Jump to content


Photo

Why Do Evolutists Persist?


  • Please log in to reply
155 replies to this topic

#1 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5293 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 April 2010 - 02:47 AM

Hello I am new to this site. But I am not new to this debate.

From what I have seen in my few years of info gathering on this subject, (I am only 24 though..wink), is that for a "SCIENTIFIC" theory. Evolution has way too many holes and doubts and points of inference and not facts. I don't really see why they persist in calling it a theory, since it can be dis-proven via many conventional modern scientific ways...

Forgive me this is very simplified to keep this intro short.

1- Probablilty... (maths hates evolution)
2- Laws of Thermodynamics... (Physics hates evolution)
3- Chemical Creation of life... (it doesn't happen so Chemistry hates Evolution)
4- Mutations that do good???... (Biology hates evolution)
5- Defies Bible and other Religious Texts ( Religion hates evolution)
6- Has barely any evidence and cannot repeat experiments to prove itself....
(Science hates Evolution!!!)

There are many points I haven't included, and I will go into these points in depth later.

Thoughts anyone?

#2 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2010 - 03:32 AM

Off hand Christopher I'm confused about your profile. You list yourself elsewhere as Christian, but here you are listed as a "New Age Agnostic" ?????????? :blink:
I have no idea what that is. Seems to defy that you'd not believe in some kind of god if you don't follow the evolutionary religious philosophy. :huh:

#3 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5293 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 April 2010 - 04:24 AM

New Age Agnostic? Is there anything wrong with that??

They didn't have new age for the worldview.... Hence I went with Agnostic, (isn't that the one where you are searching for spiritual truth etc??? I am not too familiar with the names I guess)

To simplify, I had a Christian upbringing. However, (I am evil), I turned from the Christian Religion due to complications from my Church. I do still believe in a God or spiritual creator force, etc... :blink:

#4 Guest_Eocene_*

Guest_Eocene_*
  • Guests

Posted 23 April 2010 - 04:34 AM

New Age Agnostic? Is there anything wrong with that??

They didn't have new age for the worldview.... Hence I went with Agnostic, (isn't that the one where you are searching for spiritual truth etc??? I am not too familiar with the names I guess)

To simplify, I had a Christian upbringing. However, (I am evil), I turned from the Christian Religion due to complications from my Church. I do still believe in a God or spiritual creator force, etc... :blink:

View Post


Nothing wrong, but I was just curious. I've never really figured out the real role behind the Agnostic labling. Most of my experience in some of these forums and with the public involving someone who said they were Agnostic was that eventually you come to the conclusion that they really are atheistic in their thinking. Same can be said for most "Theistic Evolutionists" , who after a while really seem to reflect more of an atheist attitude than religious.

So for me and my experience the listing 'Agnostic' traditionally speaking seems to support more of an Evolutionary stance , not a creator.

So welcome. :huh:

#5 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 23 April 2010 - 04:36 AM

Welcome to the board,

I would be very interested in these points you want to make, but I think it will be all show no substance. :blink:

#6 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5293 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 April 2010 - 06:18 AM

Thanks :)

Here is an exerpt of a document I sent to one of my lecturers who said I have a problem if I don't believe in Evolution. I have also added some of my responses at a discussion on the Uni's online notice board.. This led the lecturer to spend half of our tutorial debunking all religion.... (I have added extra info to this too :blink: )

Let us begin.

My main contention with Evolution is that it cannot be tested. I was taught that Science was about FACTS and things that can be proved through scientific testing. Therefore if something cannot be tested it cannot be scientific.
What I was meaning with evolution and Thermodynamics is this. If we are in an open system, and we are constantly losing energy as heat and gaining energy from the Sun, (via photosynthesis). Where did the energy come from at the starting point in life? Ie- BEFORE there were chloroplasts to conduct the photosynthesis... Also considering that the energy that is created, (somehow...), must be greater than the amount of energy given off as heat. The energy cannot come from heat as the "cell" would be destroyed from the heat. Futhermore cells use enzymes as catalysts to speed up reactions so the cell can live, how can these reactions occur when there are no enzymes.

