Mature Religious Discussion

[SnorSnor]

Originally posted by Crono:
<strong>Hey Acu, according to SnorSnor, you don't deserve to get to your heaven.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Correct. We've all sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But by the blood of Christ, which He shed for us on the cross, we can gain access to heaven. Without it, we have sin on us, and won't get to heaven. With it, we'de be washed clean.

[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: SnorSnor ]</p>

 

[Crono]

I Don't see what the problem is with anger and hate anyway. It shouldn't be a sin. People piss you off, so you hate them. Big freaking deal. I hate how xianity focuses on pointless things like that.

 

[Crono]

You can torture us, kidnap us, kill us. We die with smiles on our faces and joy in our eyes, for we know the Truth. (No, we're not al Quaeda's suicide bombers) <hr></blockquote>

Whoa. I sure wouldn't smiling if i got anal ***** to death. And yes, since you seem to have this joyful connatation to death, I see you assomewhat of an inane fundy extremist.

 

[anannomous]

Well you see there is nobody perfect in the world, everyone sins.... but God did make it so you can repent, meaning that you have to really be sorry about your sins. You can't just apologize and continue to sin you must "turn around" and become different. Also I would like to add that while I was gone watching a movie a lot happens within a movie time....

 

[Mmm Mmm Gopher]

Originally posted by AculemNaeomeus:
<strong>Gopher, can you give me a more accurate source of information regarding Christianity and the Bible? Because the problem is, you have no evidence that it's wrong. You've just read it and said it's stupid. Just like everything else I've posted, nobody has produced quality evidence that another form of creation exists, just dissing divine Creation and making up stuff.

[ December 11, 2001: Message edited by: AculemNaeomeus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Hey look man, Yeah sure i cant prove your site's fossilization theory wrong completely. I dont have a living working model of the world over all of its existance. I can tell you, however, that I know enough about fossilization to contradict what your site says. I dont have a mudslide or tar pit handy with me, but ask any man with a good education in science and he'd be agree with me.

The site supports the covering of dead animals with sediments from the great flood in order to produce fossils. The covering of animals in mudslides or in tar pits follows the same principles as the covering of animals in flood sediments in order to create fossils.

But then your site says that theres no evidence that fossils are continually forming. Ask anyone with a degree in science about it and he'll laugh at the idea that some site claims that fossils are not continually forming.

 

[Crono]

I direct this to each christian at this topic:

Do you support the execution of Taliban members who were involved in 911, including Osama? Give me an HONEST opinion. Don't just say "let's leave him alone and forgive him for killing thousands" just because it makes you sound like a "good" xian.

 

[SnorSnor]

Originally posted by Crono:
<strong>I Don't see what the problem is with anger and hate anyway. It shouldn't be a sin. People piss you off, so you hate them. Big freaking deal. I hate how xianity focuses on pointless things like that.</strong><hr></blockquote>

It's a sin, for one reason, because anger reacts negatively towards people, and to do that is wrong too.

Why is the teaching of loving neighbors and even your enemies pointless? If it were such a pointless thing, Christianity wouldn't be as it would be today. Only a lot worse, because it would've taught no love, and if something teaches no love, then obviously people will not think it's wrong to hate.

The two greatest commandments are based on love.

 

[SnorSnor]

Do you support the execution of Taliban members who were involved in 911, including Osama? Give me an HONEST opinion. Don't just say "let's leave him alone and forgive him for killing thousands" just because it makes you sound like a "good" xian.<hr></blockquote>

I do believe justice should be served for bin Laden, and if execution would be needed, then let justice be served.

 

[Akira]

Just thought I'd add, there are a few minor examples of evolution we can readily see. For example, dentists across the country have observed that less and less people are growing 4 wisdom teeth.

Why? Well the purpose of wisdom teeth is to be used for grinding food, but with all the synthetic food we've had shoved down our throats that is easily chewed we no longer have a need for wisdom teeth, they are becoimg dead weight, and are therefore becoming obsolete.

 

[Crono]

I'm curious... do you people totally ignore what is taught in biology and earth science class? What your mentors should be telling you in those classes makes sense, especially half life of radioactive elements. That is fact. not theory. there is nothing to argue with about half life. That point made, I wonder how you argue with ages given to fossils. Half life is perfectly consistent.If an element's half life is, say, 40 seconds, its mass will decrease by half EVERY 40 SECONDS, no exceptions.

