This was posted on one of my creation vs. evolution forums in response to another member. It was posted by a creationist to make the point that evolutionists do not think for themselves, but are brainwashed by what they learned in school.
All your notions on evolution are silly and false and you aren’t able to debate the subject because your only real answers are…That’s not what they taught me in school.
The following was my response to that, and a member suggested I post it in case others might be interested. So here it is:
I never studied evolution in school. And I went to a Lutheran college.
But somehow I must still be brainwashed too.
I’ve learned about evolution by reading in later life. To date, I have not seen any good arguments for creation that have not been refuted. But I have seen thousands of posts by “evos” that make sense and are documented.
Still waiting to see posts about peer reviewed creation science. And it’s been several years now I’ve been waiting. And I run several creation forums, so you’d think I would have seen it by now.
In fact, one of my creation forums was originally launched as a platform to PROVE creationism and debunk evolution – that’s why I started it. But to my surprise no one actually had arguments that weren’t solidly debunked.
I believe the reason some people think there is a big conspiracy theory with science, is that it’s the only way they can mentally justify it’s current findings while maintaining their world view that it’s false.
In addition, the many (hundreds) of creationists that I have seen jump on these forums with the initial statement “I will prove evolution false” – they do nothing of the kind, and ALWAYS end up just saying something like “Well, you’re all going to hell.”
I have also noticed that in general the “evo” posts are documented and contain links to where they get their info. The posts are usually based on specifics.
Whereas the creationist posts, while sometimes starting with hard facts that are quickly refuted, end up dissolving into jr. high philosophy arguments.
The other trend I notice is for creationists to fill up forums with posts of “How come (something is this way)” yet you still believe evolution is true. And “evos” will take the time to document and respond, while the creationist is off making more new threads.
I have been amazed at the amount of time “evos” take to research and document replies, without the same consideration in return.
This has been my experience and what I have witnessed over several years.
I also know that science is self-correcting by the peer review process. And if information against evolution were found, proven and peer reviewed – it would be readily accepted by the science community at large.
So why are scientists anti religion? If they are, it’s because of the ridiculous arguments brought forth by creationists.
The info is readily available if people want to read it. The posts in this forum alone are easy to read and discern who is backed by facts – and who is wishing something were true.
For many years I also believed that science was a conspiracy – that they did not have “the truth”. You know how I got to believe that? By going to a particular church for 16 years that had me read book after book that “proved” this to be true. I found out one day the hard way that I knew absolutely nothing about actual real world science – I only knew about science “straw men” from the books in my church library.
I was in an insulated bubble, and very thankful to be out of it now.
In my opinion.
Recommended reading for information on evolution: http://www.talkorigins.org
Well said Sir!
Regards,
Psi
Thank you for linking to my article.
Tough subject – even the ‘experts’ disagree…but as this
article so aptly points out, equal and open discussion is
a critical key to avoiding pitfalls.
(Louisiana confounds the Science thought police –
Neo-Darwinism no longer a protected orthodoxy in
the Bayou State’s pedagogy)
http://www.discovery.org/a/6191
Stating an opinion is becoming less a personal right/freedom
and more a privilege. I’ve grown to better appreciate the
diversity of your boards, because they provide choice.
Many won’t recognize how priceless this really is – until
their own is removed.
You cannot intelligently address the question of Creation or Evolution, until you have first discovered experimentally that God exists.
You cannot intelligently dismiss God’s existence without evidence.
You cannot scientifically prove or disprove God’s existence by sitting around arguing, only by practical experiment to obtain evidence.
Which is actually quite easy. Here’s how:
1) Forget the religious hypocrisy of churches.
2) Read the Gospels from the Bible, asking God to convince you is it true or false, and to give you a true understanding.
(The four gospels together are only as much reading as one paperback novel.)
3) Put the teaching of Jesus into practice & you will discover it’s true, that God exists and answers prayer.
4) If you want to know, ask the Lord to convince you if Creation or Evolution is true.
He is the only person who knows, and can provide convincing evidence.
What else do you need ?
What are you waiting for ?
Frank: “If you want to know, ask the Lord to convince you if Creation
or evolution is true. He is the only person who knows, and can provide
convincing evidence.”
Glad to report there is someone of a ‘scientific bent’ that has beautifully captured and
catalogued such evidence in a new book, in living color!
http://www.howdoesinstinctevolve.com/
Hi Laura,
I think you’re missing my point. I became a Christian by checking out the tangibly verifiable facts of the Gospel of Christ.
Before my conversion, I loved arguing the socks off anyone who tried to persuade me of God’s existence.
Jesus did not teach creationism or intelligent design !
Jesus did not argue people into God’s kingdom !
Jesus taught and demonstrated God’s love and power !
Jesus is still calling his disciples today to do the same thing !
Jesus teaches how to live in good relationships, with the Lord, with other people, and with yourself. Put into practice, the gospel proves to be true with incredible power, even to the extent of receiving very definite, even miraculous, answers to prayer.
This is how and why I became a firm believer !
God does not want us to believe the Gospel because of clever arguments, but because He confirms it and proves it to be powerfully true !