The formation of the Cell was what originally made me turn away from my own evolutionary beliefs. I began to think, how can a cell live to form each part over successive generations, when the tools it needs to live in the first place haven’t been developed?? Ie- How can a developing cell form without transport proteins, or a cytoskeleton, or the ER or the golgi complex or the Nucleus or its DNA or its Ribosomes, or its membrane, or the mitochondria, or each specific enzyme that makes the chemical processes possible within the cell... No ALL of these things are required for a cell to LIVE and therefore REPRODUCE... To say otherwise is Illogical... if you do say otherwise conduct a SCIENTIFIC test... Get many cells and remove their mitochondria and see what happens. Next get more cells and remove each of their nucleuses, and see what happens. Next get more cells and remove their insides from their membrane into the outside world, and see what happens.... What do you think will happen? :huh:

Another thing that disproves evolution is the formation of Proteins. However rather than just say what I know and have said on FLO I have quoted http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/ as it is much more informative, and more Scientific, (to satisfy your need for Scientific evidence).

" but evolution fails even to account for the building-blocks of a cell. The formation, under natural conditions, of just one single protein out of the thousands of complex protein molecules making up the cell is impossible.
Proteins are giant molecules consisting of smaller units called amino acids that are arranged in a particular sequence in certain quantities and structures. These units constitute the building blocks of a living protein. The simplest protein is composed of 50 amino acids, but there are some that contain thousands.
The crucial point is this. The absence, addition, or replacement of a single amino acid in the structure of a protein causes the protein to become a useless molecular heap. Every amino acid has to be in the right place and in the right order. The theory of evolution, which claims that life emerged as a result of chance, is quite helpless in the face of this order, since it is too wondrous to be explained by coincidence. (Furthermore, the theory cannot even substantiate the claim of the accidental formation of amino acids, as will be discussed later.)
The fact that it is quite impossible for the functional structure of proteins to come about by chance can easily be observed even by simple probability calculations that anybody can understand. "

For instance, an average-sized protein molecule composed of 288 amino acids, and contains twelve different types of amino acids can be arranged in 10300 different ways. (This is an astronomically huge number, consisting of 1 followed by 300 zeros.) Of all of these possible sequences, only one forms the desired protein molecule. The rest of them are amino-acid chains that are either totally useless, or else potentially harmful to living things.
In other words, the probability of the formation of only one protein molecule is "1 in 10300. "The probability of this "1" actually occurring is practically nil. (In practice, probabilities smaller than 1 over 1050 are thought of as "zero probability").
The complex 3-D structure of the protein cytochrome-C. The slightest difference in the order of the amino acids, represented by little balls, will render the protein nonfunctional.

Furthermore, a protein molecule of 288 amino acids is a rather modest one compared with some giant protein molecules consisting of thousands of amino acids. When we apply similar probability calculations to these giant protein molecules, we see that even the word "impossible" is insufficient to describe the true situation.
When we proceed one step further in the evolutionary scheme of life, we observe that one single protein means nothing by itself. One of the smallest bacteria ever discovered, Mycoplasma hominis H39, contains 600 types of proteins. In this case, we would have to repeat the probability calculations we have made above for one protein for each of these 600 different types of proteins. The result beggars even the concept of impossibility.

Some people reading these lines who have so far accepted the theory of evolution as a scientific explanation may suspect that these numbers are exaggerated and do not reflect the true facts. That is not the case: these are definite and concrete facts. No evolutionist can object to these numbers.

