Creationists, may I ask you...

a reply to: scorpio84

evidence can be found if you have pure faith...

When you start to do something spiritual you will get rewarded or help along the way in any form, you open your mind to and that will increase your faith. It is a give and take relationship and each person has to do first step in the right way.

true religious or spiritual persons all have their proof and we are without a doubt certain about the truth.

When it comes to creationism there are many stories. Take your pick.

originally posted by: uwascallywabbit
That team doesnt use logic in the game that they play.
The guy who said faith was at least honest. But faith is not logical.

Seems rather ironic to me that you just described 'The Gospel according to Darwin' perfectly...

Darwin's 'theory' is so full of holes that it becomes obvious what the real 'faith' is...

The reality is that Darwinism is actually a tool of religious propaganda disguised as a scientific theory.

Modern media often refers to the creation/evolution debate as a conflict between “science and religion.” In fact, there is no science to support evolution. The word science refers to knowledge gained through observation. A scientist (through experimentation) observes events as they happen, and then chronicles the details of those events.

The evolutionist has faith that these things happened, but he has not seen them and neither does he have any way of proving them. Therefore, the Evolution vs. Creation debate is not a matter of science vs. religion – but rather, religion vs. religion.

DARWIN DEBUNKED

Evolution is positively anti-science. Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts. True, evolution has been mixed with science for the last thirty years, but that does not mean that it is the same as science.

Beer is often advertised during sporting events but the two subjects have no logical connection, and evolution has no more to do with science than beer has to do with sports.

Cult of Evolutionism

“… the general scientific world has been bamboozled into believing that evolution has been proved. Nothing could be further from the truth …” ~ Dr. Samuel L. Blumenfeld

"What is it evolution based upon? Upon nothing whatever but faith, upon belief in the reality of the unseen—belief in the fossils that cannot be produced, belief in the embryological experiments that refuse to come off. It is faith unjustified by works." ~ Arthur N. Field.

"The more one studies paleontology, the more certain one becomes that evolution is based on faith alone." ~ paleontologist T.L. Moor

"Most of what is being taught in university classrooms today, in biology, and also in physics and mathematics, is actually not science at all, but essentially a variety of religious cult, whose immediate roots can be traced, among other things, to the Cathars and Bogomils of the medieval "dark ages"!

True, this cult, which controls much of our educational system and scientific community, naturally does not advertise itself openly as a fanatic form of irrationalist belief; rather, it calls itself "the scientific establishment"; it typically brands those who refuse to accept its most egregious doctrines, as "unscientific." Now, it is easy to show that Darwinism, one of the pillars of modern biology, is nothing but a kind of cult, a cult religion. I am not exaggerating. It has no scientific validity whatsoever.

Darwin's so-called theory of evolution is based on absurdly irrational propositions, which did not come from scientific observations, but were artificially introduced from the outside, for political-ideological reasons."

Jonathan Tennenbaum: Toward a True Science of Life

By refusing to acknowledge God, evolutionists have unwittingly created their own religion. In their eagerness to remove God and to rely on distant and suspicious circumstantial evidence—Chemical Evolutionists have created a religion that requires far more faith than to simply accept the facts and acknowledge the Creator.

Indeed, the "Religion of Chemical Evolution" requires:

1. Faith (to convince oneself the impossible happened),
2. Doctrines (e.g., teachings about aliens and the like),
3. Preachers (evolutionists, educators, and news media),
4. Bibles (college textbooks and numerous books on evolution),
5. Churches (school classrooms across the world where millions of students are required to listen to and accept evolutionary theories),
6. "gods" (some believe advanced aliens are trying to communicate with us, and that alien life seeded earth with nucleotides), and finally,
7. Miracles (in believing the natural laws of Thermodynamics and mathematics can be suspended).

In pursuit of the Chemical Evolution religion, some experts have ventured so far away from the scientific method (which suggests only actual fact and hard evidence should be utilized in science) that they have essentially reverted to the days of the Greeks and Romans, primitive scientists who embraced the notions of both Spontaneous Generation and "gods" from other realms.

The "religion" of Chemical Evolution?

originally posted by: scorpio84
...why do so many of you not believe in evolution?

I honestly do not get it.

Evolution: Based on data that can be observed and tested.

Creationism: Based on an ancient book that has been consistently translated inaccurately and which contains several errors


I'm not looking for:
-defensive replies
-prolonged debate
-trolling
-rude behavior

This is an honest question and if it some how offends it, then I'm sorry...that you are so easily offended. But seriously, if anyone here can give a good (i.e. logical and valid) reason as to why creationism makes more sense (i.e. is more correct, not is easier) than the theory of evolution, I'd love to read about it.

BTW, if this has been answered before, pardon me. I'm not about to go through thousands of posts which are invariably interspersed with a bunch of bickering.

