Debate:Are Young Earth Creationists detracting others from the Faith?

From Conservapedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Capercorn (Talk | contribs) at 15:32, December 17, 2007. It may differ significantly from current revision.

Jump to: navigation, search
! THIS IS A DEBATE PAGE, NOT AN ARTICLE. Opinions expressed are not necessarily those of Conservapedia.
Your opinion is welcome! Please remember to sign your comments on this page, and refrain from editing other user's contributions.
New Users: Please read our "Editing etiquette" before posting
Conservlogo.png

The reason I ask this is in referance to a quote about six paragraphs down here. Are Young-Earth Creationists causing others to not convert? Asking opinions. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 14:59, 26 November 2007 (EST)

The quote in question is this: "My brothers and sisters in the faith who embrace [the creationist] understanding call into question the whole Christian concept," expressed the Rev. Mendle Adams, pastor of St. Peter's United Church of Christ in Cincinnati, according to the Enquirer. "They make us a laughingstock.” --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 18:37, 26 November 2007 (EST)

NO!

Members of church denominations that tote the politically correct mantra no longer have the "Faith". For that, they have become the laughingstocks. They have already gone with the way of the world and abandoned the Word of God. They have chosen to join the apostate church which has turned against our Heavenly Father so that they worship at the alter of the god of this age and of this current world. If the truth makes you a laughingstock then first you should make sure those doing the laughing aren't just plain nuts. Mostly though, reverend Adams statement is illogical in that he professes a certain faith in Creator while in the same breath denouncing HIM! Maybe, in fact, that is what people are laughing at? "They exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served created things rather than the Creator who is forever praised. Amen" Romans 2:25 So for some people the BIG LIE is easier to believe then the TRUTH.--Roopilots6 10:55, 2 December 2007 (EST)

But that is not what I asked, I asked if Young-Earth creationists are disuading others to convert to Christianity, not which belief is correct. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 14:15, 3 December 2007 (EST)
The correct Faith? Isn't that the point of the museum? If you don't believe then you won't have Faith. Being able to prove your beliefs won't detract others. Showing how a younger earth can be scientifically proven would have the effect of attracting more believers. Belief requires Faith. The Truth confirms that belief and Faith. What detracter or disuader are you refering too then? Quotation of Bible verses? Or believing them to be correct?--Roopilots6 15:28, 6 December 2007 (EST)
You can't say science can prove that until a reproducible experiment is demonstrated showing that. I would also like to point out that Fundalmentalism as a concept is more recent than Evolution. It has been stated in other debates that theistic-evoultioninsts can recieve salvation. Some of the displays in the museum in question can be treated as stupid to somebody in a non-young-earth upbringing (ie: belief in an old-earth leads to abortions). I am not saying that anybody who believes in a Young-Earth is dissuading potential converts. I am saying that pushers of ID theory being taught in public schools (when it has not produced one testible hypothesis) are dissuading potential converts. Once ID theory produces a testible hypothesis, than I have to support it. Until then, no. --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 09:14, 9 December 2007 (EST)
I'm seeing alot of logical fallacies there. The assumption of fundamentalism being more recent than the non-reproducible theory of Evolution is a mistaken one. Theistic-evolutionists receive salvation from what? The theory of evolution hasn't produced a single 'scientifically proven' hypothesis that is reproducible. But then when it is the only theory being taught then there won't be very much dissention to it, will there? This is the whole point between ID or evolutionary theorists, that neither meet any criteria of being proven. We can agree to be able to go back and forth on that point. But then how does that detract from either point of view? Other then one is officially mandated by the state? Unfalsifiable as it is.--Roopilots6 15:20, 9 December 2007 (EST)
Are you saying that salvation comes from Young-Earth creationism, Last time I checked, that was not so. Consider this: If you were God and had to reveal your entire message to Homo sapians sapians, a species that has a very short attention span, would you put in a long detailed explanation, or would you put in a simple short story that doesn't require an degree in biology to understand? --User:Capercorn Talk contribs 10:32, 17 December 2007 (EST)