This situation is in fact acknowledged by many evolutionists. For example, Harold F. Blum, a prominent evolutionist scientist, states that "The spontaneous formation of a polypeptide of the size of the smallest known proteins seems beyond all probability."241

Evolutionists claim that molecular evolution took place over a very long period of time and that this made the impossible possible. Nevertheless, no matter how long the given period may be, it is not possible for amino acids to form proteins by chance. William Stokes, an American geologist, admits this fact in his book Essentials of Earth History, writing that the probability is so small "that it would not occur during billions of years on billions of planets, each covered by a blanket of concentrated watery solution of the necessary amino acids."242
So what does all this mean? Perry Reeves, a professor of chemistry, answers the question:
When one examines the vast number of possible structures that could result from a simple random combination of amino acids in an evaporating primordial pond, it is mind-boggling to believe that life could have originated in this way. It is more plausible that a Great Builder with a master plan would be required for such a task.243
If the coincidental formation of even one of these proteins is impossible, it is billions of times "more impossible" for some one million of those proteins to come together by chance and make up a complete human cell. What is more, by no means does a cell consist of a mere heap of proteins. In addition to the proteins, a cell also includes nucleic acids, carbohydrates, lipids, vitamins, and many other chemicals such as electrolytes arranged in a specific proportion, equilibrium, and design in terms of both structure and function. Each of these elements functions as a building block or co-molecule in various organelles.
Robert Shapiro, a professor of chemistry at New York University and a DNA expert, calculated the probability of the coincidental formation of the 2000 types of proteins found in a single bacterium (There are 200,000 different types of proteins in a human cell.) The number that was found was 1 over 1040000.244 (This is an incredible number obtained by putting 40,000 zeros after the 1)
A professor of applied mathematics and astronomy from University College Cardiff, Wales, Chandra Wickramasinghe, comments:
The likelihood of the spontaneous formation of life from inanimate matter is one to a number with 40,000 noughts after it... It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution. There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.245
Sir Fred Hoyle comments on these implausible numbers:
Indeed, such a theory (that life was assembled by an intelligence) is so obvious that one wonders why it is not widely accepted as being self-evident. The reasons are psychological rather than scientific.246
An article published in the January 1999 issue of Science News revealed that no explanation had yet been found for how amino acids could turn into proteins:
….no one has ever satisfactorily explained how the widely distributed ingredients linked up into proteins. Presumed conditions of primordial Earth would have driven the amino acids toward lonely isolation.247
241 H. Blum, Time's Arrow and Evolution, 158 (3d ed. 1968), cited in W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 304. (emphasis added)
242 W. Stokes, Essentials of Earth History, 186 (4th ed. 1942), cited in W. R. Bird, The Origin of Species Revisited, Thomas Nelson Co., Nashville, 1991, p. 305.
243 J. D. Thomas, Evolution and Faith, ACU Press, Abilene, TX, 1988, pp. 81-82. (emphasis added)
244 Robert Shapiro, Origins: A Skeptic's Guide to the Creation of Life on Earth, Summit Books, New York, 1986, p. 127.
245 Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1984, p. 148. (emphasis added)
246 Fred Hoyle, Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space, Simon & Schuster, New York, 1984, p. 130. (emphasis added)
247 Simpson, Sarah, "Life's First Scalding Steps," Science News, Jan. 9, 1999, 155(2):25.

A big part of Evolution is mutations... Funnily enough we have just covered mutations in DNA in Biology. I had a chat with a few of the lecturers and here is what they told me. A mutation that involves single base removal / addition is generally fatal, as ALL of the subsequent bases are unable to pair up as they will be out of sequence... Or even if the bases did (somehow...) pair up, the functionality of that gene will be totally screwed. Similarly if a base pair is removed or added, (again), the functionality of that gene is probably screwed, (I say probably as in making consideration for the “wobble” effect of the T-RNA when being sorted via the Ribosome). Hence it is logical to say that from modern scientific results... Mutations are Detrimental!! Thus cannot facilitate new “improvements” within an organism... We have yet to see a Positive / good mutation... Cancer is a mutation and yet we do not see scientists saying, "look they are evolving".... (no offence here people).


Congratulations on reading all this. I do hope that you can see why I choose to not believe in Evolution, and that I do so, on the basis of solid scientific evidence that disproves Darwinian thought. Not on, (what you believe to be), some quasi-day dream of Mysticism


I appologise if this is too long :) Any questions?