 

[Crono]

My my, snorsnor, how unchristian of you.. condoning the deaths of men, no matter what sins they have committed? Shame shame. Isn;t it sin to condone such a thing? Now go pray to your sky pixie stick man for repentence.

Amazing. It truly is amazing how you xians contradict yourselves like this.

 

[Mmm Mmm Gopher]

Hey Crono, you're my friend and all, but I dont want this topic to get closed like the other one because we arent treating each other with respect...

 

[Crono]

True. Ok Snorsnor, I guess im sorry for calling your deity a sky pixie stick man. Hey, I want candy now.

 

[BTLizard]

I think the evolution debate is an interesting one...I think i'll go off of that.

one of the first steps in acknowledging that there is a God is that there must have been a creation. in order to believe in a creation, you have to believe in the fact that evolution is not true...thus, i will break it down

an interesting analogy is this: the probability that evolution could occur is the same as that of a line of men from here to pluto all working with rubiks cubes and arriving at the solution at the exact same time...

now, this is jsut to get one living cell. after that cell has arrived, how will it divide? it need energy, thus, food. so, this is an awful predicament...a cell created, but must die immediately. or, the second option: the cell could already have the energy in it. although, in order for this to occur, the big bang would not only have to create a large semi-truck, but also one that has a full tank of gas!

now, one could argue that ok, fine...so the cell had a full tank of gas (that is, energy)...so there are you. however, once it divides, it must canabalize...however, science itself even detests to this. it states that living cells can only be created from other living cells. thus, not gases. so, science must contradict itself.

again, the cell must canabalize, and thus eat away what has been created, eventually destroying everything it has worked so hard to produce. frivalous efforts...it still did not create a full being... so, two must have had to been created at the same time with full tanks...

also, even if the cells did manage to continue, we need only look at the complexities of our own bodies. each cell alone is nothing, it is only the union of all the cells in our bodies that makes us who we are. thus making it nearly impossible to create even the smallest of creatures.

also, look at the nucleus of a cell. why the neutrons? why? what is there purpose? scientist have to to figure this one out....this can carry further, but the point is made.

i would suggest anyone who has any further ?'s to read Mere Christianity by C.S. Louis...it should provide some insight

 

[Mmm Mmm Gopher]

Originally posted by BTLizard:
<strong>

now, this is jsut to get one living cell. after that cell has arrived, how will it divide? it need energy, thus, food. so, this is an awful predicament...a cell created, but must die immediately. or, the second option: the cell could already have the energy in it. although, in order for this to occur, the big bang would not only have to create a large semi-truck, but also one that has a full tank of gas!

now, one could argue that ok, fine...so the cell had a full tank of gas (that is, energy)...so there are you. however, once it divides, it must canabalize...however, science itself even detests to this. it states that living cells can only be created from other living cells. thus, not gases. so, science must contradict itself.

again, the cell must canabalize, and thus eat away what has been created, eventually destroying everything it has worked so hard to produce. frivalous efforts...it still did not create a full being... so, two must have had to been created at the same time with full tanks...

also, even if the cells did manage to continue, we need only look at the complexities of our own bodies. each cell alone is nothing, it is only the union of all the cells in our bodies that makes us who we are. thus making it nearly impossible to create even the smallest of creatures.

also, look at the nucleus of a cell. why the neutrons? why? what is there purpose? scientist have to to figure this one out....this can carry further, but the point is made.

</strong><hr></blockquote>

Ok now I'm no expert on the beginning of life on earth, but who says that the first cells would have to convert to cannibalism to survive? Ever hear of plant-like protists? Single celled organisms that use photosynthesis to feed from the sun.

Oh and about the nucleus of a cell...the nuclei of our cells are a lot more complicated than that of bacteria. Bacteria are single celled, and do not have a nuclear membrane. Their nuclear material is scattered about. However, more complex organisms like ourselves have more complex cells that all depend upon one another and work together. Our cells are much different from that of the primal unicellular organisms that existed near the beginning of life.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

A living cell within the given enviornment needed for its creation would be sourrounded by raw material from which it could extract energy from.

Acu- I've check out your site and it's bullsh¡t. The tripe that it is trying to spread is overwhelming. I can't believe anyone educated would ever be taken by that.

