Creationists are ‘liars’?

CMI ^ | Tas Walker, Ph.D.

[GodGunsGuts]

Creationists are ‘liars' (?): Geologist Donald Prothero doesn’t like the fact that we don’t agree with his ideas on evolution.

I love the attitude some evolutionists have toward professional, scientific debate. Because creationist scientists do not agree with their biased, subjective and unsubstantiated ideas they spit the dummy and call us liars.

The latest tirade from geologist Donald Prothero is in an opinion piece in NewScientist entitled ‘Evolution: What missing link?’¹ I like that title.

His article was picked up by the Telegraph newspaper in the UK which reported, ‘Creationists “peddle lies about the fossil record”.’²

Lies? Are creationists really lying?

No!

It’s just that Prothero does not like the fact that we don’t agree with his ideas. It upsets him so much that he describes creationists in this way: ...

[metmom]

So IS this you weighing in on the “all Catholics go the Hell’ side?

I said *No.*

Any Catholics who have truly trusted Christ instead of trusting baptism, or other sacraments, will be in heaven, just like any body else who truly trusts Christ (who said HE is the only way to the Father) instead of works.

[allmendream]

Once again you cannot address the argument I made, but instead try to defeat one of your own construction.

I never said people were Christian based upon their church membership, but have consistently maintained that one is a Christian if they ask for forgiveness for their sins in the name of Jesus the Christ.

But the other poster thinks that the past Popes are all (or mostly) burning in Hell because of Catholic theology, and you weighed in on their side of the argument.

So apparently one can NOT be a Christian based upon their church membership? And unless they reject Catholic theology they are destined for Hell?

By disagreeing with the above argument I am NOT arguing the opposite; that one CAN be a Christian based entirely upon Church membership?

Is that a difficult concept for you to grasp?

[demshateGod]

Is this debate really fun for you?

Those byzantine and roman christians prayed to statues and ate wafers to crucify Christ afresh. They didn’t follow God’s plan for salvation but man’s. Not my doctrine, my word is nothing, God’s Word is what matters. Since the pope is a renowned bible scholar he should know not to do such things.

You won’t believe any amount of info I give you. If Lazarus came from the dead you wouldn’t believe.

[metmom]

I answered your question about whether I thought all Catholics would go to hell.

I said *No.*

Is that really too difficult a concept for you to grasp?

[allmendream]

I would believe any credible historic source that indicated that there was a massive population of non-Catholic (Roman or Byzantine) Christians that existed prior to the Protestant Reformation.

But you have nothing.

Through most of the history of Christianity, the vast majority of Christians were either Byzantine or Roman Catholic.

And yes, me getting you to reveal your ignorance of history, Catholic theology, and your zealotry in thinking the vast majority of Popes wound up in Hell has been loads of fun.

[allmendream]

So do you agree with the poster that unless one rejects Catholic theology that they would end up in Hell?

Can you support your position that Catholics have abandoned one of the central tenants of Christianity?

That tenant being that no one shall receive grace unless they confess their sins in the name of Jesus the Christ.

And if you feel that Catholics have rejected this position, do you think that most Popes have wound up in hell for their theological teachings of this position?

[DungeonMaster]

How is it different?

Fundamentalists, the ones that believe in a young earth, also believe that the Pope is anything but a Christian. So why quote the pope in this discussion?

[allmendream]

Reducto ad absurdum.

I find it amusing that many will freely condemn me to hell for acceptance of a scientific theory, but are somehow hesitant to apply the exact same standard to the Pope.

Moreover once I show that they don't even think the Pope is a Christian, their ‘you are only pretending to be a Christian’ statements take on an entirely new context.

When they say that they think the majority of Popes wound up in Hell, unless they rejected Catholic theology; it shows EXACTLY where they are coming from.

The zealot argument... ‘agree with me or go to Hell.’

[metmom]

The church teaches that infant baptism forgives the child of sin. There’s no Scriptural support for that.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infant_baptism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sacrament_of_Penance_(Catholic_Church)

[allmendream]

And you agree with the poster that most Popes will wind up in hell unless they reject this (and/or other) doctrine(s)?