(Read 1 Corinthians 1:18 to 2:5, asking Him to write this truth in your heart and mind !)
No one has ever become a true believer through persuasive “scientific arguments”, only by receiving the Gospel of Christ and proving it true !
This may conflict with all the theology you’ve ever been taught, but it’s God’s Eternal Word, to which he still bears witness to by His Spirit and by His Power ! Listen to Him !
A large “Amen” to your observations, Frank! I’ve come to some similar
conclusions myself, but posted the link for those (non-believers) who tend
to demand ‘scientific proof’. The author of this work manages to beautifully
address those demands in a manner that can be clearly understood by both
the ‘scientific’ and Spiritual community. This is difficult to do, and a rare
gift!
Thanks Laura,
Rightly or wrongly, I have come to regard Creationism and Intelligent Design to be irrelevant and useless and a waste of time in communicating the Gospel to unbelievers. The evolutionist’s arguments tend to come across as far better from a “purely scientific” point of view !
My “scientific argument” for intellectually convincing the unbeliever, and (more importantly) enabling him to acquire true faith in the process, as opposed to mere intellectual belief, is thus:
Basically, when you study science, you:
1) Read the science textbook,
2) Listen to the science teacher,
3) Do the science experiments.
Then you know science from the perspective of personal experience !
In exactly the same way, to prove the Gospel:
1) Read the Gospels in prayer,
2) Asking the Lord to give you a true understanding,
3) Put Jesus’ teaching into practice.
Then you know the Gospel is true from personal experience !
I believe my argument is far superior to Creationist ideas, because it offers real tangible evidence of God to a genuine enquirer. And it inevitably leads to true conversion, not mere intellectual belief.
I don’t believe anyone has ever become a true Christian through accepting Creationist arguments.
But I would fascinated to hear evidence to the contrary !
“1) Read the Gospels in prayer,
2) Asking the Lord to give you a true understanding,
3) Put Jesus’ teaching into practice.
Then you know the Gospel is true from personal experience”
B-e-a-u-t-i-f-u-l comparison, Frank!
I think we also do well to remember that none of us has the ability to ‘save’ anyone, including ourselves – that’s the ministry of the Holy Spirit. But praise Jesus’ Name, the talents He does bestow upon us to touch and edify one another are as varied and plentiful as our numbers.
The forementioned author, in my opinion, has a rare gift that unwinds and unveils the startling physical proof before the very eyes of believers and non-believers alike. I’d encourage everyone to read this work – it removes blinders and ear-wax – glory to the Lord!
Thank you, Conrad for allowing us to hi-jack your board temporarily with this discussion. You’ve provided other boards for this very purpose, so we’ll mosey on back to our stations.
Coming brother Frank?
Hi Laura, thanks for the message, I only found this site recently, which forum should we be in ? Lead on !
Frank.
Gladly, Frank! Here’s one that provides a little of
everything:
http://forum.bible-discussion.com
Hi Frank,
One area where the “personal experience test” falls short is the lack of congruity in the experiences. When your personal experience concurs with the personal experience of others then we have a pretty good indication of reality.
When we run the God test, the range of results is facinating, everything from none to Islam to Judeism, to Budhism, to a myriad of strains of Christianity. These personal experiences do not concur so we can not safely assume that our results are remotely accurate.
There are some clear cut tests, especially because you mentioned specifically the Gospels for instance at the end of Mark: “And these signs will follow them that believe…. drink poisen and not die, bitten by snakes and not be harmed.” Unfortunately I have a collection of articles about believers dying from snakes bites. Now I am in no way suggesting that believers actually go out and test these, but what I am suggesting is that they leave room for the possiblility that there may be considerable room for error.
For example: Take a look at the Jerusalem Counsil on food sacrificed to idols, then look at John’s stance on the same topic, and finally look at Paul’s stance on the same issue. What you will find is that they are not in agreement and while the topic of food and idols may seem innocent enough, the ramifications of this are enormous.
“When your personal experience concurs with the personal experience of others then we have a pretty good indication of reality.”
That sentence jumped out at me. I think it would be more true to say this:
“When your personal perception concurs with the personal perception of others then we have a pretty good indication of that group’s perception.”
I got a chuckle from the phrase: “more true.” Although it is entirely valid, it reminds me of Colbert’s coined word “Truthiness” because it acknowledges the fair assumption that error is comfortably nestled within the notion.
If we are speaking in terms of “perceived reality” then I must agree that the concurrence of personal perception is a good indication of the group’s perception.
This is a perfect example of my desperate need for a good editor. I was speaking in terms of actual, objective reality, such as 2+2 and gravity. These are if not universal at least earthly realities of which earthly personal experiences concur.
Maybe it would be better to say: “When your personal experience concurs with the universal experience then we have a pretty good indication of reality.” Does that set better?
Side bar: The insertion of “pretty good indication” was provided to accommodate new discoveries that reduce the gap between generally accepted perception and objective reality. The genuine appraisal that the emperor had no clothes was not the generally accepted perception but was none the less accurate.
In any case, as to Frank’s proposition regarding personal experience for the existence of God: There must be more. People personally experience dreams. How do we decipher the fantasies of the subconscious mind from objective reality? How do we wake up?