That said, your theory on evolution is wrong. We have found many examples of evolution in the fossil records. And we are constantly finding "missing links" between species and subspecies of humanbeings. Two years ago they filled in a large hole of the chain with a missing link of a mini-monkey the size of your hand. Which was one of the stepping stones to our now dominant form.

So much for your "nothing dug up since Darwin" theory.

Now, explain to me how Carbon dating doesn't work, please.

 

[Mmm Mmm Gopher]

Originally posted by BTLizard:
<strong>also, even if the cells did manage to continue, we need only look at the complexities of our own bodies. each cell alone is nothing, it is only the union of all the cells in our bodies that makes us who we are. thus making it nearly impossible to create even the smallest of creatures.
</strong><hr></blockquote>

Yes the jump from unicellular to multicellular life took a great amount of time. For a very long period the only life that existed was unicellular. However, over long long periods of time, unicellular organisms evlolved into very very simple, still microscopic multicellular organisms. Sure it may seem "impossible to create even the smallest of creatures", but keep in mind that evolution occurs over long periods of time, and near the beginning of life on earth, we had quite our share of free time.

 

[Mmm Mmm Gopher]

Originally posted by Gamer4Fire:
<strong>Acu- I've check out your site and it's bullsh¡t. The tripe that it is trying to spread is overwhelming. I can't believe anyone educated would ever be taken by that.

Now, explain to me how Carbon dating doesn't work, please.</strong><hr></blockquote>

Thats in his site too. His site claims theres a huge margin of error, and that scientists have biased all of the results based on predictions. Check it out for a good laugh if you want.

Its total prophaganda.

 

[Crono]

You simply cannot deny evolution. It is just so very obvious that it is a neverending process. Errr im tired. Bye for now

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Thanks Gopher, I have checked out his site. That's why it's so funny. I just haven't included it in my post style. But I was laughing pretty hard there for awhile.

Oh yeah, while I'm on the subject;

Acu- WRITE YOUR OWN POSTS! DON'T COPY AND PASTE FROM ANOTHER SITE! THAT IS CALLED PLAGORIASM! ESPECIALLY WHEN YOU DON'T SAY YOU ARE DOING IT! YOU SHOULD QUOTE AND CITE OTHER SITES! YOU NIMROD! I HOPE YOU FAIL YOUR FINALS AND ARE SENT TO JAIL FOR FRAUD, IF YOU ARE DOING THIS!

 

[para trooper]

is mmmmmmmmm mmmmmmm gopher robert allen?

 

[SnorSnor]

My my, snorsnor, how unchristian of you.. condoning the deaths of men, no matter what sins they have committed? Shame shame. Isn;t it sin to condone such a thing? Now go pray to your sky pixie stick man for repentence.<hr></blockquote>

I don't see what's so wrong with wanting jusice to be served. The man killed thousands and will probably do it again. But that doesn't mean that no one can pray for him =/

 

[Cos.]

Why do people always have to discuss if religion or science is right? Noone can proof anything anyway. I although have a nice all-explaining theory that I'm working on, it's quite interesting and all I still have to do is test if everything existant can nicely be brought into it.

 

[MasterOfTheSwords]

Ohhh...big words, Gamer. Go on, arrest me, then! You're a laugh. And again, EVERYBODY HAS DISSED MY ARGUMENT BUT NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE IT WRONG. Same with the site. Don't change the subject to carbon dating, Gamer4Fire. You just can't prove me wrong.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Gee, I seem to remember pointing out one of the falacies of your No missing link, no evolution argument.

Since you were nice enough to provide an internet link (However faulty the information), here is one of my own: "<a href="http://library.thinkquest.org/22446/?tqskip=1" target="_blank">Darwinsism and Beyond, brought to you by thinkquest.</a>"

Have fun learning all about our friend, evolution.

 

[Crono]

I started this topic, and I'm pretty much done with it. I've argued all I've wanted, but it's obvious none of you theists can comprehend the errors in your faiths. Most of my good points have been made, and anything else I say would only reiterate on those. Go off and worship as much as you want. You have nothing to lose, since we all end up ceasing to exist. But while I'm alive, I'd much rather live with the facts, and not rely on faith and assumptions. I really don't need something so illogical and nonexistent to control me.

 

[MasterOfTheSwords]

I'll see you at God's desk when you die, Crono. Your argument has proved nothing, you haven't provided evidence, and you have failed to prove that Christianity is false.

