• 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!

How best to argue against creationists

RedOne77

RedOne77

Active Member
rusra02 said:
Quite true. Most of the well-known 'Christian' religions pay lip service to the Bible but neither believe it nor practice what it says.
Click to expand...

It depends on what you mean. You could say that Orthodox Jews don't obey the Torah, but they will respond by saying that the Torah isn't the sum of Jewish though, tradition or practices. Same with the Bible and Christianity. We adhere to the Bible, but it is not the sum total of Christian though or teachings. It is a collection of texts that reveal certain truths that many believe holds all the knowledge one needs to be saved. It is all about understanding where the Bible fits in with Christian thought and doctrine.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Danmac said:
I am not disagreeing with you here. I was commenting on the fact that they supposedly accept the doctrines of the Bible as truth, but still embrace macroevolution. If macroevolution is true then the Adam and Eve story is fiction. You cannot logically accept both doctrines.
Click to expand...

(1) There are other options besides literal truth and fiction.
(2) Bummer for you then, because either the Theory of Evolution is true, or the scientific method does not work. And the scientific method appears to work quite well. Therefore, according to you, the first book of your Bible is, in your words, "fiction."
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
Autodidact said:
(1) There are other options besides literal truth and fiction.
Click to expand...

Triction


(2) Bummer for you then, because either the Theory of Evolution is true, or the scientific method does not work. And the scientific method appears to work quite well. Therefore, according to you, the first book of your Bible is, in your words, "fiction."
Click to expand...
Yes the scientific method has more than proved microevolution. The other is plain hypothesis monkey business. I can lift an airplane too. One piece at a time. So I really can't lift an airplane. Or maybe I can.
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
tumbleweed41 said:
Careful with Luke's genealogy work there, he forgot that in 1 Chronicles 28, the line to the Messiah was to go through Solomon.
Why does the genealogy have Joseph as a descendant of Nathan, when Nathan was never in the messianic line?
Why does Matthew claim that Joseph is a direct descendant of Solomon rather than Nathan, as does Luke?


But that is for another thread....
Click to expand...

Matthew uses the word begat. While Luke uses son. Both Joseph and Mary were decendents of David. The fork begans at David. Matthew is showing Joseph's line. while Luke is showing Mary's.
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Danmac said:
Yes the scientific method has more than proved microevolution. The other is plain hypothesis monkey business. I can lift an airplane too. One piece at a time. So I really can't lift an airplane. Or maybe I can.
Click to expand...

"Macro-evolution" has passed the scientific method. We've made predictions with it, those predictions have been met, we have observed it, we understand it and it is an established fact.

You cannot accept micro-evolution without also accepting macro-evolution. There is no reason whatsoever why evolution would be prevented at the macro-level, and all the evidence clearly demonstrates that it works far above the species level. Science has already established this.
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
ImmortalFlame said:
"Macro-evolution" has passed the scientific method. We've made predictions with it, those predictions have been met, we have observed it, we understand it and it is an established fact.

You cannot accept micro-evolution without also accepting macro-evolution. There is no reason whatsoever why evolution would be prevented at the macro-level, and all the evidence clearly demonstrates that it works far above the species level. Science has already established this.
Click to expand...

I could tell you that I have a million dollars, and show you one dollar at a time. I could show you the same dollar a million times and persuade you to believe that I am a millionaire. Macroevolution does the same thing. SHOW ME THE MONEY. And please, not a dollar at a time.
 
ImmortalFlame

ImmortalFlame

Woke gremlin
Danmac said:
I could tell you that I have a million dollars, and show you one dollar at a time. I could show you the same dollar a million times and persuade you to believe that I am a millionaire. Macroevolution does the same thing. SHOW ME THE MONEY. And please, not a dollar at a time.
Click to expand...

