Creationism's Damage to Christianity

What an invidious load of hogdoo, mushing up fools and foolishness with sound doctrine and logic. What has A******n got to do with how old the earth is or whether Noah's Flood happened. Stick to the subject. The narration is that of an ignorant insulting bigot "not one shred of evidence" etc. watch JT Gatto State Eductation, The Science & Politics of Cancer, Walther Veith Conversion, Bill Lipton, The Money Masters, The Brotherhood of Darkness, Expelled, Dr. Scott Minnich, nwcreation / bereanbeacon vids ..

Yes, I accept the things regarding Christianity you outlined. I plan on doing a video about my faith in the future.

Do you believe that the bible is the true message of god? Presumably you do not feel much regard for Dawkins because his hectoring tone would resonate with you for cherry picking only the relevent parts and rejecting the nonsensical (creation etc)... Or are you living in denial (or fear) of what you have been indoctrinated during your formative years. I'm genuinely intrigued.

Hi Don, watching this video amazes me. You are distancing yourself from evolutionists and yet you claim to be a christian. You have probably been asked this b4, but please can you elaborate for me where you christian beliefs lie? Do you believe in the miracles outlined in the testaments or that jesus was indeed the son of god in human form? I am at a loss to understand how one as obviously intelligent as yourself could believe in these precepts of christianity.

Uhh..what? Even God cannot know enough stuff to teach for an eternity. He'd be making up things after a few years. And if I break the rules once, I can still get into heaven? Awesome! I'm so going to R**e and kill an infant now. But only for once and I'll ask Jesus for forgiveness later.

I almost wish they were right.

riding dinosaurs would be awesome, and ecofriendlier than cars.

:D

My point was you are comparing a subset of scientists as if it reflects the views of the scientific community as a whole. I was not trivializing the NAS whatsoever.

My source provided a broader view of the scientific communities' perspective as a whole, not any particular subdivision.

However, among scientists outside the NAS, there is also this recent study from 2007 in which 1,646 of the leading scientists at the 21 top-rated research universities in the United States participated.

"More than 31 percent said they do not believe in God, and another 31 percent said they do not know if there is a God and there is no way to find out -- a whopping 62 percent of those surveyed...Only 9.7 percent said they have "no doubts about God's existence."

tinyurl(.)com/5brpqq

I think I made that clear.

From NAS website-
"The National Academy of Sciences (NAS) is an honorific society of distinguished scholars engaged in scientific and engineering research, dedicated to the furtherance of science and technology and to their use for the general welfare."

Those are NAS scientists, not scientists as a whole.

Scientists come in a myriad of varieties, and are effectively a dime a dozen. The broader field within this job classification does unfortunately contain even many wackos.

But scientists who belong to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) are the cream of the crop -- the best of the best in science. Quite extraordinary is the fact that a whopping 93% of them DO NOT believe in a god. That's the statistic which speaks volumes!

tinyurl(.)com/5snua8

(Nature 23 Jul 98)(Science-Week 14 Aug 98)

You're the first cool christian I've encountered on this site. Even though you hate to stand on my side of the argument. ;)

Five star rating from me.

now thats a promise! ;)

Dude non-believers make up less than 1/10 of the population, expecting them to take up more than 3/10 of the scientific community is asking a bit much.

When did I say 69% of evolutionary biologists believe in God? I said scientists, and the figure IS accurate.

ok, the part where you posted the statistics of the gallup poll showing 69% of scientists believe is god is almost as dishonest as the tactics used by those you are berating. What fields were these scientists in?
I highly doubt that 69% of evolutionary biologists believe in god. Other than that, great video. 5stars

btw, you're mouth was too close to the mic when you recorded this (or whoever did). :)

If I opened a jar of peanut butter and found a previously unknown life form I would INSTANTLY convert from being an Atheist to being a Christian.

That "wtf" image of the cat is hilarious. That on top your video being excellent of course.

What's wrong with my main man Richy Dawkins? yo?

yeah.. random speculation from scientific illiterates is closer to the truth then scientific evidence. IF nuetral genes is bad then humans is in deep trouble!!! about 80-90% of the human gene is JUST THAT!!!! on the other the a puffer fish has NO junk DNA. they are the most perfect lifeforms according to you.

yes antibiotics save tons of people! so does vaccines. which you call a state conspiracy to control people!!!! of course drugs have side effects! doctors tent to weight the risk of DIEING vs side effects! there are now bacteria resistance to antibiotic which is EVIDENCE of evolution!!!

yes... we are trying to beat beat natural selection to save lives how will that get us a mess? what what you just said about selection IS what evolution says. its NOT always the strong the survive!!! I didn't say weak don't survive, I was talking about antibiotics on bacteria, only bacteria with resistance can survive. those that doesn't is consider " weak" which won't survive. please pay attention to the subject. context, it does wonders.

'thinks all bacteria can survive antibiotics which defeats the purpose of wiping alcohol'
You might be confusing me with someone else here. I firstly change the number of possibilities, or thats my goal. I would make people thing what the meaning of things are if you dont follow the people who push you around.

Gasp. I se trough this stuff i dont reason like a common human. I tend to reach a problem from all sides, its kinda complex but it is more reaching the truth. For dna 3 categories i reason this. Bad is bad. Neutral is bad neutral genes are usseles for they dont work. Good genes change just another good gen into another good gen; that makes it neutral. Now of these 3 i am most positive for the neutral genes for the future will proov there use, atleast for some.

antibiotics like pennisiline can cure almost any dicease. My litl sister was saved by it, but i discovered that it has problems as well. Your teeth fall out etc. Every thing how good it may be has disadvantages. Most people dont wanna see the minor problems caused by something 'good'.