With the way it's now worded I don't actually know as they're still 2 different things.

I believe in science. I believe in the theory of evolution. I believe in aliens. I believe in a lot of things. But I also believe there is a supreme being. Call it god, aliens or whatever you want. I haven't got a name for it. But I still believe in life after death and our own souls and conscious selfs.

If we were created (no evidence for or against), then I believe (faith?) that we were created in a purely basic level. We all started as something microscopic and are ow what we are through evolution. I still see no need for an argument against evolution.

originally posted by: scorpio84
Evolution: Based on data that can be observed and tested.

As the videos below plainly show, there is nothing to observe but Pseudo Science.

The only thing observable about evolution is fraud, forgeries, blind faith, and assumptions.

Evolution does not fit the real definitions of science. It cannot be tested, repeated, observed, measured or falsified. It is a belief system about the past. Fundamentalist evolutionists have a great deal of faith.

The Skeptic’s Dictionary contains an entry on ‘pseudoscience’ that includes ten characteristic fallacies of pseudoscientific theories. The list’s compiler clearly did not have evolution in mind, as the very first group the article identifies as pseudoscientific is ‘creationists’.
Ironically, evolution has almost every characteristic on this list.

Evolution, a Pseudoscience

Science deals with things that are testable, observable, and demonstrable and evolution has none of those qualities. To call evolution "science" is to confuse fairy tales with facts.

Cult of Evolutionism

He shows the strong connection between atheism and evolution, that evolution is not testable as it has happened in the past and that the students interviewed generally believed in evolution because the ‘experts’ have said that it has happened exposing their faith position for what it is.

The evolutionists faith is wonderfully summed up by evolutionist and atheist Gail E. Kennedy, Associate Professor of Anthropology, UCLA, when she stated at the end of the film,”You know the problem with those who are unable to see evolution I think is that they don’t have imaginations”.

Evolution Vs God

If evolution was a 'fact', then why does it have to be imagined?

originally posted by: scorpio84
Creationism: Based on an ancient book that has been consistently translated inaccurately and which contains several errors

ORLY?

Evolutionism fits your description FAR better than Creationism.

The truth is that Darwinism is nothing but ancient pagan mythology...

Darwin plagiarized Anaximander who taught that humans evolved from fish.

Evolution and its related concepts did not originate from science. The concept of evolution emerged from the imaginations of men. Evolution is based in pagan mythology while later promoted among Greek philosophers like Anaximander and Democritus. Diodorus Siculus, a 1st c. BC historian, presented evolution in his “Universal History”, which was one of the beliefs of the ancient Egyptians. Diodorus recorded that the Egyptians believed that life originated in swamps and marshes eventually resulting in other life forms.

Pagan Origins of Evolution

"Gotta love how 'evolution theory' is historically demonstrated to be nothing but failed ancient mythology updated & repackaged with scientific lingo hijacked from Christian pioneers of science (Linnaeus, Ray, Mendel, Cuvier,etc), pushed by Freemasonic/Communist control of centralized gov't, universities, press, media & think-tanks backed by the satanic elite with their world Socialist revolution while 'Atheists' still cling to politically corrupt 'science' or point to imaginary 'evidence'." Source

"The theory of evolution came from the Hindu Brahmins. Pantheistic evolution was passed down by Pythagoras to the Greeks. Thales and his Ionic School branched out from Pantheistic Evolution to Naturalistic Evolution. Plato and Aristotle's evolutionary ideas were dispersed through the Alexandrian School in Egypt.

The ideas were followed through the Middle Ages (Aquinas), Renaissance and into Freemasonry, where they were preserved. Freemasonry and the Enlightenment had a re-birth of the philosophy of evolution. Lord Monboddo and Erasmus Darwin carried the philosophy forward. Charles Darwin, coaxed by Charles Lyell, developed the idea."

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: CharlieSpeirs
I personally have showed you many times how a species has changed over time and this change can be revered in a lab environment, so observed and replicated. Search chicken into dinosaur experiment if you genuinely want to be less oblivious.you realise bird used to be reptiles right?

You do yourself and your religion a huge disservice when you spout that typical " I have no interest in broadening my knowledge" type arguement.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Is this the usual christian website that some feel is mandatory to post on ATS. I'm genuinely concerned you may believe what you have quoted. Tisk.

I think my OP was not exactly clear, so I'll try to redirect the discussion. I asked why creationists reject evolution - but that was apparently too broad of a question.

What grounds would there be to reject evolution and take the Bible literally?

