Jump to content


Photo

Creation On The Rise!


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
16 replies to this topic

#1 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 22 March 2005 - 06:50 PM

http://www.answersin...05/0322imax.asp

The above link is an article that tells of how some movie theatres are no longer showing movies that are of an evolutionary theme.
This is a great thing folks, there have been some other things taking place in America along the same lines.

Just as I predict, and am still holding my position on this prediction, its only a matter of time, before the completely refuted evolution hypothesis is exposed to everyone as the fraud that it is.

What helps the creation case, is that most of America believes in God, this automatically puts the correct presupposition in the minds of people who believe in God. Most folks in America arent even aware of what evolution is, or even heard of it. What they have heard is the indoctrinations of it, sub-human primitive man, millions of years, etc.

Evolutionary scientists who try to explain origin of life without God should read the verse in Romans 1:22
Claiming to be wise, they became fools

This is not an insult to anyone, it is however a warning from the Gods word.
God wants us to live in abundance of happiness and to better ourselves as far as knowledge and quality of life, but he also wants us to stay focused on him and his law, just because man has invented the calculator and VCR does not give him a liscense to try to explain lifes origin without God, passing off imagined speculation as facts.

in him, Louie Buren <><

#2 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 22 March 2005 - 10:00 PM

The dollar is also an indication of what the people want. Money is, and always will be, a driving factor in films. The money that Mel Gibson made is proof of what the people want. Like the famous saying atheist like to say about religion being stuffed down their throats, we also don't like evolution stuffed down our throats either.

#3 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 23 March 2005 - 10:08 AM

The dollar is also an indication of what the people want. Money is, and always will be, a driving factor in films. The money that Mel Gibson made is proof of what the people want. Like the famous saying atheist like to say about religion being stuffed down their throats, we also don't like evolution stuffed down our throats either.

View Post


Well, atheists stay out of church. Why can't creationists stay out of science?

#4 chance

chance

    Veteran Member

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2029 posts
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Australia

Posted 23 March 2005 - 01:59 PM

The dollar is also an indication of what the people want. Money is, and always will be, a driving factor in films. The money that Mel Gibson made is proof of what the people want.

View Post


Well call me old fashioned but I’ll take a Cecil D Mills (spelling) ‘The Ten Commandments’ every day of the week. sigh – they don’t make em like they used to :lol:

Like the famous saying atheist like to say about religion being stuffed down their throats, we also don't like evolution stuffed down our throats either.


Do you really see it that way? America and other western democracies usually pride themselves on being fair to all it’s citizens (may take awhile), but people are at least politically on a level playing field, and separation of church and state is generally thought of as being a good thing no matter what side of the theological fence, yes?

#5 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 March 2005 - 08:41 AM

Well, atheists stay out of church.  Why can't creationists stay out of science?

View Post


Good point!
Am I at your forum, or are you at mine? I don't go to science forums looking for a arguement. But I am entitled to my opinion. Just as every other christian here. But yet I always hear of how bias we are when someone gets banned because they break a rule. And the responses are so predictable.

#6 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 24 March 2005 - 12:56 PM

Good point!
Am I at your forum, or are you at mine? I don't go to science forums looking for a arguement. But I am entitled to my opinion. Just as every other christian here. But yet I always hear of how bias we are when someone gets banned because they break a rule. And the responses are so predictable.

View Post


This is a science forum. It discusses the viability of a scientific theory, which makes the discussion a scientific one. My only venture to the Bible Q&A was to ask a question which was sufficiently answered. My argument is that theology has no place in science, and that is the argument I defend here. If theology was not being thrust onto science I would not be here.

#7 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 24 March 2005 - 11:06 PM

This is a science forum.  It discusses the viability of a scientific theory, which makes the discussion a scientific one.  My only venture to the Bible Q&A was to ask a question which was sufficiently answered.  My argument is that theology has no place in science, and that is the argument I defend here.  If theology was not being thrust onto science I would not be here.

View Post

Another good point. But is creation science the same as non-creation science? Even though science did start out with a creator in mind, science today totally denies one. Though a creator might get mentioned from time to time, just to make it not look so anti-God. The thought processes of scientists today, that want any reconition, cannot include God, or a creator, in any of their work.

And as far as theology goes, explain how you could have a debate on creation without it?

#8 Method

Method

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 174 posts
  • Age: 29
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • State of Bliss

Posted 25 March 2005 - 02:27 PM

[quote name='Admin3' date='Mar 24 2005, 11:06 PM']
Another good point. But is creation science the same as non-creation science?[\quote]

Creation scientists claim they are the same, and therefore creation science should be included in science classes. If they are different, then why are creationists pushing for creation ideas to be inserted into science classes? The entire claim made by creationists is that they have a different, yet scientific, interpretation of the data. If not, then you would have to concede that evolution is the best explanation within science for the diversity of species we see today.

[quote]Even though science did start out with a creator in mind, science today totally denies one.[/quote]

Science does not deny God any more than car manufacturing or geometry denies God. God, deities, nor any supernatural explanation is allowed in science because science works best when these are excluded. If you think differently, then cite one theory used in science today that rests solely on the existence of God and requires the input of a supernatural force to make the theory work. Science has a pretty good track record. Why mess with it?

