• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Evolution vs Creationism?

You cannot be a good Christian and accept Literal Creationism.

Creationist are some of the lowest people on the totem pole of debating for a reason. They have no actual arguments. They reject everything they don't like either by giving asinine reasons as you have or simply pretending it doesn't exist (as you have repetively here). And their belief is fundamentally rooted in dishonesty and immaturity. And they tend to be exceptionally arrogant as to dictate that their interpretation, and ONLY their interpretation is correct.

First, there are no good Christians. Christians are sinful people, just as we all are. Hence the reasons we often see Christians doing sinful, hypocritical things. As I heard in a video last week, Churches are not resorts for the saved, but rather clinics for the sick. The difference between Christians and unbelievers is that we recognize who we are, and we rejoice in who Jesus Christ is.

With regard to my arguments being weak and pathetic, let me once again agree with you. I would direct you to the book "In Six Days" edited by John Ashton, in which 50 Christian scientists, each one highly educated and experienced in various fields of science, explain why they believe the evidence clearly points to a created, young earth. If you direct message me (can we do that here?) I'll send you a copy.
 
First, there are no good Christians. Christians are sinful people, just as we all are. Hence the reasons we often see Christians doing sinful, hypocritical things. As I heard in a video last week, Churches are not resorts for the saved, but rather clinics for the sick. The difference between Christians and unbelievers is that we recognize who we are, and we rejoice in who Jesus Christ is.

Fine. Less bad Christians.

With regard to my arguments being weak and pathetic, let me once again agree with you. I would direct you to the book "In Six Days" edited by John Ashton, in which 50 Christian scientists, each one highly educated and experienced in various fields of science, explain why they believe the evidence clearly points to a created, young earth. If you direct message me (can we do that here?) I'll send you a copy.

http://creation.com/in-six-days/

Not exactly persuasive arguments.
 
Not really. But merely because we do not share your particular interpretation does not mean we are incapable of doing our theological analysis.

If the necessary action required a power outside of the natural, it is therefore Magic. Call it what you want, but it is functionally magic. There is no natural explanation for what happened and multiple natural laws were violated without the presence of a singularity. And there is no evidence for it at all. That is magic.

You seem very young as you haven't delved much into your religion.

Unless you study the Word of God with the mind of a seeker, rather than an antagonist, you cannot hope to fully understand the nuance and the full meaning in context.

Do you believe in miracles? People who were very very sick suddenly become well? Fireman able to lift cars off trapped people with their bare hands? Soldiers riding in covered trucks that come back to base with hundreds of pass-through bullet and RPG rounds? Do you believe these things happen? If not, why not? If so, how is that anything but supernatural?

I very much appreciate the comment about being young! My effort in a discussion forum like this is to be simplistic so that what I'm trying to say is easy to grasp, even if I know virtually everyone will oppose me. All I can offer as far as assurance of my credentials is that do indeed have a firm grasp on the theology, ecclesiology, eschatology, doxology, etc, of the God I know, love, and serve with my whole heart.

It's been fun chatting with you all. Time now to engage in other matters.
 
Fine. Less bad Christians.



In Six Days

Not exactly persuasive arguments.

Your link didn't work. You sure read that fast! In all likelihood, you searched, found it, and declared it unconvincing all in the space of two minutes. Poor science that.
 
Unless you study the Word of God with the mind of a seeker, rather than an antagonist, you cannot hope to fully understand the nuance and the full meaning in context.

You do realize that makes you look really arrogant no? You are saying that only your interpretation is correct. That is dangerous ground to walk on, both theologically and debate wise.

Do you believe in miracles? People who were very very sick suddenly become well? Fireman able to lift cars off trapped people with their bare hands? Soldiers riding in covered trucks that come back to base with hundreds of pass-through bullet and RPG rounds? Do you believe these things happen? If not, why not? If so, how is that anything but supernatural?

Humans under certain stress have been shown to have boosted endurance and strength. It's not entirely understood, but it is natural. Trucks don't survive RPG rounds. Bullets yes, RPG hits no. Furthermore, it is largely a matter of luck where the soldier is in the truck. As for miracles, I do doubt them.
 
Your link didn't work. You sure read that fast! In all likelihood, you searched, found it, and declared it unconvincing all in the space of two minutes. Poor science that.

Try it again.

I read the geology, biology and chemistry ones. There's nothing even remotely convincing. Effectively, they are saying they choose to believe over what they do. At least they are somewhat honest. There was a biologist who openly said that his beliefs contradict his day job and he will go with what he believes over what he does. It's honest, but it hardly provides evidence that there is secular proof of Creation.
 
Your link didn't work. You sure read that fast! In all likelihood, you searched, found it, and declared it unconvincing all in the space of two minutes. Poor science that.


