Posted on 01/04/2009 5:39:47 AM PST by PurpleMountains
All across the country, archeologists, paleontologists and biologists are taking part in what is perhaps the greatest example of political correctness in history – their adherence to Darwinism and their attempts to ostracize any scientist who does not agree with them. In doing so, they are not only ignoring the vast buildup of recent scientific discoveries that seriously undermines the basics of Darwinism, but they are also participating, due to politically correctness, in a belief system that indirectly resulted in the deaths of millions of people – those slaughtered by the Stalins, the Hitlers, the Maos, the Pol Pots and others who took their cue from Darwinism’s tenets.
(Excerpt) Read more at forthegrandchildren.blogspot.com ...
Christianity has been consistent for the last 2,000 years as the new Testament hasn’t changed any since then.
When His Light shines through us, our own individuality will often color the words of God. The same Light will shine through one and appear blue; another, red; another, green.
It is the same Light, but we are different creatures.
The foundation of the New Jerusalem is a great metaphor for this phenomenon. Each stone is named for an apostle, each stone is a different color.
And the foundations of the wall of the city [were] garnished with all manner of precious stones. The first foundation [was] jasper; the second, sapphire; the third, a chalcedony; the fourth, an emerald; The fifth, sardonyx; the sixth, sardius; the seventh, chrysolite; the eighth, beryl; the ninth, a topaz; the tenth, a chrysoprasus; the eleventh, a jacinth; the twelfth, an amethyst. – Revelation 21:19-20
Jesus could have chosen twelve Johns or twelve Peters but He didn't.
A pure diamond does not obstruct the Light. If it is dropped in clean water, it cannot be seen at all. Such a person is so devoted to God we hardly notice him.
That's because Christianity doesn't address those issues, per se.
What's not in black and white is subject to individual interpretation, as opposed to statements like,......
John 14:6 Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me."
If you’re going to teach the creation account from the Bible, then it says the same thing in both Bibles. If you’re going to teach different interpretations, then that’s a different issue.
But how hard can that be? All you have to do is have them read those two chapters and say that some people think it’s fact as it’s written and some people think that it’s an allegory.
That statement would take what? All of a minute to say?
Why are you so intent on making it harder than it is?
Lol..
[[One can not determine all of what you listed from words posted on the Internet.]]
I didn’t say I determined it- I said perhaps- knowing Christ liek I do, and knowing that God said ye shall know them by their fruits, it does however seem quite plausible that she is able to discern who her brothers and sisters are because family members know their own
Or a metaphor of an allusion..
I see you answered already- Great answer- so I’ll part with this:
Devnet- What she said
Woo Wee thats gotta hurt..
[[[ What if the reality of the situation is that what you wrote is an illusion? ]
Or a metaphor of an allusion..
Metaphoricly speaking, that’s not such a delusional answer after all
OK. Thanks for the holler.
They have a choice.
They can either admit that science could be wrong.
Or after telling us that science isn’t about truth anyway, the can tell us that science could not be wrong.
;)
Not only a different color arraignment but a different crystal lattice-work.. The very crystaline structure is different between stones.. or even metals.. Even metal(gold/silver) is crystaline.. How much MORE are "WE" humans unique and "special" in composition.. Each of us are unique dynamic complex spirits.. i.e. beings.. Whether we are christians or not.. Could be each footstep we take or move of the hand or grunted word adds to the composition of the lattice-work of our lives.. producing a metaphorical precious stone... guilded in gold and silver..
Maybe each moment should not be wasted..
[[You simply will not accept scientific evidence when it appears to contradict your religious beliefs..]]
Just one more hting before I leave for night- I’ve yet to run into anythign that even coems remotely close to contradicting my own personal beliefs- infact, the more I examine the claims made by Macroevolutionists, and htem ore I examine the evidences, the more apparent it is that Believing in Macroevolution is more a faith than religion itself is. As well, The more I study the actual science, the more I find that it supports ID, and that the only way to dismiss it is to come up with yet another Macroevolutionary, assumption laced scenario, about past events for which there is zero evidence to back the claims up.
