic out of prison.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The baby skin thing...
All I can say is that I hope you took the time to cure it correctly....

But of course. It spent three weeks soaked in women's tears inside of a dead charity worker's stomach lining.

As for the bombing of the hospital,...
So long as there was at least one doctor in it that thinks abortion should be legal, you should be proud that you kept a pro-life fanatic out of prison.

Now that I think about it, I think it might have been an evangelical church, not a hospital... They're so hard to tell apart these days.

 

[McBell]

But of course. It spent three weeks soaked in women's tears inside of a dead charity worker's stomach lining.

that should do it.

Now that I think about it, I think it might have been an evangelical church, not a hospital... They're so hard to tell apart these days.

Did the church have a lightning rod on top of it?
If so then they have shown a profound lack of faith....

 

[Agnostic75]

Message to vanityofvanitys: The vast majority of non-Christians in the world accept various gods, so they believe that God created life on earth. In your opinion, how will their belief that God created life on earth help them after they die?

 

[thau]

I have no moral code?

Now that I think about it, maybe carpeting my living room with baby skin the other day was kind of a weird thing to do... And I did feel oddly regretful after I bombed that hospital the other day. Maybe I should start looking into this whole "morality" thing...

Did I say that?

I said you have no moral code to uphold. Which means if you are an atheist, you are not accountable to a higher power for your decisions. Whether you choose to be moral or not is for your own personal self worth. There are no eternal consequences in that, and consequently, you will see a lot more liberties taken when there is no accountability.

Forget the abortion doctor bombing if you would be so kind? Christians denounce those who act crazy, unlike Muslims and their terrorists. Neither would I accuse you of having a Joseph Stalin mentality just because neither of you believe in God.

 

[thau]

Message to vanityofvanitys: The vast majority of non-Christians in the world accept various gods, so they believe that God created life on earth. In your opinion, how will their belief that God created life on earth help them after they die?

Not sure I have time for you because you are asking for a lengthy response. For now, I will leave you with this disturbing article (if it is valid).

Survey: 1 in 3 Scientists Believe in God


Survey: 1 in 3 Scientists Believe in God, Christian News
About one out of every three scientists in the United States professed believing in God, a recent survey found.
That figure is strikingly lower than the proportion of the general American public that say they believe in God (83 percent), according to the report by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.
However, a Christian biochemist after examining the report said the comparably small number of scientists who believe in God is nothing to be alarmed over.
Dr. Fazale Rana, vice president of research and apologetics at Reasons to Believe ministry, said the percentage of American scientists who believe in God has remained constant for more than three-quarters of a century.
In the early 1920s, he explained, there was a similar survey conducted that found a similar proportion of scientists who believe in God. (ed. “that’s comforting?”)
“I see a lot of reason to be very encouraged by these results,” said Rana, who has a Ph.D. in chemistry with an emphasis in biochemistry and was a senior scientist in product development for Procter & Gamble, to The Christian Post on Wednesday.
“The take home message is that if science and religion are incompatible then there is no way we would still see 30-40 percent of scientists acknowledge there is a God or higher power behind everything,” he contended.
Besides asking about belief in God, the survey also asked the public and scientists about their belief in a higher power. Eighteen percent of scientists said they believe in a higher power or universal spirit, while 12 percent of the public said so.
But the religious belief of the public and scientists once again diverged in the category of not believing in God or a higher power. Only four percent of the public said they didn’t believe in either, while a major portion of scientists (41 percent) said they didn’t believe in God or any other higher power.
Rana, whose ministry’s mission is to show that science and faith is compatible, said the discrepancy between scientists and the public on belief in God or a higher power is rooted in the nature of science itself.
The discipline of science calls for finding naturalistic explanations for phenomenon and operates on the philosophies of methodological naturalism and bench top atheism in which God is excluded. (ed. “ but why should that make a difference to the question is there a God or not, when asked?”)
For bench top atheism, Rana explained, even if a scientist believes in God he has to act as if he does not while engaging in science. And under methodological naturalism, a scientist is forced to explain events through naturalism.
“What I found encouraging is seeing such a high belief in scientists in the face of philosophical pressure,” Rana commented. (ed. “what philosophical pressure and why?”)
Other interesting findings in the Pew report include huge differences between scientists who believe humans have evolved over time (87 percent) and Americans in general who hold this belief (32 percent); a large gap between the percentage of scientists who say the earth is warming because of human activity (84 percent) and the percentage of the public who agree with this statement (49 percent); and the proportion of scientists who favor federal funding for embryonic stem cell research (93 percent) and the general public who support such research (58 percent).
The report is based on two telephone surveys, the first on a sample of 2,001 adults, April 28-May 12, 2009, and the second on a sample of 1,005 adults, June 18-21, 2009. The survey of scientists was conducted online with a random sample of 2,533 members of the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS), from May 1 to June 14, 2009. The AAAS is the world’s largest general scientific society, and includes members representing all scientific fields.
Based in California, Reasons to Believe ministry seeks to show that science and faith are “allies, not enemies.” The ministry’s leaders help seekers and Christians to worship the Creator without fear of science through analyzing the latest scientific research publications, writing books and magazine articles, speaking at events, and doing media interviews. (ed. “who says we’re afraid?”)