Actually, no, it is not. There are countless illegitimate claims out there. Being able to sift through them to quickly discard the least legitimate ones so that you can concentrate on the ones with the greatest potential is entirely good science.
 
I think he's trolling you.
You would think Religionists could debate in 'good faith' at least.

It's incredible; neither Machoid nor ObamaisaMarxist can even Answer a Single one of my posts addressing them.

In light of that, they should either drop the Superstition they call religion, or admit that I AM God the untouchable/unanswerable.
 
Last edited:
Honestly, Literal Creationism, aside from mandating that the abrahamic God is a huge liar, frankly is bat**** crazy.

Nothing about it makes any sense in the context of actual science.

And let's remember that a flood would cover the land with a brine. That salt would leech into the soil. Meaning that most plants shouldn't have been able to survive the salt content of the land. Only a relatively small number of species are salt tolerant and certainty not the grain crops that most of humanity survives on. There are thousands of reason why Literal Creation and the Flood make absolutely no sense.

And some creationists realize this and argue what amounts to magic. That's fine, but I can't see how they can reasonable expect anyone to take them seriously, especially when large numbers of their own religion think they're crazy.

I'm not sure if anyone has already addressed this post, I'm trying to catch up on the conversation. But in theology even at a Christian private college most proffessors don't believe the flood covered the whole Earth.

The Biblical flood only covered where mankind was. The sole purpose of the Biblical flood was to wipe out mankind, who was most likely only in the Middle East area of the world.

Considering it is believed that man was only in this now desert landscape, what you are saying can be true and still be in align with the Bible. The Flood never reached areas such as South America, why else are there Parrots and Rainforest animals there? I would say most Christians would accept this to be true. So could it not be possible that the flood did destroy the crops and species in this area just like you argue?
 
I'm not sure if anyone has already addressed this post, I'm trying to catch up on the conversation. But in theology even at a Christian private college most proffessors don't believe the flood covered the whole Earth.

Basically, only the fringe of Christianity and Judaism accept a global flood. Islam is another story though.

The Biblical flood only covered where mankind was. The sole purpose of the Biblical flood was to wipe out mankind, who was most likely only in the Middle East area of the world.

More like the black sea area. The Epic of Gilgamesh can be traced by via trade routes to the Black Sea area and there is evidence of a large flood back then. Over time it got embellish and exaggerated. This the least complex answer.

Considering it is believed that man was only in this now desert landscape, what you are saying can be true and still be in align with the Bible. The Flood never reached areas such as South America, why else are there Parrots and Rainforest animals there? I would say most Christians would accept this to be true. So could it not be possible that the flood did destroy the crops and species in this area just like you argue?

The black sea is low saline body of water. Adding lots of rain to it makes it even less salty so it wouldn't have the same effect. I don't doubt that there was at one time a big flood. What I doubt is a global flood. Especially one in the Torah considering how many other cultures have flood stories were thousands of people survived and where the flood didn't cover all the land. Several Asian myths have people running to the mountains in large numbers from a river flood and surviving. Flood are common. Big floods get retold. People should remember that the flood is originally Jewish and its likely the Jews adopted it.
 
I explained my view in another thread:

The Baha'i religion is an Abrahamic, monotheist religion, but we believe science and religion must not contradict, but complement each other. So science describes *how* the world developed, while religion explains *why* it was created.

Evolution and creation by God must not necessarily be in contradiction. If, for example, the Big Bang Theory is true, that means God was the cause for this Big Bang.

From the Baha'i scripture:

And in the same way, the seed of this flower which you see was in the beginning an insignificant thing, and very small; and it grew and developed in the womb of the earth and, after appearing in various forms, came forth in this condition with perfect freshness and grace. In the same manner, it is evident that this terrestrial globe, having once found existence, grew and developed in the matrix of the universe, and came forth in different forms and conditions, until gradually it attained this present perfection, and became adorned with innumerable beings, and appeared as a finished organization.
Abdu'l-Baha, Some Answered Questions, 47:5

So no, not all Abrahamic religions are into creationism. ;)
 
Why is it every time whites intentionally exclude blacks, they get compared to the KKK?

bc creation is evil powerful life so black and white are only cartoons figures meaning to possess objective existence rights
so blacks arguments or white have the same sources the absolute justification meant to possess

it is never about colours or ways it is never about any relative concept, it is all about absolute concept source called truth and lies

truth is stable fact while getting to b more always
lies is one reason of stable destructions getting also always more, that liars are freedom out of lies revealin suddenly gettin to nirvana by knowin doing ****, they become expert of **** as anal stage evolution to phallus in ass
 
Back
Top Bottom