Excellent post but I disagree with your comment that "all sickness has its source in the devil". All sickness has its source in sin. Otherwise, you're giving the devil far too much power.

There's a certain verse that I thought indicated that all sickness originally came from Satan, but I can't remember the reference at the moment... I think it was Romans or Corinthians I or II. Something about sickness being a matter of spiritual warfare rather than just one of health and medicine? Hmm.

I'm sure you're right though in that sin plays an enormous part in the origin of illness. But then, we first got the idea of sin from Satan when he tempted Eve, so I guess Satan is involved in all illnesses at least indirectly.

~Riella

I'm not going to say doubt is bad, it can be very useful to help power us on in our faith walk, but I disapprove of people who foster paranoia and doubt everything they hold dear. It's not healthy.

The first thing to be said is that I came across this theory while reading a fictional book. I didn't Google "scientific reasons why christianity is false" or anything like that. I researched it further and found out that it was an actual theory.

The second thing to be said that, although there may be truth to what you're saying, there is an opposite error to mine (if, indeed, it is an error): that of asking too few questions. For me one of the fundamental principles of philosophy (remember this thread is called Christianity, Philosophy, and Religion) is that we should search for truth rather than what we want to believe. For the last few years I've been questioning the beliefs I was raised with and thus far it has prompted me to reject Biblical literalism, but not Christianity. I've looked at other religions/viewpoints and rest assured Christianity still seems like the best thing on the market (C. S. Lewis has been a huge influence in convincing me of this... I'm not sure if I would be a Christian today without him). I'd be lying if all viewpoints are as easy to dismiss as others. For example, I feel like I have a pretty good case for why I don't believe in Islam, but Buddhism is harder to dismiss.

Part of my "sojourn of questioning" came from a challenge one of my karate sensei gave our class (my karate club is a Christian organization btw). He challenged us to educate ourselves and know what we believe and why we believe it. He grew up in a rough neighbourhood a thousand miles from Christianity and he had to build his foundation from the ground up. For a guy like me, and the majority of people at my church, our foundations are/were weak, because we were raised with Christianity and just took it for granted that it was true. There are perks from growing up in the church for sure, but this is one of the downsides. Some of the most confident Christians I know came from decidedly non-Christian backgrounds. And honestly, since I've started questioning things I've felt my foundation grow stronger (it was built of sand at one point). It's also important because it prepares you for dialogue with non-Christians. I've been able to answer questions about Christianity in conversation that I wouldn't have been able to answer a few years back.

As far as the epilepsy thing, I've started to see some of the theorie's weak points (for example, like Erlian brough up, Paul's conversion was intellectual as well as "spiritual"), although I'd be lying if I said it doesn't have some merit. However I'd rather know about things like this and challenge them than sticking my fingers in my ears and pretending it doesn't exist.

So I was wondering what people here think is true creation or evolution? I am defiantly creation. I use to believe in evolution when in school etc, than i found out the "proofs" of evolution in my textbooks I was taught were lies, faked or could be exspalined by creation. I never knew there was even evidence against evolution so when I learned these things that I see as disproving evolution i was shocked [watch debates below]. Neither did I know there are thousands of phd scientist who reject evolution and believe the bible 100%, young earth,global flood and all. I thought for sure the earth was billions of years old, than I learned how they determine that and well so I stooped believing them.

So here are some resources for anyone interested free online

Major creation organizations run by PHD scientist.
http://www.icr.org/
http://creation.com/
http://www.answersingenesis.org/
http://www.creationresearch.org/crsq.html

free entire creation seminar

http://www.drdino.com/media-categories . … sHYPERLINK " http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10"&HYPERLINK " http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10"v=10 entire free creation seminar highly recommend videos number 4 lies in the textbooks and video number 1 age of the earth and video number 3 dinosaurs

free answers in Genesis videos older ones but free
recommended ones I liked

Code of life dr georgia purdum
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v … de-of-life
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v … de-of-life
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v … de-of-life part 3

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v … of-species origin of species
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v … -starlight distant starlight
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v … o-creation
evolution to creation
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v … sil-record the fossil record
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v … -deception creation evolution deception
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v … g-away-moy noahs flood washing away millions of years
http://www.answersingenesis.org/media/v … -questions 4 power questions

http://www.answersingenesis.org/article … erse-video

creation astronomy young earth video

many many more

http://www.answersingenesis.org/media#/video whole list of videos keep hitting next

two great books covering many topics of creation vs evolution
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-1/
http://creation.com/refuting-evolution-2/

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/index.html

walt browns hydro plate theory entire book can be read online free

debates

The Genesis Debate

11 part debate free online

"The Genesis Debate: Skeptic vs Creationist" is a debate between Dr. Paul Willis and Dr. Carl Wieland over the topic of Creation (more specifically, "Does scientific evidence support a literal Genesis?"). Dr. Paul Willis was the former winner of Australia's "Skeptic of the Year" award, and Dr. Carl Wieland is Managing Director of Creation Ministries International (Australia). www.Creation.com

free online

micheal shermer vs kent hovind

very good debate well done on both sides

Dr Ian Plimer vs Dr Duane Gish - 1988 Sydney, Australia Debate

"

"

you can always find free debates here
http://www.creationtoday.org/category/t … o/debates/
or type in youtube kent hovind debates

Hi guys!