Secondly, there are many christians who both accept evolution and believe in God. They are called theistic evolutionists, Darwin being one of the first. If people can accept evolution and still believe in God your claim that science REQUIRES the denial of God is shown to be incorrect.

[quote]And as far as theology goes, explain how you could have a debate on creation without it?

View Post

[/quote]

Easy, turn it into a scientific discussion and leave the theology for what science can not explore, such as First Causes and the philosophical implications of our intelligence.

#9 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 March 2005 - 06:11 PM

Well, atheists stay out of church.  Why can't creationists stay out of science?


Someone needs to straighten things out.... :rolleyes:

Terry

#10 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 March 2005 - 06:13 PM

Like the famous saying atheist like to say about religion being stuffed down their throats, we also don't like evolution stuffed down our throats either.


Amen, godless religion is really difficult to swallow.....

Terry

#11 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 25 March 2005 - 08:04 PM

Amen, godless religion is really difficult to swallow.....

Terry

View Post


Religion requires a deity, therefore if it’s godless, it by definition is not a religion.

#12 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 March 2005 - 08:51 PM

Religion requires a deity, therefore if it’s godless, it by definition is not a religion.

View Post


What is the difference between a God that is made from an image, and one that is made through knowledge. If you devote your life to it, it becomes your God. Because devotion is a form of worship.

#13 Guest_Admin3_*

Guest_Admin3_*
  • Guests

Posted 25 March 2005 - 09:02 PM

This is a science forum.  It discusses the viability of a scientific theory, which makes the discussion a scientific one.  My only venture to the Bible Q&A was to ask a question which was sufficiently answered.  My argument is that theology has no place in science, and that is the argument I defend here.  If theology was not being thrust onto science I would not be here.

View Post


Another good point. But this forum is also about creation. And in order for creation to be viable to a believer, it also has to be backed up with the word of God. If I were to say: This is how this happened, and only tried to explain scientifically, I would be debating on two fronts. Why? Because fellow YEC, OEC, and creationist will generally ask: Where did you get that from God's word?... And being an Admin. here, I have to explain it from both ends to keep that from happening. For if I don't, I look like I'm debating everyone.

And from another point. An example: Let's make a rule that nothing from God's word can be discussed because it supports theology. Now, what would we debate on a creation forum such as this?

#14 Wally

Wally

    Junior Member

  • Member
  • PipPip
  • 43 posts
  • Location:Columbia, SC
  • Interests:Skepticism, Evolutionary psychology, Old tube radios, Flying (Private pilot), Woodworking, Camping.
  • Age: 51
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • 3rd rock from Sol, Milky Way

Posted 25 March 2005 - 09:08 PM

What is the difference between a God that is made from an image, and one that is made through knowledge. If you devote your life to it, it becomes your God. Because devotion is a form of worship.

View Post


To try to describe rational, critical thinking a deity is a bit of a stretch. I think I’d rather be called a godless heathen. :rolleyes:

#15 Guest_92g_*

Guest_92g_*
  • Guests

Posted 26 March 2005 - 05:07 AM

Religion requires a deity, therefore if it’s godless, it by definition is not a religion.

View Post


Secular Humanism is a functional religion.

'A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to co-ordinate men's beliefs and hopes as God was in the past. Such ideas underlie the various forms of Rationalism, the Ethical movement and scientific Humanism.'

'Humanism: An outlook that places man and his concerns at the centre of interest. Modern Humanism, which does away with traditional Christianity, is characterised by its faith in the power of human beings to create their own future, collectively and personally


http://www.answersin...2/i4/quotes.asp

Terry

#16 OC1

OC1

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 71 posts
  • Age: 43
  • no affiliation
  • Agnostic
  • New Jersey

Posted 27 March 2005 - 12:19 PM

from 92g

Secular Humanism is a functional religion.


'A religion is essentially an attitude to the world as a whole. Thus evolution, for example, may prove as powerful a principle to co-ordinate men's beliefs and hopes as God was in the past. Such ideas underlie the various forms of Rationalism, the Ethical movement and scientific Humanism.'

'Humanism: An outlook that places man and his concerns at the centre of interest. Modern Humanism, which does away with traditional Christianity, is characterised by its faith in the power of human beings to create their own future, collectively and personally



http://www.answersin...2/i4/quotes.asp


My dictionary defines humanism as: "a PHILOSOPHY that usually rejects supernaturalism and stresses an individuals dignity and worth and capacity for self-realisation through reason".

A "philosophy" can also be described as "an attitude to the world". Are the various philosophies-epicureanism, ecofeminism, phenomenalism, etc, also religions?

And what exactly is a "functional" religion?

In my opinion, AIG is not a good place to get objective information. They seem to, let's say, INTERPRET facts and ideas in a way that supports their agenda.

#17 lionheart209

lionheart209

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 107 posts
  • Age: 32
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Lodi, Ca

Posted 05 April 2005 - 09:08 PM

Well, atheists stay out of church.  Why can't creationists stay out of science?

View Post



Because Creation science makes way more sense than evolutionary science, when it comes down to it, you can't even talk about evolution is an inteligent manner, because the whole idea is rediculous.

Any one who entertains it as a possibility, needs mental help and fast.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users