[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: AculemNaeomeus ]</p>

 

[SnorSnor]

I've argued all I've wanted, but it's obvious none of you theists can comprehend the errors in your faiths.<hr></blockquote>

Like what? <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

 

[ChronoElemental]

This is gettin annoying.This started with someone who wanted to legalize DRUGS,then someone started talkin about religion.Comeon this has 227 POSTS! Just leave it alone for while.

 

[androza]

Acu, your post on evolution is extremely outdated. First of all(not necassarily pertaining to your argument,) we have created amino acids from nothing but component chemicals and electricity. This closely mimiced the atmosphere of Earth billions of years ago. Next, we have seen inorganic materials act in organic ways, such as splitting apart and growing when dropped on hot clay.

Next, macroevolution is just a large number of micro evolutions. Eventually enough microevolutions will make different species.

And if you wont agree that inorganic materials can be made into living ones, what do you think cells are made of? Theyre basically a phospholipid cell wall, inside which contains the nuclei, mitochondria and other systems that maintian the cell. In fact, cells are remarkably similiar to actual organisms, possessing a rudimentary nervous systems, waste removal organs, and power plants. And all of tehse are made up of cells, namely carbon. An inorganic material.

So what do you want as my sources? Textbooks okay? AP Bio teacher? Discovery magazine?

[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: androza ]</p>

 

[finchbonsomgomluasong]

::after many days and nights of endless persistence, Joel has finally finished reading, yet another religion topic::
"MWA-HA, HA!" Joel cries. "I WILL NOW POST WITH KNOWLEDGE AND POWER!!!"
*pause*
:D Heeheee..

Anyway, I've been busy with school, soo.. you know.

ME POST:

..

MEPOSTMEPOSTMEPOST!: *I'm excited* "ME POST!"

I don't see why science and religion have to prove each other wrong. Although God created the universe, Earth, 'n all that, He also created science. One post Rob made, I believe, was very cool. Lemme see if I can find it.

"*Change: Everything that changes is affected by something else; there must be a something changeless
*Efficient Cause: All the secondary causes that esist in the universe require an initial efficien cause
*Neceesity and Possibiity: The fact that all things are dependent on other things point to the need for a being that exist by itself, not dependent on anything else
*Standard of perfection: There must be an ultimate standard for truth, and perfection for our judgements to have truth value
*Design: THe presence of design and purpose in the universe and in ceatures and in parts and relations points to a creative mind as origin"

Maybe I think too much about math, space, and the theory of relitivity 'n junk, but I really like Rob's first three points. Makes sense. When'd someone get so smart? But sometimes I wonder if I really should be releating science and math to God. He exhists outside of science, yet somehow I find what Rob said to be very.. relative. It's like a scientific connection between God and man, the problem is that I'm not sure I believe there's supposed to be one, which is all very confusing to me. Rob, if you got more cool stuff like this to say I wouldn't mind hearing it. Post here, or PM me if you feel like it.

 

[Mike Larkenson]

Originally posted by AculemNaeomeus:
<strong>I'll see you at God's desk when you die, Crono. Your argument has proved nothing, you haven't provided evidence, and you have failed to prove that Christianity is false.

[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: AculemNaeomeus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

You're sheer ignorance blinds me. I have been lying back reading some posts, and let me tell you, you're actually made me look lower at xianity then I already did, nd look at evolution higher than it is. You've totally messed up the xian side of the debate by copying and pasting biased stuff from a xian site.
But on the other hand, SnorSnor has been keeping the xian side alive and sort of under control(hard to do with the lack of intelligence of you posts).

As for Crono not providing any evidence, has anyone here proved any evidence whatsoever that either proves or disproves the Bible? No.
Now there has been evidence(not alot), facts, opinions, and of course natural logical posts about evolution.
So how do we answer all of our questions? How do we prove or disprove them? Our answer is the same as it has always been since the beggining of any topic trying to prove that thing that our ancestors made up when they got bored errr religion, we don't know. No clear solid evidence to prove neither sides. Just speculation. Allegedly.
I leave you with this: IMO, this is a debate over faith vs Okam's razor(basically logic)

 

[Liquid Entropy]

Acum,
I am breaking out a bible, and I'm doing some
outside research.

I am taking your precious site appart, piece by
piece.

I'll post it, all of it, when I'm done.