Lately some amazing things have happened. My roommate and I became frightened by the actions someone so we started praying prayers of protection. From there, guided by our inner light, we opened our minds and our hearts. We followed the light to the beach nearby, where we lit candles at night and continued praying prayers of protection.

It was as if our hearts were lit up with the candles. We didn't want to stop there, so we prayed to God, to the saints, to the angels and our guardian angels, and to the powers of the Universe. We could feel the prayers working even as we said them, and all the things we were praying for have started to come true!! When we are done, we release the prayers into the universe, symbolically by blowing out the candles. We have also been sealing the past and the present together through our prayers and opening our hearts to love. Since then it has become a nightly ritual. We are always wanting to do the prayers every night. It is amazing and I would encourage everyone to try it.

Sounds like you're combining a few different belief systems there. Praying to the Triune God (God, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit) - all biblical. Praying to the saints, angels, guardian angels and to the powers of the Universe - not biblical. Just because something feels good, doesn't mean it is good.

I'm not sure about religion, the older I get, the more I learn the importance of being earnest and openminded. If anyone would like to know how to go about saying these prayers, I would be more than happy to give direction and guidance, just PM me.

So I was wondering what people here think is true creation or evolution? I am defiantly creation.

Unless you are in the process of learning English as a foreign language (in which case you get a pass), it's a good idea to make sure that you are using correct grammar and spelling. I think you meant to say "definitely", but instead you wrote "defiantly", which is a word with a rather different meaning.

When presenting your case, it is often just as important that you articulate your position well as it is that you are correct. (For example, William Lane Craig is considered by many to be the best current Christian apologist not because he knows more than all other theologians, but rather because he is a masterful debater and can make very convincing arguments.) Google Chrome and Mozilla Firefox both have spell checkers that can help you out if you're still learning spelling.

free entire creation seminar

http://www.drdino.com/media-categories . … sHYPERLINK " http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10"&HYPERLINK " http://www.drdino.com/media-categories.php?c=seminars&v=10"v=10 entire free creation seminar highly recommend videos number 4 lies in the textbooks and video number 1 age of the earth and video number 3 dinosaurs

I've seen most of these, and I don't really like Kent Hovind's reasoning any more than the reasoning he infers that the evolutionists are using. Because he is speaking to an audience that is not highly educated in science, he is able to use the argument from incredulity a lot more than he should. ( http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity )

He also makes what I think is a dangerous assumption; that his interpretation of the bible is the gospel truth and that all science must align with his worldview without any compromises. I think that's a bit arrogant as our understanding of the universe is constantly evolving, and there are many aspects of the earth that Christians used to believe but have since reconsidered after new scientific knowledge and discoveries have come to light.

You seemed to link a lot of stuff from Kent Hovind, and just as a heads up, he's not really well respected as an intellectual heavyweight even amongst his peers and other creationists.

So I was wondering what people here think is true creation or evolution?

Interestingly enough, I'm doing a Basic Bible and Science course in school... So I kind of want to say something.

Some of the books I am reading are,

Scientific Creationism by Henry M. Morris
and
A Case for Creation by Wayne Friar & Percival Davis

I used the present progressive phrase "am reading," I might as well admit that I haven't finished them. Therefore, I can't say I agree with every iota recorded in them, because I haven't read everything in them; I do (EDIT) agree with all I've read in how far I've progressed in the book. However, my sister has studied them and hasn't said that they contained anything shockingly false or otherwise skewed. I'm not recommending them, because I haven't finished them; just simply bringing them up.

To be fair to the creation vs. evolution fight, you must consider that both sides have been unfair. It's common knowledge and a strongly held fact by Evolutionists that some Creationists have not addressed the facts eloquently sometimes. Friar and Davis bring this up by saying, "How sad that even Christians are often shoddy in scholarshop, not checking out facts but merely passing them on in the form of misinformation." Evolutionists aren't innocent of this either - Friar and Davis also state, that "[from Niles Eldrege, author of The Monkey Business,] one finds the statement, 'A relatively small number of creation scientist have produced the vast bulk of articles and books that have appeared. None of them have contributed to a single article to any reputable scientific journal.' This statement is an egregious falsehood [...]" There were scientists who contributed in massive amounts to science who believed in Creation - Faraday, Newton, and I believe even Linnaeus to some extent. (I've seen Linnaeus mentioned in these books and in a Bio evolutionary-based textbook my sister is using...)