 

[tumbleweed41]

The only reason you so quickly embrace evolution is because it supports your godless ways in other areas. Evolution is such a folly and there are some very bright scientists who have said as much. Sorry, I am not interested in complying with the devil's lies. I can see how it has made the world so arrogant and callous towards God.

I wonder if the same statement can be used towards the Catholic Church?


"In his encyclical Humani Generis (1950), my predecessor Pius XII has already affirmed that there is no conflict between evolution and the doctrine of the faith regarding man and his vocation, provided that we do not lose sight of certain fixed points.... Today, more than a half-century after the appearance of that encyclical, some new findings lead us toward the recognition of evolution as more than a hypothesis. In fact it is remarkable that this theory has had progressively greater influence on the spirit of researchers, following a series of discoveries in different scholarly disciplines. The convergence in the results of these independent studies—which was neither planned nor sought—constitutes in itself a significant argument in favor of the theory."
John Paul II
Message to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences on Evolution

According to the widely accepted scientific account, the universe erupted 15 billion years ago in an explosion called the 'Big Bang' and has been expanding and cooling ever since. Later there gradually emerged the conditions necessary for the formation of atoms, still later the condensation of galaxies and stars, and about 10 billion years later the formation of planets. In our own solar system and on earth (formed about 4.5 billion years ago), the conditions have been favorable to the emergence of life. While there is little consensus among scientists about how the origin of this first microscopic life is to be explained, there is general agreement among them that the first organism dwelt on this planet about 3.5–4 billion years ago. Since it has been demonstrated that all living organisms on earth are genetically related, it is virtually certain that all living organisms have descended from this first organism. Converging evidence from many studies in the physical and biological sciences furnishes mounting support for some theory of evolution to account for the development and diversification of life on earth, while controversy continues over the pace and mechanisms of evolution.
Cardinal Ratzinger (Current Pope Benedict XVI)
Communion and Stewardship: Human Persons Created in the Image of God, plenary sessions held in Rome 2000–2002, published July 2004, §63

We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities. The story of the dust of the earth and the breath of God, which we just heard, does not in fact explain how human persons come to be but rather what they are. It explains their inmost origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments. But in so doing it cannot explain where the 'project' of human persons comes from, nor their inner origin, nor their particular nature. To that extent we are faced here with two complementary—rather than mutually exclusive—realities.
Cardinal Ratzinger (Current Pope Benedict XVI)
In the Beginning: A Catholic Understanding of the Story of Creation and the Fall (Eerdmans, 1995), p. 50.

Currently, I see in Germany, but also in the United States, a somewhat fierce debate raging between so-called “creationism” and evolutionism, presented as though they were mutually exclusive alternatives: those who believe in the Creator would not be able to conceive of evolution, and those who instead support evolution would have to exclude God. This antithesis is absurd because, on the one hand, there are so many scientific proofs in favour of evolution which appears to be a reality we can see and which enriches our knowledge of life and being as such. But on the other, the doctrine of evolution does not answer every query, especially the great philosophical question: where does everything come from? And how did everything start which ultimately led to man? I believe this is of the utmost importance.
Pope Benedict XVI
Meeting Of The Holy Father Benedict XVI With The Clergy Of The Dioceses Of Belluno-Feltre And Treviso

159. Faith and science: "... methodical research in all branches of knowledge, provided it is carried out in a truly scientific manner and does not override moral laws, can never conflict with the faith, because the things of the world and the things of faith derive from the same God. The humble and persevering investigator of the secrets of nature is being led, as it were, by the hand of God in spite of himself, for it is God, the conserver of all things, who made them what they are." (Vatican II GS 36:1) 283. The question about the origins of the world and of man has been the object of many scientific studies which have splendidly enriched our knowledge of the age and dimensions of the cosmos, the development of life-forms and the appearance of man. These discoveries invite us to even greater admiration for the greatness of the Creator, prompting us to give him thanks for all his works and for the understanding and wisdom he gives to scholars and researchers.... 284. The great interest accorded to these studies is strongly stimulated by a question of another order, which goes beyond the proper domain of the natural sciences. It is not only a question of knowing when and how the universe arose physically, or when man appeared, but rather of discovering the meaning of such an origin....
Catechism of the Catholic Church (1994, revised 1997)


So, if the Catholic Church accepts biological evolution as an instrument of God, better known as Theistic Evolution, is it because it "supports their godless ways"? Are they "complying with the devil's lies"?

 

[Agnostic75]

Not sure I have time for you because you are asking for a lengthy response.

Not at all, a brief reply will do. There is no doubt that the Bible has only two categories of people, saved, and unsaved, not people who accept creationism, and people who reject creationism. According to the Bible, no one who accepts creationism who does also accept the Bible will be rewarded by God, including Hindus, and Buddhists.