 

[Armchair Athlete]

Whoa, i'm not buying ANY of this stuff.

There are just tooo many religions and they aren't making sense to me and just confusing me.

I've once heard that the simplest explanation is usually the correct one... Christianity and other religions seem far from simple.

I will not believe something that has no proof, especially if it wants to limit my freedom saying that I cannot "sin" or whatever.

For now I have no affiliation with any religion. I guess it's called Agnostic or something, not sure. But, someday I'll research a whole ton and figure out the religion that WORKS FOR ME. I will not "jump on the bandwagon" with some religion just because everyone else believes.

...

 

[Mmm Mmm Gopher]

Originally posted by AculemNaeomeus:
<strong>Ohhh...big words, Gamer. Go on, arrest me, then! You're a laugh. And again, EVERYBODY HAS DISSED MY ARGUMENT BUT NOT BEEN ABLE TO PROVE IT WRONG. Same with the site. Don't change the subject to carbon dating, Gamer4Fire. You just can't prove me wrong. </strong><hr></blockquote>

Dude, Aculem, where's your evidence to prove your argument CORRECT? (besides a lame site featuring ear-candied misinformation) Sure we can't PROVE you wrong because I don't own any evolution-since the-beginning-of-earth-made-easy simulation kits with me. In fact no one does. Neither of us can PROVE anything about all that because we weren't around back then. Sure, I could cite a thousand scientific passages that contradict your argument, but you'd just say that they're all wrong. Where would YOUR PROOF THAT THEY'RE WRONG BE!?!?!??

No one can PROVE an argument about the beginning of life WRONG or RIGHT, Aculem. We weren't around back then. All we can do here is state our opinions here and the rationale for them.

So stop trying to hide behind the argument that I have no proof you're wrong. Do you have physical proof that I'M wrong? Sure my rebuttle could be YOU HAVEN'T BEEN ABLE TO PROVE IT WRONG!!! ALL YOU'VE DONE IS DISSED MY OPINION!!!
...Cuz the fact is that all we've been doing this whole time is "dissing" each other's opinions. I can't PROVE you wrong. You can't PROVE me wrong. I can't PROVE I'm right. You can't PROVE you're right. Why do you think this issue is so contraversial?

 

[Crono]

I'll see you at God's desk when you die, Crono. Your argument has proved nothing, you haven't provided evidence, and you have failed to prove that Christianity is false. <hr></blockquote>

God's desk? OK. Now, I have provided evidence, though you choose to ignore them. You ignore everything that doesn't suit you, but you follow things that sound good to you. You are just like everyone else.

If you show me god, I really could not argue it. I would have to believe it. I could deny it, but that wouldn't do anything. And also, you haven't said (or QUOTED) a single thing to prove xianity is true. You also haven't said anything to prove the other religions are false and yours is the true one. Xianity makes no more sense than any other religion (except religions that do not have a god, such as Buddhism).

 

[Mmm Mmm Gopher]

Originally posted by AculemNaeomeus:
<strong>I'll see you at God's desk when you die, Crono. Your argument has proved nothing, you haven't provided evidence, and you have failed to prove that Christianity is false.

[ December 12, 2001: Message edited by: AculemNaeomeus ]</strong><hr></blockquote>

Well of course he didnt prove Christianity is false. No one has ever truly proved that yet.

His argument has proved nothing? Um, neither has yours. You wanna talk about PROOF...see my previous post.

He hasn't provided any evidence? You're getting most of yours from a totally misinformed site. You call that bull evidence? Your site claims scientific conspiracy against the world, and basically says that scientists lie, fossils don't form continually, and claims the dinos were alive around the time of humans. Don't go on about PROOF...Any scientific document about the progression of life clearly states that humans were alive no where near the time that dinos were.
Your "evidence" is a misinformed website. His "evidence" comes from basic scientific information widely accepted and rarely challenged because of it's merit.

Well of course he didnt prove Christianity is false. No one has ever completely proved it right or wrong yet. You want me to go ahead and say "you FAILED to prove Christianity?" Cuz technically you have. Technically, everyone here has "FAILED" to prove their point. You really like harsh, meaningless words, don't you.

Like I said, all we can do here is state our opinions and the rationale for them.