Several observed instances of speciation:
Observed Instances of Speciation

A comprehensive website detailing all currently discovered fossils, their study, and where they fit in the tree of life and in evolutionary theory:
Fossils Geological Time and Evolution

A website detailing, in brief, the evidences for evolution on all levels:
Evolution: Fact and Theory (ActionBioscience)

By the way, your "one dollar at a time" argument is a crock. That's like asking for a lawyer to present you with a videotape of their client stabbing someone to death because you refuse to accept the fact that they owned the knife, had a motive, their fingerprints were found on the knife, they were seen fleeing the crime scene, and any other such evidence since all of that, to you, would count as "one dollar at a time".

You, as always, are just moving the goalposts.
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Danmac said:
Yes the scientific method has more than proved microevolution. The other is plain hypothesis monkey business. I can lift an airplane too. One piece at a time. So I really can't lift an airplane. Or maybe I can.
Click to expand...

Danmac, I may give up on you. You are virtually impervious to learning, which I believe explains completely your refusal to accept one of the most soundly evidenced theories in the history of science. For the fourth or fifth time, science isn't about proof; it's about evidence. Now don't make me get out my giant colored fonts.

Now, if you're asserting that ToE is not supported by the evidence, then I invite you to actually examine the evidence, which we will cheerfully lay out for you. So far you have refused to do so. Until you do, I think denying that it exists is a lot like lying, don't you?
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Danmac said:
I could tell you that I have a million dollars, and show you one dollar at a time. I could show you the same dollar a million times and persuade you to believe that I am a millionaire. Macroevolution does the same thing. SHOW ME THE MONEY. And please, not a dollar at a time.
Click to expand...

I'd be happy to. Please join me in the "ToE is supported by the evidence thread" and stick with it, and I will show you mountains of money.
 
painted wolf

painted wolf

Grey Muzzle
Isn't it amazing how some people can just dismiss things without ever checking them out... It goes a long way to preserving preconceived ideas.

wa:do
 
Autodidact

Autodidact

Intentionally Blank
Danmac said:
Counterfeit money I presume.:)
Click to expand...

Make up your mind without actually seeing the evidence much?

O.K., question. Do you want to look at the evidence that you deny exists, do you want to stop spreading lies about how it doesn't exist, or do you want to be honest and admit that you hear there's evidence, but you have refused to look at it, so you don't really know?
 
S

Strata

New Member
Jollybear said:
After reading some of the stuff on here I am stirred to say something.
First off, I am a YOUNG EARTH creationist who does NOT believe in MACRO evolution. I believe in SMALL changes over time however. But I believe it is limited that change.

Anyway, I am PROUD to admit this belief. And I am NOT stupid, insane, or DAM DISHONEST for believing it either! I also am not FULLY ignorant, yes I admit I need to read MORE, but I have read A LOT. I am NOT WILLFULLY ignorant. That's just another NICE way of calling someone dishonest.

Now WHY do I believe what I do in this regard? Is it ONLY because the BIBLE STRONGLY IMPLIES a young earth and that no macro evolution takes place? Is this the ONLY reason I believe this? The answer is a resounding

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! Get it? NOOOOOOOOOOOO! No! NO! NOO!

Sorry, but this is frustrating.

I ALSO believe this because I SINCERELY QUESTION the UNDERLYING ASSUMPTIONS BEHIND the scientific THEORIES of a old earth and old universe and macro evolution. I would do this EVEN IF I DID NOT BELIEVE IN THE BIBLE!

Now do you all get it? You better hurry up and get it, because not every creationist is the same. Hurry up and get it because I am sick of it not being gotten.
Click to expand...

That is clever, you take some part Christianity, and some part science, and you have created a hybrid religion! Very clever.
 
Danmac

Danmac

Well-Known Member
Autodidact said:
Make up your mind without actually seeing the evidence much?

O.K., question. Do you want to look at the evidence that you deny exists, do you want to stop spreading lies about how it doesn't exist, or do you want to be honest and admit that you hear there's evidence, but you have refused to look at it, so you don't really know?
Click to expand...

Is it possible that there is a creator at work in the evolution of humankind?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top