For those of you who say "it's in the Bible!" let me inform you of a few things:
-I can tell you are not well-versed in theology
-you are not well-versed in logic
-the translation you read is not identical to the original (well, I could be wrong - maybe you are reading Classical Hebrew/Classical Aramaic/ Koine (Biblical Greek))
-Please learn a little bit about what some Jewish rabbis think about interpreting the Bible literally.

a reply to: scorpio84

Jewish rabbis cannot understand the Old Testament because they reject Christ. As God said through the prophet Hosea "My people are destroyed for lack of knowledge" and Paul said the Jews have a zeal for God but not according to knowledge. Thorough the willful rejection of Christ they unwillingly permit themselves to complete spiritual blindness.

Again a young earth creationist is likely to believe in biblical inerancy and preservation. Many will also reject codex siniaticus and codex vaticanus and are thus comfortable with extending the doctrine of inerancy unto the KJV some will extend this belief to any Bible translated from the received text of Erasmus.

originally posted by: scorpio84
I think my OP was not exactly clear, so I'll try to redirect the discussion. I asked why creationists reject evolution - but that was apparently too broad of a question.

What grounds would there be to reject evolution and take the Bible literally?

For those of you who say "it's in the Bible!" let me inform you of a few things:
-I can tell you are not well-versed in theology
-you are not well-versed in logic
-the translation you read is not identical to the original (well, I could be wrong - maybe you are reading Classical Hebrew/Classical Aramaic/ Koine (Biblical Greek))
-Please learn a little bit about what some Jewish rabbis think about interpreting the Bible literally.

Since you mentioned logic...

A Jewish rabbi would be the very LAST person I would consider as a reliable source on interpreting the Bible.

The Bible is clearly not a Jewish book, nor is Judaism the OT religion that many believe it to be.

In fact, Judaism is the antithesis of Christianity.

Allegorical interpretation is nothing but a massive propaganda tool.

The Bible is to be taken literally unless the text in question is obviously symbolic.

Historically when people do not like what a document says or they want to make it fit their philosophical bent they allegorize that document. This is what Philo did with the Jewish Bible in Alexandria, Egypt and, early on, some Christians picked up this habit from him and imported it into the church.

digitalcommons.liberty.edu...

originally posted by: BO XIAN
In many dozens, hundreds of cases, THE LITERALISTS WERE ALWAYS PROVEN CORRECT as archeology uncovered more and more confirmation that the Bible was literally true in detail after detail. Some things are literal AND symbolic, both/and. I don't think a great number of things in the Bible are primarily or only symbolic.

originally posted by: Nichiren
Jesus was a 'Judean', not a Jew. During His lifetime, no persons were described as "Jews" anywhere. That fact is supported by theology, history and science. In none of the manuscripts of the original Old or New Testament was Jesus described or referred to as a "Jew". The term originated in the late eighteenth century as an abbreviation of the term Judean and refers to a resident of Judea without regard to race or religion, just as the term "Texan" signifies a person living in Texas.

In spite of the powerful propaganda effort of the so-called "Jews", they have been unable to prove in recorded history that there is one record, prior to that period, of a race religion or nationality, referred to as "Jew". The religious sect in Judea, in the time of Jesus, to which self-styled "Jews" today refer to as "Jews", were known as "Pharisees". "Judaism" today and "Pharisaism" in the time of Jesus are the same. Jesus abhorred and denounced "Pharisaism"; hence the words, "Woe unto you Scribes and Pharisees, Hypocrites, Ye Serpents, Ye Generation of Vipers".

originally posted by: sweftl337
The word “Jew” never existed in Hebrew, Greek and Aramaic and Jesus spoke mostly Greek and Aramaic. First of all, if we go back some 2000 years, there were no Jews. There was a land known as “Judea” and in that land lived many different peoples. The people of Moses were the Hebrew Israelites – there was no Jew.

“Judaism as we know it today did not exist before Christ. Before Christ, there was only the faith of the Israelites, until by a gradual process, the pure faith of the Israelites was subverted by corrupt teachings. These corrupt teachings were transmitted orally by the Pharisees. Christ condemned these teachings when calling them the ‘traditions of the elders.’”

Judaism Discovered

originally posted by: pthena
The original Jews were the people from the Babylonian Captivity who didn't want to return to Judea, because they enjoyed the benefits of Babylonian and Persian culture. They aren't Israelites or Judeans. They are Babylonians. There is no mention of Jews until Esther. They didn't exist until Esther.

Judaism is not the Old Testament religion that many believe. It's a mishmash of various pagan superstitions that go back to Babylonian times. It is a religion of racial self-worship.

A Review of the book "Judaism Discovered"

a reply to: Murgatroid
Omg please stop...Judaism is made up now.

originally posted by: TerryDon79

originally posted by: CharlieSpeirs
When has Speciation ever been observed and tested???????????????

You might want to have a read of this article

Now, two groups of researchers have shown exactly how these mating differences, the first steps in speciation, can evolve develop in bird populations in less than 50 years.

