Why I am creationist

I'm sort of wondering the same thing Ned.

quote:

---

Well if logic leads you to belive that the universe was created - it must have created itself, right? The only other logical position is that it had a creator who had a creator who had a creator....

---

Ahh.

Because of course otherwise your concept would be illogical (if I have understood how you have used the term, because people generally never me it in the same way or in terms of proposition,premise,proposal etc).

Well thank the sweet baby jesus you came. I, for one, was damned to the eternal pit before you came along to tell us that you don't know exactly what we believe is true, but you do know it's wrong.My soul was crying out for redemption. And now you have delivered it. All praise be to God.

Sorry I got lost a while back - why is it we should believe in Zeus?or was it Allah?If you could just narrow it to say 50 possible gods, that would be a start.

It is quite proper to speak of science as a practice - andto say that science as a method frequently relies on inference to the best explanation.And what you seek to write off as a mere opinion is a fact. Creationism has utterly failed to explain these things in the full sense of explanation required by science. Evolution, on the other, hand explains - for instance - why remote islands have their own unique species, why taxonomy forms as neat a hierarchy as it does and why we found so many transitional fossils like icthyostega or ambulocetus. Creationism doesn't predict any of that - God can put species wherever He wills. God can create as He wills and there need be no convenient pattern. And there is certainly no need to find fossils indicating links between seperately created species.

Have you any idea how pathetic that sounds? And lame too: if God is omnipotent, then why can't he yell loud enough to wake us up properly?I do agree with one thing you said, though: you're a loser.

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

But if no man comes to God unless the Spirit draws them, no amount of logic will ever convince a scientist to refute their belief in logic. Theologians should stay away from science. It is like parents going to a rap concert and acting cool. To convince anyone in this forum that there is a Creator, you must attempt to get to know them, get along with them, and trust that the Spirit will draw them towards Him. No amount of logic will ever supercede the established science of our current time.(Unless it is better science, not theological stew.)

We are not 12, nor are we on the playground. Lets play nicely, kids!

Seems like your entire response is "I trust the bible as trustworthy."We knew that.

Thanks for damming us all to hell. Until you said those words I was blissfully ignorant of god, but your words struck deep in my soul and I knew God. I'm too deep in sin to change so I'll just stay in god-denial and enjoy my lusts.

Calling him a loser is playing it nicely. I merely repeated something he said about himself. Besides, this is the 'Free For All' forum where it says:

quote:

---

"Don't like moderators? Then this is the forum for you. Anything goes, no holds barred, flame-on."

---

But, if you really must, I think you should have admonished him first, for calling us "without excuse". He doesn't know the first thing about us, yet he tells us God says we are without excuse. The presumption!

---

We are all atheists about most of the gods that humanity has ever believed in. Some of us just go one god further. - Richard Dawkins

Maestro Tell you what Maestro.You bring god to the playing field in person and I will kick his ass.But I bet you will find he doesn't answer that prayer eh? Omnipotent but unable is pretty lame.How about asking him to walk the walk?

---

A centipede was happy quite, until a toad in fun
Said, "Pray, which leg comes after which?'
This raised his doubts to such a pitch
He fell distracted in the ditch
Not knowing how to run.

And that's kind of the crux, isn't it? If I don't trust what Gould said about the fossils, I can go look at them myself and attempt to fit them into a pattern of my own devising.On the other hand, if I don't trust (say) the author of the Gospel of John, who do I talk to? What recourse do I have?Absolutely none. With very rare geological exceptions, that that is lower must be older than that that is higher, because you can't lay a geologic strata on something that isn't there yet. I would think this would be obvious.How much older, or younger, is indeed the question. But the relative age is unquestionable, except where it's obvious that the layers have been folded by geologic forces. There's actually nothing in the least subjective about molecular phylogenetics. It's as precise, rigorous, and mathematical as calculating the position of a falling stone.

You've never seen a crystal?