And, of course, to be precisely fair, there are some evolutionists who have considered Creation and who justly admit that Evolution and Creation both require faith.

Both sides of the issue must be looked at fairly - it simply isn't fair to constantly insinuate that evolution is scientific while creation is religious when both require faith. Debates on that leave the realm of science and enter social science, because then you start talking about worldviews. Which is why I believe that one's belief of the origin of life and of science is largely dependent on their sociological philosophy of life.

As these books I mentioned often state, you must be able to repeat an experiment to prove it. You can't repeat Creation and you can't repeat Evolution; they can't be observed. Therefore, Creation and Evolution both can not be proved by the scientific method and neither are strictly scientific.

there are many aspects of the earth that Christians used to believe but have since reconsidered after new scientific knowledge and discoveries have come to light.

I do think that the same true fact and statement can be applied to Evolutionists.

Many here know I am on the side of "Young Earth Creationism". But I only apply that term to indicate which general model of origins I am on. I much prefer to be known as someone who sides with Biblical authority. Now the Bible is not a history book. It is not a science book. It is a religious book that contains every major genre including history, poetry, prophecy, story telling, and even romance. While there are always spiritual applications you can take from any aspect, the Bible is the final authority on history when it talks about history, on science when it talks about sciences, on prophecy when it talks about prophecy, etc.

The age of the earth is never an issue in this discussion. It is really a Biblical authority issue. Does the Bible have a say in the issue, let alone the final say on the issue? When the Bible is not clearly definitive on a particular aspect, does that give us leeway to fill in the blank as we wish? No it does not. Where the Bible is not clear, whatever blank we fill in must be carried to its logical conclusion and in everything, it MUST be compared with Scripture.

I have heard many arguments that try to claim against a "young earth" that the Bible's history is not complete or accurate. Two issues here. Is ANY history recording complete? If you apply the same question intended to be used on the Bible to say the US Civil War, you would find the same gaps, the same level of incompleteness, and even more so. My US History Civil War textbooks never went into the details of how the battles took place. Only when, where, how many died, and who won. Never get any complaints about that. Yet the Bible's accounts go into even greater detail and yet are dismissed off hand. The other issue is 'accurate'. Compared to what? "Accurate" is a relative term. If there is no bulls-eye to hit, the word accuracy means nothing. Again, compare what is 'accurate' to the other textbooks. You will find the Bible is at least as accurate if not more. So whenever you see complaints against Scripture, beware of double-standard fallacies, appeals to majority/authority fallacies, and more.

Evolution has blurred the lines between what is science and what is not. They will say "to disbelieve in evolution is to disbelieve in all of science including gravity, atoms, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc". Two fallacies here: Fallacy of equivocation and fallacy of hurling elephants. Evolution is NOT science. Science is NOT evolution. Evolution USES science. Big difference. Same with creation. Creation does not equal science nor science equal creation. But creation uses science. One must be careful to draw the line between what is observable, testable, and repeatable. Both creation and evolution do not fit this criteria. Evolution and creation can be considered HISTORICAL science which is a different animal. Both will use the same evidence but interpret it via different world views. The YEC model starts with the Bible then looks for the evidence that should be expected as a result of what the Bible describes. OEC models start with the natural evidence, interprets it accordingly then sees where the Bible lines up. Atheistic evolution keeps the Bible out of the discussion period and seeks to keep us from using it as well. Do not be fooled by this tactic. There is nothing wrong with the general who stands on the high ground he is trying to defend. There is nothing wrong with us standing on the Bible while we defend it. Just remember that the atheist also stands on the ground he/she is trying to defend as well. The moment we set aside the Bible for 'meeting on common ground', we lose before the 'battle' starts because we throw away our primary weapon and only weapon that can defeat the wiles of the world.

For those on Facebook, a group I would recommend visiting is the "Creation Moments Forum". It is a closed-group and you need to be 'approved' by the administration team but it is a vibrate place for discussion about creation, evolution, and all the issues that stem from those discussions. It is predominately YEC but the group seeks to reach out to the OEC, the TE, and the atheist as an outreach ministry. We only boot those who are being disrespectful, not due to disagreements.

I can say plenty more about this but that is enough for now.

Excellent post, Fencer. I'm disturbed by the number of Christians who believe in OEC, not YEC. People who are against Creationism always tend to show the failings of people like Dr Dino. There are more credible people out there, ones who are actually scientists.

Once again, and not surprisingly, I 100% ditto your post, Fencer. May I save it for further reference? I ditto Warrior - Old Earth Creationists and Theistic Evolutionists are a mystery to me.

"Accurate" is a relative term. If there is no bulls-eye to hit, the word accuracy means nothing. Again, compare what is 'accurate' to the other textbooks.