In your opinion, is it reasonable for people who know very little about science to become Christians?

What is your academic background in biology or biochemistry?

Why can't aliens have started life on earth?

 

[thau]

Not at all, a brief reply will do. There is no doubt that the Bible has only two categories of people, saved, and unsaved, not people who accept creationism, and people who reject creationism.

Ok, so far, but I would have a huge qualification.

According to the Bible, no one who accepts creationism who does also accept the Bible will be rewarded by God, including Hindus, and Buddhists.


Absolutely incorrect --- and I do not care how any fundamentalist Christian migh disagree with me. I am in full agreement with Catholic teaching which (along with the Bible) says that anyone can be saved. They do not have to know Jesus Christs or even accept Jesus Christ as their savior in order to be saved. However, God does say “To whom more has been given, more will be required.” So in other words, for some affluent American to have “heard it all” and cast it aside as rubbish, he will have a far more difficult time entering the kingdom than some poor Hindu mother in Calcutta.

In your opinion, is it reasonable for people who know very little about science to become Christians?

I am confused by the question. It is reasonable for anybody to become Christian if given the proper understanding or teaching. Science should in no way ever be a barrier to that, although I can see from experience that it does. Perhaps that is because of pride or because these aspiring science majors realize if they air their honest feelings about evolution, or how much they are certain Jesus is God, they know it will be career debilitating --- so they say nothing and tow the party line.

What is your academic background in biology or biochemistry?

My background is the ability to process information, think and reason, and apply facts to connect dots. I do not need a biology degree to understand what evolution claims and what other scientist reveal that casts doubt.

Why can't aliens have started life on earth?

What is your point? Are you suggesting there is sparse or no evidence for the Judeo-Christian God in history? Of course I would strongly oppose you on that.

So given the premise I am certain of, that is why I would reject the idea aliens started anything here on earth.

Out of sheer intelligence I totally reject that any aliens ever visited earth. It is nonsensical. No one can travel for years at the speed of light (or via some even more hyper intelligent means than that) and then just say “oh, looky here, looks like something going on with this planet.” Then spend a couple of hours talking to a farmer or two and then take off for another galaxy, as though there are just as interesting things to uncover days or weeks later.

 

[Agnostic75]

Why can't aliens have started life on earth?

What is your point? Are you suggesting there is sparse or no evidence for the Judeo-Christian God in history?

I am suggesting that if a God exists, he is probably not the God of the Bible.

In your opinion, is God able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love and accept him?

 

[thau]

I am suggesting that if a God exists, he is probably not the God of the Bible.

In your opinion, is God able to provide additional evidence that would cause more people to love and accept him?

Well, of course, He is able to.

Again, are you suggesting, He has not given you enough?

Jesus resurrection from the dead and subsequent miracles by his disciples and subsequent impact on the entire world in magnificient and charitable ways just doesn’t mean anything to you apparently?---- Is that because some “Christian” killed an abortion doctor, or is it because some Catholics conducted an Inquisition? Both are ridiculous arguments I might add. Now if you press further and bring up the clergy scandal and cover-up, now you have brought up a terrible disgrace from which the Church will never fully recover.

But instead of me speaking to that horror --- since time is my enemy --- I ask, how does any of that disprove the teachings of the Church and of Christ?

You ask for more evidence as though any kind of evidence will ever dissuade you from wanting to doubt. Jesus said “an evil age is eager for a sign, but no sign will be given it except that of Jonah.” (Jonah is of course a reference to Himself three days in the tomb and then rising.) Why? Because God is repulsed by man’s arrogance, pride and love of self. That is the heart of their obstinacy in most cases.


To your first postulation above --- I am suggesting to you that if God exists, He would not create us without providing a very meaningful purpose for doing so. To think we would have just planted on earth for God's own amusement (to see how the cookies crumble) is illogical.

 

[tumbleweed41]

Still wondering, if the Catholic Church accepts biological evolution as an instrument of God, better known as Theistic Evolution, is it because it "supports their godless ways"? Are they "complying with the devil's lies"?

 

[thau]

Still wondering, if the Catholic Church accepts biological evolution as an instrument of God, better known as Theistic Evolution, is it because it "supports their godless ways"? Are they "complying with the devil's lies"?

No, not at all. Let me separate two important points.

Point #1. Evolution is not evil, however the claim that evolution could have occurred without God is borderline evil. It can easily be ascertained that such “evidence” allows the doubters or enemies of God to relax and ill-advisably convince themselves all the more that there is no God they need be accountable to.

Point #2. If evolution did occur, then all three of the following tenets, I say, would have to be true. 1. It could have only happened by God (intelligent design) 2. God did a good job of hiding the evidence for it. 3. He stopped the process altogether since man has been on the planet.

So Christians could believe in evolution as long as they accept God of the Bible was the architect. But for me personally, I reject evolution in its entirety because I have read enough sound arguments and considered enough evidence to come to that conclusion. The lack of evidence says “never happened.”