[DungeonMaster]

The zealot argument... ‘agree with me or go to Hell.’

Or maybe it's based on a sincere attempt to know God through His Word and to judge everything based on that Word.

[demshateGod]

LOL. I used to play a game called Battlefield 2. If there wasn’t enough real people online to have a fun game you could put in “bots”. The bots were so stupid.

What would it take to be credible? Approved by the pope or a Columbia professor? You do realize all the history you have was written by either protestants or catholics? What do you suppose their bias would be?

For one thing, and most authoritative, is the Bible itself. Christ said He’s preserve His church. Since the catholic church was filled with people who reject God’s revelation about Himself, it was not a church. Since a church is a visible local assembly, there is no catholic (universal) church. So by their own definition, the roman and eastern church is not a church.

So did Christ lie? Was there no church after Constantine took Roman paganism and called it a church?

[demshateGod]

I didn’t say there was a massive population. But they majority of Christians probably were found outside those two organizations.

[count-your-change]

The “only” is your word not mine and your citation has nothing to do with what I said. And actually I don’t need you to show anything to overturn arguments that I haven’t made.
But bang on if you must, I’ve no more time for your unsupported assertions.

[allmendream]

Ah I see, the “you are stupid” and “you would reject my source even if I had one” along with a “no source is credible anyway”.

Fine, you have no source for your contention as it is not based upon any facts.

Where were all these “hidden” Christians?

The Armenians? Not populous enough.

The Copts? Same thing.

The Abiginsians? A small population even before they were massacred.

Are you perhaps counting on “Prester John” and the legendary Christian kingdoms of the far East?

Pure legend.

So by my own definition? Wow, not content to make a fool of yourself with your own words you seek to make a fool of me by putting YOUR foolish words in my mouth.

Please provide a source for your contention. ANY source. Where were these “hidden” Christians, and why and how were they written out of history so entirely?

[demshateGod]

The Bible first of all. And because the Bible is true, the doctrine of Constantine is not true and his church is not a true church. Do you find that source credible?

2Ti 3:1 This know also, that in the last days perilous times shall come.

Mat 16:18 And I say also unto thee, That thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my church; and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

“Oh but Peter was the first Pope.” No, Peter had a wife and Peter didn’t teach Catholic doctrine.

Gal 1:6,7 I marvel that ye are so soon removed from him that called you into the grace of Christ unto another gospel: Which is not another; but there be some that trouble you, and would pervert the gospel of Christ.

I could go on but you’re not trying to get information out of me. You’re trying to bait me.

Is there worldly sources. I’ve heard and read them and their credible to me because they parallel what God’s plain Word declares. They won’t be credible to you because they’re not written by a bishop or Columbia prof.

Here’s one: http://www.trailofblood.org/

[metmom]

One can reject a wrong doctrine and still not be a Christian.

They must accept Christ as anyone must.

The law was put in charge to lead us to Christ. It’s about Him, not about anything or anyone else.

The Pope is merely the leader of the Roman Catholic Church. He has no authority over any other denominations and likely they don’t recognize the claims made by Catholics of his divine appointment.

Your appealing to the Pope means something only to Catholics. To the rest of us he’s just a man holding an important position of leadership.

[Lady Jag]

Intelligence and stamina, I admire yours after reading this thread. Never read a creationist thread before and was curious.

Creationists became hostile so quickly it was hard to sort the sane parts of the thread. I appreciate your remaining levelheaded, it made your posts readable.

This left me still believing in evolution, thank God.

[count-your-change]

All a Dawwinist has to do is say they took a course and chant some silliness and the world is supposed to genuflect.
Ahhh....We don’t do that.

[metmom]

***“Oh but Peter was the first Pope.” No, Peter had a wife and Peter didn’t teach Catholic doctrine.***

There’s nothing in either the Book of Acts or the books of I Peter and II Peter which address any of the claims made by the Catholic Church about Peter’s alleged papal appointment and authority.

It would be well for many Catholics to read for themselves what Peter had to say,