#7 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 23 April 2010 - 06:23 AM

Good post and I have had the same questions, but I have always been a creationist, am now and Lord willing always will be. However before the internets and the Google I heard as a kid that man came from monkeys. I always wondered about that and when the internets and the Google came along I find out that it is a very shaky presupposition model, not a solid theory that can be tested like gravity.

I think what is going on here is people are trained to believe that science has all the answers and if it isn’t science it isn’t true. And evolution via common descent is in the science book, on science television and on every mainstream media in existence, except for “those people that believe in fairy tales” and if you don’t want to be called ignorant or a liar you better accept evolution.

It has been my experience that evolutionists for the most part just parrot what they hear or are told. I don’t know how many times I have to explain things to them. They know very little about creation, but creationists know about both subjects, evolution and creation. While debating with evolutionists I get stuff like this, “what is Darwinism, there is no difference between micro and macro evolution, what is a kind, I have never read anything by Dawkins”, etc… They haven’t done their research but they label creationist ignorant because "they believe myths". It is really stunning to behold.

#8 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5293 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 April 2010 - 06:43 AM

Yeah I know. I have had a debate with people from my Uni, (it was online inthe discussion board for the class).... It was me VS the class

I never got a shred of EVIDENCE from them. Basically I got suppositions and inference. Or sometimes things that seemed they added up, but with proper research I could disprove them... But no proof...

Yet I provided ALOT of SCIENTIFIC proof to back up my claims. However in the end they'd have a go, saying I'm not a proper scientist and that I should study Theology... Quite funny, thats the last mechanism of defense when someone has no proof to their words. :blink:

#9 Mankind

Mankind

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 212 posts
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Southeast

Posted 23 April 2010 - 06:55 AM

Thanks :huh:

Here is an exerpt of a document I sent to one of my lecturers who said I have a problem if I don't believe in Evolution. I have also added some of my responses at a discussion on the Uni's online notice board.. This led the lecturer to spend half of our tutorial debunking all religion.... (I have added extra info to this too :blink: )

Let us begin.

My main contention with Evolution is that it cannot be tested...


Believe it or not I read the whole thing, but I didn't want to copy it in a reply. Great stuff and I think, for your age, you are on the right track. (Not that anything is wrong with being young, but from what I have seen a lot of young people merely accept everything they hear in science classes as fact.)

This post reminds me of Michale Behe's "Darwin's Black Box" and hopefully I say this correctly. Darwin's black box was the cell. Back then nobody knew what was inside the cell, just that it was a "black box" and it was kind of easy to see how it could come about naturally. But now that we can look inside a cell we see what looks like machines, called nanomachines doing work, and the probability of this happening by itself is enough to falsify Darwinism.

#10 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5293 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 April 2010 - 07:03 AM

Thanks!!

I think about the nanostructure of cells too.. It makes the process of how life came from chemicals, impossibly hard to prove.. Hence why I ask why do Evolutionists persist :blink:

#11 skeptic

skeptic

    Junior Member

  • Advanced member
  • PipPip
  • 84 posts
  • Age: 35
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • Heidelberg, Germany

Posted 23 April 2010 - 07:21 AM

Puh, why always these long posts. I´m not in the mood to read it all now.

From a short skim over it, your points are rather weak and actually very old.

My main contention with Evolution is that it cannot be tested. I was taught that Science was about FACTS and things that can be proved through scientific testing. Therefore if something cannot be tested it cannot be scientific.


You are right to be scientific it has to be testable, but what in evolution is not testable? and what do you mean by "testing" it?

What I was meaning with evolution and Thermodynamics is this. If we are in an open system, and we are constantly losing energy as heat and gaining energy from the Sun, (via photosynthesis). Where did the energy come from at the starting point in life? Ie- BEFORE there were chloroplasts to conduct the photosynthesis... Also considering that the energy that is created, (somehow...), must be greater than the amount of energy given off as heat. The energy cannot come from heat as the "cell" would be destroyed from the heat. Futhermore cells use enzymes as catalysts to speed up reactions so the cell can live, how can these reactions occur when there are no enzymes.