Tell me Coyote- Even granting humans are similar to chimps, and that the billions of differences (which incidently can’t be expalined for in the few relatively short years on the supposed evolutionary timescale) don’t infact really matter, how is it that htis somehow would disprove creation? Would this automatically mean Macroevolution must therefore be true and Creation invalid? So how is this ‘contradicting’ my ownn personal beliefs outside of the science?
What evidence have you, or anyone else provided that ‘contradicts’ my beleifs? I’ve certainly not seen any presented here on FR- that’s for sure- infact, in my studies, and research, I’ve run across information that does just the opposite- it contradicts Macroevolution claims, asnd when it does, we get pat answers from Macroevos like “It just gives the appearance of Irredicuble complexity and design” with no explanations for how nature could do so- We’re just expected to take macroevo’s word for it that nature must have somehow done this in the past.
As well, I’ve learned that the whole Macroevolutionary system breaks down before it even gets started- right fro mthe very beginning- and it doesn’t just break down slightly- it breaks down compeltely. I’ve also learned that Macroevolution is biolgically, mathematically impossible, and that it violates one of htem ost fundamental laws of nature itself- the second law- but this too I’m assured, is ‘easily explained away’ by showing htat static ice-crystals form in ‘an open system’ as opposed to a closed one- but when I investigate further, I see that open systems are even worse for TOE- NOT better-
I also see that the only types of evidence presented for TOE are wholly unrelated species, drawn out in deceitful diagrams, placing a guinnepig sized animal next to a hippo sized one, comparing bones in their jaws, supposedly showing ‘the migration of the bones to the inner ear’ and I’m told that this is apparently the ‘most complete’ picture of ‘macroevolution in progress’?
Again, Where is the actual evidence that supposedly contradicts my beliefs? The more I’m shown by you folks, the more apparent it becoems just how much faith you really have to have to beleieve in TOE.
No Coyoter- My personal beleifs haven’t been rocked by anythign you folks have presented- not even close- Nor has it been contradicted by any evidences. Now, it might upset you that I don’t have the same faith that you have in a process that has zero evidence to back it up, but lashing out with petty little comments about me certainly isn’t goign to help your case any-
so yes- Tcuk your head and refuse to read my ‘boring’ posts (You’ve threatened this many times in the past- yet keep coming back for some reason?), but in the meantime, I’ll keep marching on- collecting more and more evidence that just goes to confirm what I already suspect
P.S- I’ll be happy to present you with the impossibilites of Abiogensis if you like? Or do you beleive life got it’s start soemwhere down hte road somehow magiaclly? (I’ve plenty of evidnece against that scenario too- Oh, that’s right- You find the science that refutes your beleif system boring- forgive me- forgot you weren’t reading my posts anymore)
Reason can only be applied to axioms or to evidence you believe to have been gathered by truth tellers.
It's pretty obvious from the comments posted that creationists believe scientists are frauds and liars.
It also seems that the thought of changing sides in the debate is as repugnant as the thought of changing one's sexual orientation.
From my own point of view, I participate in these debates not to convince the opposition, but to improve my understanding and to sharpen my ability to communicate my position.
Apparently it’s not possible to get a direct answer. It’s going to get taken out of context and restated in a form that provides an opportunity to protheletize.
What you just posted on the reliabliity of science and scientific evidence. That's post #1054, on this thread. I realize I didn't copy and past the entire post in my reply. The forum software conveniently places the number of the post that was replied to at the bottom of reply post (right next to the word "To"), and even takes you right to that post if you click on the link so that you can review it if you don't understand the context of the reply.
Didn’t I answer the question that we should teach logic instead?
I'm not sure. Where was that question asked, and what are we teaching it instead of? Was your post (#1054) an example of the logic you think we should be teaching them?
So, according to you, natural selection was true in 2007, but now, in 2009, it is merely a metaphor, i.e., it doesn't exist.
Mayr was being literal when he said, “almost all of them perish or fail to reproduce,” and he was correct.
[ECO] "All the individuals of a population... are exposed to the adversity of the environment, and almost all of them perish or fail to reproduce." (E. Mayr, 2001)[js1138] my father was one of 12 children, eleven of whom lived and married.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.