Fixed that for them. This article doesn't observe speciation itself. It observes what scientists believe are the first steps towards speciation. It also mentions hybrids, which are the opposite of the result of two non-interbreeding species.

I'm a Christian and a biologist. I don't have a problem with the Theory of Evolution itself, just the people that think it somehow disproves God. I have no problem with the idea that God set evolution in motion, although personally I think what He set up is a lot more elegant and we're only scratching the surface of His design. And yeah, I'm not a literal Bible reader. Surprise surprise, it turns out that literal interpretation of the Bible is a relatively new thing; less that 100 years old. Most of the Christian scientists from the 1800's were working off a allegorical interpretation of the Old Testament when they laid the groundwork that Darwin posted his ideas from.

originally posted by: rossacus
a reply to: Murgatroid

Is this the usual christian website that some feel is mandatory to post on ATS. I'm genuinely concerned you may believe what you have quoted. Tisk.

Good question!



Maybe starting a new religion?

Can I just point out that the bible is massively inaccurate, so anyone who thinks that it's reliable in any way, shape or form is going to be extremely wrong? A few facts: there are barely any mentions of the Hittites, which is odd because they were a major power in the Middle East at the time. It claims that Joseph was an advisor to the Pharoah and that the Tribes of Israel were in Egypt. Except that other than the Hyksos invasion of Lower Egypt there's no evidence whatsoever of any such thing. There's no evidence whatsoever of the Exodus. And as for the claim that Solomon's kingdom was a major power in the region, well there's absolutely no evidence of that on the ground or in the contemporary record.
People we need to face facts. The bible is a religious document, made up by religious people to explain the world around them and also to cement their position in power.
Oh and I strongly dislike the whiffs of anti-Semitism that I suddenly sense around here. Jews had nothing to do with the Old Testament? Seriously?

originally posted by: scorpio84
Evolution: Based on data that can be observed and tested.

Creationism: Based on an ancient book that has been consistently translated inaccurately and which contains several errors

Both are true.

You can ask any professional computer programmer for verification.

If a programmer designed 5 modules / webpages and all worked perfectly with one another, why would the same programmer create a 6th module / webpage knowing in advance that they are going to lose their job and get flamed for eternity when the 6th parts causes the entire project to go to sh1t ?

Day 6 was going perfect with Neanderthal man until Enki (Annunaki leader) spliced human dna to turn them into slaves.
Then when humans eventually rebelled, Enlil (Yahweh) used scalar weaponry and flooded the planet. Sad that out of probably millions of humans all Yahweh could find was one slave family - Noah's family.

The Annunaki's created their Book of Lies (Bible) that the God Presence is constantly attacking hence why there are so many contradictions in the book.

a reply to: Murgatroid

Oh dearie me. One of your links is to a review for a book written by a delusional nutjob called Michael Hoffman, who has been screaming about Jews being under his bed for several decades now. No-one takes him seriously.

a reply to: Murgatroid

The Bible is clearly not a Jewish book, nor is Judaism the OT religion that many believe it to be.

In fact, Judaism is the antithesis of Christianity.

Allegorical interpretation is nothing but a massive propaganda tool.

The Bible is to be taken literally unless the text in question is obviously symbolic.

This being a site where people can talk about all sorts of weird conspiracies, I've seen some dumb things. This, however, is perhaps the most blatant example of stupidity I have seen here or anywhere in a very long time. Not Jewish? Who wrote the OT, then - Christians living a few thousand years before Christ? Please, do the world a favor and educate yourself before you spout out nonsense.

Do yourself a favor. Leave the task of biblical interpretation to those of us who know what we're doing. It's people like you who give theology a bad name and make it impossible (at least nearly) for atheists to ever understand the theist mindset.

Taken literally, bats are birds.
Taken literally, rape is okay.
Taken literally, we should kill homosexuals*

*Actually I'm not sure of this. The text says something like "man should not lay with man as he lays with woman"...so:
a). that's not about sex per se
b). is it okay for man to lay with man in a different way?
c). as man lays with woman = what? missionary? doggy-styl

a reply to: Rapha

Erm. Erm.... you do know that the Neanderthals came before Homo Sapiens, in Europe at least? Don't you?

a reply to: scorpio84

-trolling
-rude behavior

First of all, it's a known fact that rude behavior, insults, trolling,
and derailing. Come far more from your own camp of supposed
intellectuals. No one needs statistics to know where that kind
of childishness begins. Remember, you have the atheists in your
camp.

Second, the word evolution exists with definition. To say we do not
believe in evolution is ridiculous, because if evolution wasn't happening
somewhere? There would be no word for it.

a reply to: rockintitz

Scientists don't "belive" things. They do research and come to a conclusion.
Religious people "believe" things without evidence.

a reply to: plaindoughnut

Did your mother have to prove she loved you? Very sad.