The energy coming from the sun drives reactions and this is done with or without chloroplasts. All you need is energy flow and a lot of complex interacting reactions.
The energy doesn´t need to come from heat it could come from chemical reactions (maybe induced by heat) or energetic radiation from the sun or other sources.
catalysts and enzymes (proteins acting as catalysts) are not necessarily needed to drive a reaction. They are just there to accelerate a SPECIFIC reaction. Furthermore minerals, RNA and other chemicals can also function as catalysts.
You are aware that there are cells able to live up to 110°C (even that as their preferred temperature)?

The formation of the Cell was what originally made me turn away from my own evolutionary beliefs. I began to think, how can a cell live to form each part over successive generations, when the tools it needs to live in the first place haven’t been developed?? Ie- How can a developing cell form without transport proteins, or a cytoskeleton, or the ER or the golgi complex or the Nucleus or its DNA or its Ribosomes, or its membrane, or the mitochondria, or each specific enzyme that makes the chemical processes possible within the cell... No ALL of these things are required for a cell to LIVE and therefore REPRODUCE... To say otherwise is Illogical... if you do say otherwise conduct a SCIENTIFIC test... Get many cells and remove their mitochondria and see what happens. Next get more cells and remove each of their nucleuses, and see what happens. Next get more cells and remove their insides from their membrane into the outside world, and see what happens.... What do you think will happen?

(emphasized by me.)

If you take a functioning cell and strip off essential parts the cell will die, sure, but you are aware that there are cells without a nucleus, without mitochondria, without any organelles?

more maybe later but I hate to refute posts with more than 2 or 3 points. It takes more effort to refute than to make these (rather crude) points.
Could we stick to one at a time?
Whats your area of expertise, since you said you are a scientist, just to know how much I can go into details or have to explain stuff.

have fun.

#12 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5293 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 April 2010 - 08:23 AM

Never said I was a scientist lol.. I am doing Biotechnology... First year :blink:

Doesn't matter if the points are "old", if it refutes the theory then it refutes the theory. Or then again I could say the theory itself is "old", (and therefore outdated :huh: )

Yes I do know that there are cells that live today without organelles... Prokaryotic cells, (virus cells have even less hardware :) )... Prokaryotic cells still aren't just blobs of organic matter, there is an order to it. There is the cell wall, the nucleoid, the cytosol, ribosomes, and some have a flagellum (which I will talk about later in this thread). Still these things are all needed for that cell to survive and reproduce.. In fact a virus cell proves this as it NEEDS to have a host cell to replicate since it DOESN'T have all the tools to do this.

I have quoted http://www.darwinismrefuted.com/thermodynamics_01.html as this guy sums it up much better than I can.

"The same thing applies in the case of life as well. It is true that life derives its energy from the sun. However, solar energy can only be converted into chemical energy by the incredibly complex energy conversion systems in living things (such as photosynthesis in plants and the digestive systems of humans and animals). No living thing can live without such energy conversion systems. Without an energy conversion system, the sun is nothing but a source of destructive energy that burns, parches, or melts.

As can be seen, a thermodynamic system without an energy conversion mechanism of some sort is not advantageous for evolution, be it open or closed. No one asserts that such complex and conscious mechanisms could have existed in nature under the conditions of the primeval earth. Indeed, the real problem confronting evolutionists is the question of how complex energy-converting mechanisms such as photosynthesis in plants, which cannot be duplicated even with modern technology, could have come into being on their own.

The influx of solar energy into the world would be unable to bring about order on its own. Moreover, no matter how high the temperature may become, amino acids resist forming bonds in ordered sequences. Energy by itself is incapable of making amino acids form the much more complex molecules of proteins, or of making proteins form the much more complex and organized structures of cell organelles. "

Yes heat can cause reactions, however the worlds food industry relies on the FACT that heat CANNOT create life... Furthermore if you say that life can be created from reactions with just with heat from solar energy, SCIENCE would ask you to prove this via an experiment. Many people have tried to do so and have failed.

