Evolutionist's intolerance and discrimination against creationists

One reocurring phenomena here at EvC town, seems to be the whining about creationists from evolutionists at the forum. It seems that everyone who is creationist is looked upon as a fraud or a liar, or a crank and an ignoramus etc..Everybody here says that they were upset when they found out about evolution after being taught creation. But now I also think I have been lied to. I recently joined a group of Christians who are very genuine and peaceful people, who are not cranks or liars, and accept the creation, as told of in the bible, and completely don't think that evolution happened.If this new acceptance of the bible grows, then you're left with a big number of genuine creationists, in the sense that we believe in the creation, because of our choice to believe in what God says in the bible, rather than what man says about evidence. Essentially, we don't think finding answers without God, will bring us to the truth via this scientific method.Even creationists who are not ignorant of the evidence, yet don't believe in the theory, are seeing that there is a way of ideoligies pertaining to the choice one takes as to believe nature does it, or God does it.The illusion is birth, in which nature acts alone, seemingly, yet without God that's not possible, nor is anything. We believe that God created and programmed the creation, and you have to live with the fact that we will never accept the elemental conclusions of the naturalist. We agree with the facts, not the conclusions you make. Good day sir.

I don't see anything here other than a rant. Right now it includes too many mistatements such as You need to try this again. Take out the things that you cannot support such as the above statement and try to build a coherent initial post that provides a basis for discussion.

---

Jar, you weren't at the forum when we talked about what made us believe/disbelieve. People very much thought they'd been lied to when they were brought up creationist. It's a valid generalisation.Also, I fail to see how this is a rant, it's covers the topic of intolerant evolutionists, preaching the stamping out of creationists.If the issue doesn't exist, then I'm sure you're happy for creationism to be taught in schools. Instead of stamping out creationist's and offending them, people should accept them more.

I'm inclined to agree with message 1 being worthy of being a topic, even though I do disagree with much of its content.What forum would you proposed this be in?Adminnemooseus
(Damn, I told everyone I wasn't going to be reviewing PNT's)

It would have to be miscellaneous topics in evo/creo.

I'm going to back off and (more or less) agree with AdminJar (above).Please submit a revised version of message 1, as a new message. If approved, that message will become message 1 of the new topic. I can tell you right now, that sort of statement will be the focus of the topic. The book vs. the physical world.Good luck,
Adminnemooseus

Yet the book isn't against the physical world, just the conclusions of those who conclude things about the physical world, without God, the maker of it. (as defined)Therefore it seems I am irrefutably unrefuted.ADDENDUMSince my topics were put through when I was another member, obeying the whims of the moral evo, yet now I am rejected as pond scum of the forum. Thus I must claim persecution. I am a persecuted Christian if this topic is unlawfully rejected. Like Dynamo Buz before me, and his therodynamic inclinations.

Correct me if I am wrong - You are taking the position that the Bible is a better record of the nature of the Earths creation, than is the Earth itself?If so, you might wish to make such the central theme of the PNT, in a new message.Adminnemooseus

You see, it always boils down to these two positions apparently. That 1. you believe the bible's record, or 2. You believe the earth's record.Infact the earth isn't a clear record of itself. What does a skull evidence save a skull? It's a vague mass of all kinds of different evidences. But the bible is a clear record.My argument is that if you look to nature for answers, then you'll find natural answers, and theories, that appear to fit the evidence. But essentially, the naturalists of Darwin's day were looking for a naturalist answer. The hidden conclusion is that they must find an elemental philosophy which fits. That's why it says in Bryson's book that the naturalists had to wait for uniformitarianism to confirm their theory. They got that with Lyell and Hutton, yet over there another man says catastrophy is ture, and the flood.Deep down, every freethinker knows that the naturalists were atheists looking for an atheist answer. And that is what they seek and therefore get. If you cut God out you get a Godless answer. I will make my new message later today, and all readers will await in eager anticipation and belated expectation of grandiose and belidgerent refutation.

I know this PNT is getting its content debated far more the the PNT review process calls for, but I'm not inclined to release this to an open debate forum where I'm confident it will turn into a babble fest. Dare I push for a "Great Debate"? You (Mike the Wiz) believe the Bible's record.I (Moose) believe the Earth's record.I am far more confident that the Earth (and looking broader, the universe) is of God's creation, than I am that the Bible is.Perhaps an evo side member would like to "Great Debate" Mike on this. If so, volunteer at the "Considerations..." topic, link below.Minnemooseus / Adminnemooseus

---

Yes, I will GB this if any takers. Yes, the earth is of God's creation, and that can be more certain than the bible in a way, but I still think the earth cannot tell us much because of it's nature. I think because the earth is God's, that nature doesn't answer the question of information and intelligence adequately.Fact is that the natural answer removes God, or renders him as an addage, an unnecessary entity according to parsimony. That's not an answer, it's a motive, a motive to remove God from the picture. Since God is the only best answer for the universe rather than big bang absurdum plus infinite big bangs, thus the fallacious argument of chance, then we have to ask why we should trust the bible, and we will, in the GB.

My own suggestion is that arguments that the Bible trumps evidence do not belong in any but one of the science forums, [forum=-11]. [forum=-6] might also be appropriate.The whole Creation/Evolution discussion boils down to Creationism's claim to be legitimate science just like any other science. Any Creationism advocate who abandons this claim has already lost the debate, and their only recourse is to argue that the standards of science should be different than they are, and [forum=-11] is the appropriate venue for such discussions.This subject has been broached here many times, but I feel appropriately so, especially since it has been approached from many different angles.AbE: A GD is fine, too.This message has been edited by Admin, 06-13-2005 03:24 PM

---

--	Percy
	EvC Forum Director