 

[The Last Great Adventurer]

I have friends who are so deeply religios they don't even bother to understand the theroy at all. They hear "Humans evlved from apes." An emmiditly think a monkey spontanisly one day gave birth to human. Sheer lackc of information just because they don't bother to resurch it because there first hearing of it makes it sound satanic.


Here is a brief abstract of how evolution works...

1) you have a rat.
2) over long periods of time some rats are born with a better ability to smell and there for can find food faster then rats who can't smell as well.
3)the rats who have normal smelling ability die off becasue most of the food is eaten by the better smelling rats.
4) the rats who can smell beter mate and have baby rats that also have the "beter smelling" genetic trait.
5) those rats find food jsut as well as other rats. and the population returns to normal befor better smelling rats came to be.

this theroy can be used to explain ape to human evolution. But first you need a brief history of humans.

millions of years ago a group of african monkeys came down from the trees in order to find food. They lived in the long grass which was full of Lions and cheetas that preyed on the monkeys. A few monkeys had the ability to stand up better then other monkeys and in standing up could see the preditorars coming. As monkeys that couldn't stand up were eaten by preditors the monkeys that could stand reprodused creating a group of monkeys that could stand up right. And in this group of monkeys some had better site and hearing which also aided in detecting preditors so thes monkeys lived longer then even the monkeys who could just stand and then passed there traits on. This proccess continued until the monkeys were in distinguishable from humans in looks and actions so they became human. no ape ever gave birth to a human, because the race was in evolution transition what ever offspring would have blended in with the group at the time of it's birth.

And thats all I got to say about that.

 

[Crono]

Last Great Adventurer:
I know you are on my side, but you seem to have a very simple understaning of evolution. I posted this back on page 5, but i feel a need to post it again for clarification. here it is:

Evolution cannot be viewed on a small scale. It must be looked at in a much larger scale (by this I mean evolution is not noticible over short periods of time). Now evolution is going on today in HUMANS. Over the past centuries, avergae height has increased a foot. Also, all the different races of people is evolution right there. If evolution is false, people would all be the same color. And why do we still have monkeys? You see, a million years ago, we had monkeys. Now, most monkeys were living comfortably in certain areas of the world, so there was no need to adapt to anything new. But one group of monkeys was having a hard time. After many generations, their genes adjusted to these changes (something called ADAPTATION) and they lived comfortably. Now as these primates continued to get smarter, they searched for new knowledge. See, knowledge brings a need to seek more knowledge, like when power hungry people always crave more power. So with this knowledge, brain mass increased and intelligence increased. Humans continue to get smarter generation after generation. Some of you look at evolution in a wrong way. You think that every animal of one species must evolve. This is simply not true. Animals of a species do not have connected genomes. They are separate. This is why we still have monkeys. Not all evolved into homo sapiens. This should not be hard to comprehend. If you still do not understand, I pity you.

 

[Ratrograde]

I'll see you at God's desk when you die, Crono. Your argument has proved nothing, you haven't provided evidence, and you have failed to prove that Christianity is false.


Sounds like a concession if ever there was one. But that's just me.

Remember, there's more to life than evolution vs. xianity. Gods aren't an either-or matter, nor are they really appropriate for standards of "proof", or "right" or "wrong". These are for concrete objects, not personal religious beliefs; beware the man (or woman, I suppose) who has confused his religion with any kind of truth. S/he is usually doing them both a disservice.

There's a little over six billion people running around on the planet at the moment. Around 60 to 70 percent of them aren't xian, and probably could care less. It's good to have perspective-- because when people don't have a proper sense of perspective about their own religion, they do things like fly planes into skyscrapers.

Another problem with the whole "creation/ evolution" debate is that it's another false duality. Black vs. white may be comfortable and easy to take sides about, but real life is rarely that simple. If you're a deist, then you can argue about creators. But if you're an xian, then you're not really arguing a creator. You're arguing a personal, interventionist deity of another breed entirely.

"Creation" is one thing, but from there to a particular personal god, and all the attendant religious baggage is quite a vast leap to make. (A leap of faith, maybe ... but then again, if faith was involved, one wouldn't need to justify one's religion externally, would they ...)

Perspective, again. Everyone doesn't believe in somebody's gods. And for those who claim their own, different gods mean different things to different people. If you hold whatever gods you hold in high enough esteem to threaten others with their majesty, do yourself a favor and try not to embarrass them.

Happy solstice to all, and to all a good night.