Miller's experiment in the 1950's. He was actually able to create amino acids (the building blocks of life), however to do so he used an atmosphere devoid of oxygen... Why? The Oxygen would oxidise the amino acids thus rendering them useless.... However within his atmosphere was ammonia..... Yet ammonia is broken down by UV light.... What stops UV light? Ozone... Which is created from... Oxygen... :)

Another thing I have been thinking about recently is Osmosis... How could the first phospholipid bilayer survive in the "primordial soup", wouldn't the "cell" pop due to the high amount of H2O in the "soup".... Just a thought really? ;)

#13 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 23 April 2010 - 09:09 AM

Nice OP and subsequent posts, welcome to the forum gilbo, or Christopher? :blink: - I suppose Eocene knows you from another forum!

#14 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5293 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 April 2010 - 10:10 AM

Thanks!!

Nah completely new to all creationism / evolution forums... (the debate with my class on the discusion board has inspired me :blink: )

#15 bobabelever

bobabelever

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 392 posts
  • Age: 43
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Arizona

Posted 23 April 2010 - 11:53 AM

Thanks!!

Nah completely new to all creationism / evolution forums... (the debate with my class on the discusion board has inspired me :blink: )

View Post

OK, but is your name Christopher?

#16 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 23 April 2010 - 08:03 PM

You are right to be scientific it has to be testable, but what in evolution is not testable? and what do you mean by "testing" it?


You could start with everything you called weak and old. I suspect your calling it that to convince the readership that it has been tested - but is only assumed true to preserve the theory or ignored to conceal the improbility.




Thanks.

#17 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5293 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 23 April 2010 - 08:14 PM

Sorry, just call me Chris :blink:

Thanks

#18 AFJ

AFJ

    AFJ

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1625 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Baton Rouge, LA
  • Interests:Bible, molecular biology, chemistry, mineralogy, geology, eschatology, history, family
  • Age: 51
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Baton Rouge, LA

Posted 24 April 2010 - 11:32 AM

New Age Agnostic? Is there anything wrong with that??

They didn't have new age for the worldview.... Hence I went with Agnostic, (isn't that the one where you are searching for spiritual truth etc??? I am not too familiar with the names I guess)

To simplify, I had a Christian upbringing. However, (I am evil), I turned from the Christian Religion due to complications from my Church. I do still believe in a God or spiritual creator force, etc... :rolleyes:

View Post

Welcome Gilbo,

We are all evil compared to God. We have all sinned and we all struggle as believers against sin.

My faith has been severely tried also because of "Christians." Only God knows the heart of a man, so I won't judge. All can be forgiven. But if we put our eyes on man, we will lose faith. It must be on God and God alone.

Remember that Satan works in situations and people to bring you down. Ephesians 6 says "we wrestle not against flesh and blood, but against principalities and powers and spiritual wickedness in the heavenlies..."

I completely understand disillusionment, and have backslid because of it. But God will bring you back. Just tell Him and Him alone about it, and you will see He is the Way the Truth and the Life!

#19 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5293 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 April 2010 - 04:53 PM

Thanks AFJ

Right now I am comfortable doing my own thing for God... Basically be a nice person, and try to do my best.

Who knows, I may one day return to the fold... However it will be in my own time.

#20 gilbo12345

gilbo12345

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 5293 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Completed BBiotech (Honours)

    Currently studying Masters of Teaching.

    Enjoys games of tactics and strategy.
  • Age: 25
  • (private)
  • Creationist
  • Australia

Posted 24 April 2010 - 09:39 PM

I have been reading around on this site and it seems that my meager understanding of everything is not comprehensive enough to be useful here..lol..

So I guess I'll just be a "lurker", reading and learning..




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users