I'm taking a physical science in school right now and had to re-review Precision vs. Accuracy, so this hit home for me.

Evolution has blurred the lines between what is science and what is not. They will say "to disbelieve in evolution is to disbelieve in all of science including gravity, atoms, chemistry, biology, astronomy, etc". Two fallacies here: Fallacy of equivocation and fallacy of hurling elephants. Evolution is NOT science. Science is NOT evolution. Evolution USES science. Big difference. Same with creation. Creation does not equal science nor science equal creation. But creation uses science. One must be careful to draw the line between what is observable, testable, and repeatable. Both creation and evolution do not fit this criteria. Evolution and creation can be considered HISTORICAL science which is a different animal. Both will use the same evidence but interpret it via different world views. The YEC model starts with the Bible then looks for the evidence that should be expected as a result of what the Bible describes. OEC models start with the natural evidence, interprets it accordingly then sees where the Bible lines up. Atheistic evolution keeps the Bible out of the discussion period and seeks to keep us from using it as well. Do not be fooled by this tactic. There is nothing wrong with the general who stands on the high ground he is trying to defend. There is nothing wrong with us standing on the Bible while we defend it. Just remember that the atheist also stands on the ground he/she is trying to defend as well. The moment we set aside the Bible for 'meeting on common ground', we lose before the 'battle' starts because we throw away our primary weapon and only weapon that can defeat the wiles of the world.

Thank-you for this. In reading and perusing the books assigned for my course, I am trying to be alert at possible "well, let's set aside the Bible so we can talk about this on common ground!" points... And thanks for explaining the being science vs. using science. That really helps make things clearer.

For those on Facebook, a group I would recommend visiting is the "Creation Moments Forum"... It is predominately YEC but the group seeks to reach out to the OEC, the TE, and the atheist as an outreach ministry.

Why do people who have an OEC or TE view need to be "outreached"? Are you saying that only people who believe in a "young Earth" are real Christians and everyone else is going to Hell?

Why do people who have an OEC or TE view need to be "outreached"? Are you saying that only people who believe in a "young Earth" are real Christians and everyone else is going to Hell?

"Outreach" doesn't equal "preaching to unsaved people", or to people who are going to hell. It also means to teach your opinion to someone who holds a different view. It doesn't always have to do with salvation.

~Riella

I think that to many people, the word "outreach" does indeed mean "preaching to unsaved people", and those involved in evangelistic ministry especially tend to use it that way. FencerForJesus may not have meant it like that, but in that case I would suggest using a different term - particularly as he groups together the OEC, the TE and the atheist as those the Facebook group wants to reach. Use of language can be tricky as people may infer things the speaker didn't mean.

King_Erlian,

Let's be fair here. In a given American church, the amount of 'saved' Christians amount to about 50% or less. Some figures suggest less than 25% of people in a church are actual born again believers. In this FB forum, we recently discussed Matthew 25, the parable of the sheep and goats. We realized that the people who say "Lord, Lord" and Jesus replied "I never knew you." are people who truly think they are Christians but never have that personal relationship with Jesus. This is true for YEC, OEC, and TE alike. But in my personal encounters with OEC's, I see enough red flags about their view of Scripture that makes me seriously wonder if they are one of the 'goats': people who really think they are Christians but are not. The way I see OEC and YEC is as fruits of their worldview pertaining to Scripture. I have met VERY few OEC who have a high view of Scripture. I have not met a YEC that has a low view of Scripture.

Now, let me be honest about YEC as well. Supporters of YEC are fallible just like the OEC. I just posted a blog in response to another blog who attacked Bishop Ussher's Creation date of 4004 BC. Did Creation really happen at that time? Ussher is fallible so to hold him as the determining authority is just as dangerous as holding Hugh Ross, Tim Keller, CS Lewis, Bill Nye, or Richard Dawkins. Was Ussher in the ballpark? I really do believe he was. I support the 4004 BC creation date, because I believe it is the most accurate to Scripture, but I allow leeway. Leeway does NOT give room for the OEC arguments of millions of years, but room for an error factor of a few centuries. Worst case 1000-2000 years. Those that attack Usshers methods attack the authority of the Bible's historical accounts as historical accounts. And I find such attacks are always loaded with a double standard. You can see my blog here. It is a bit long, but if you want a lot of meat, there is a lot here.
http://fencerforjesus.blogspot.com/

And those asking. You may use my stuff to further your arguments and thoughts. I only ask that you not copy and paste them save for your own references. I've had people take my posts and copy-paste the pertinent arguments as their own and it doesn't work that way. My posts are pointed to you as a reference, not as an argument to a non-believer, or a believer with questions.

And for the record, quite often, the believer needs an outreach given to them as well. I have 22 years of missions experience. So I am not a stranger to the outreach concept.