Replies

This is a great example of how evolutionists handle the debate these days - total carelessness. There is no longer any such thing as honest inquiry by the evolutionary community. It is predicated on presumed knowledge, logical fallacies and general dismissal of any words made by someone who disagrees with the evolutionary cosmogony.

Powerful criticism if true, lets see if you can back it up with any evidence

Let's examine your exchange with kipita, You have been informed that one time kipita believed the lie. After honestly looking into the claims of the evolutionists, kipita came away recognizing the folly in it. There are many people who have done the same thinking that there had to be intelligent design, but have not been willing to take the next step and say "God". They are still searching for an answer, but not from the evolutionists. But you break it down into "Believers in the Creator" vs "Believers in Chance" totally leaving out this growing community that rejects Chance but doesn't have a suitable replacement. Thus you irresponsibly conclude that if anyone leaves "Christianity" (as opposed to any other religion that accepts something other than evolution) then kipita's argument is invalid. You are convinced of this logical fallacy and you expect others to be convinced also.

You didn't point out any fallacy, and you didn't justify the word irresponsibly, and you didn't demonstrate that PP would not say the same thing about someone converting from any other religion.

The religion of Evolutionary Cosmogony is the new kid on the block, barely having its eyes opened in a world of adults and senior citizens, do you really think that evolutionists are the only ones who ever considered origins? What do you think people thought about before Darwin?

Maybe you should read some texts about the history of science. You don't appear to know much about it, which is curious for someone who talks so much about it.

But no, it is between "Christians" and "the world" according to the evolutionists. Since you have chosen to focus on Christians, wouldn't it make sense to know what a Christian is?

This debate is about Christians vs Evolution. The beliefs of other faiths are not being debated.

You can choose your definitions from a variety of sources, I am viewing you cavalier comments as an indication that you made up your own definition to suit your argument. An honest person would consult the source texts, or the most reliable authority and work from there. To say that "there are many ex-christians that are now atheists" is an admission that you know nothing about Christianity. [Insert Calvinistic Soteriology lesson]

There is no such thing as an "ex-christian". There are those who at one time attended a Christian church, were raised in a house with nominal Christians, or marked "Christian" on a survey because they knew they were not Buddhist. But the fundamental doctrines of Christianity bar the possibility of an "ex-christian". If in reality there is no such thing as an ex-christian, but you are pointing to a gallery of imaginary people as ex-christians to refute kipita's argument, then we know that you have created the classic "straw-man" to buttress your argument.

Why should we be interested in your semantic opinions about some special (lack of) meaning that "ex-christian" has to you. Please instruct us as to what simple phrase we should use to uniquely identify the class of people who used to consider themselves christian but no longer do so.

Now I am not willing to throw away your argument because it is bogus. It does admit that evolution is the domain of atheists.

Reference that admission.

Since to be an atheist one must be all knowing (a requirement to know for certain that there is no God, thus being able to prove a negative, or at least maintaining a very low threshold for proof)

And you call us cavalier. I am an atheist because I do not believe that there is a God, not because I know that there isn't one. I expect that only a tiny minority of rather stupid atheists would claim to know that there isn't a God, since by definition such a thing is unknowable as you rightly point out.

and since we have just seen that you know very little of Christianity (thus exempting you from being omniscient), it would be more accurate to say "God hater" rather than atheist, and in that you would make a much more sound argument. Either a person believes in God and thus God's words and God's claim that He was the only one there at the time to witness the origins of the universe, and thus He is the most reliable witness of that event, or a person is a God hater, and just makes up stories and tales about the origins of the universe - any story that removes God completely from the scene.

Nobody in science "makes up stories". Scientists by nature are very skeptical people who tend to look at the evidence. Evidence is all that counts in science. Why do you emotionally load the debate by namecalling? I don't believe in little pink unicorns. Does that mean that I'm a "little pink unicorn hater"?

Your hero, Darwin....

This is something interesting that many creationists do. They personalise everything, not seeming to understand that the idea is separate from the man. By Darwin's day geologists had already concluded that the earth was ancient, and other biologists were already starting to see the explanation for the Origin of Species. Darwin just published first. Someone else would have said something similar within a few years. I think this focus on personalities is because of religious emphasis on prophets... anyway...

... , was exactly one of those people who were raised in a Christian home and later he decided that he hated God and would construct a system of belief that would replace God.

And your evidence for this startling assertion is? Disprove Darwin's own report that he looked at the biological world around him and came to a set of conclusions based on what he saw.

And now today, the God haters have a church and a religion of there own to celebrate. Darwin was never a Christian. I submit that there are a very large number of people who are "Christians" in name only, they don't study the Christian religion, and therefore are not able, nor have much zeal in supporting the Christian message. I submit that evolutionists know this too, and that is the exact reason why evolutionists often resort to catcalls, heckling, insults and downright hate and lies in order to "Win a Convert For [the god of] Chance".

Funny, thats what I see the creationists including you doing all the time. The post I am responding to is a notable example. What is "God Hater" other than namecalling. I think if you want to find hate you should look a little closer to home.