Posted on 02/05/2014 9:40:42 AM PST by EveningStar
Streamed live on Feb 4, 2014
Is creation a viable model of origins in today's modern, scientific era? Leading creation apologist and bestselling Christian author Ken Ham is joined at the Creation Museum by Emmy Award-winning science educator and CEO of the Planetary Society Bill Nye.
(Excerpt) Read more at youtube.com ...
That's going a bit far, insofar as you use the word "proof." Evidence, yes. Proof? No.
The Bible "suggests" the heavens and are real, created entities. Does reality suggest otherwise for you?
“This anti-science attitude that is co-opting conservatism is
going to cost us a lot of educated suburban voters.”
News flash: those “educated suburban voters” love abortion, RINOs, and Obama. We’ve already lost them.
Evolutionists ARE liberals.
His substance was as old as created matter at the time. His age at the moment he became a living being would have been zero. His form was likely that of a 33-year-old male. I sense, however, you did not ask this question to be informed, but rather to mock.
Just as the existence of a car is proof beyond a reasonable doubt of a designer of that car, so your body is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that Someone designed you.
Darwinism requires transference from one major animal group to another of which there is no evidence.
Not to mock, but to inspire a thought.
How old was the earth when it was created?
Sigh. So John Boner is right. We have to let the liberals frame and define the arguments. If we can’t trust what the Bible clearly says, and have to allow godless people to adjust it, we have nothing. Everyone just believed what the Bible said until progressives set out to discredit it through “science” falsely so called. You were just fed evolution and billions of years by godless teachers, Hollywood, and media types. You took it without questions.
Perhaps you’re a scientist. Your worldview was given you by Marxist professors. You hated their politics because you were shown alternatives. But you adopted their theology because the alternative is stifled. Maybe you just rejected the alternative because it’s convicting.
Anyway, I’m going to believe the Bible, let God be true, and every man a liar.
What's a "major animal group", and who gets to decide what counts as evidence?
Rom 5:12
“Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:”
The god who ordained death as a matter of perfecting his creation is a sorry god. He’s not my God. I want nothing to do with your religion, as it gives no hope of life. Your god loves death. If I were lost, in my sins, with no hope of eternal life, I’d want a god who offered life. If I were the average prideful sinner, so encouraged by modernity’s abhorrence of God’s Word, I’d create my own god as you have.
This presents difficulty insofar as written reports (including science) by those who have gone before us have gaps. I accept the biblical texts as accurate and authoritative on the matter, but since they do not focus on the precise age of the earth, I'm not sure why I, or science, or anyone for that matter, ought to be required to answer with much precision. But there is absolutely no question as far as what the biblical texts say on the face of things regarding origin, purpose, place, and destinations. I rather enjoy the fact that not all the answers are given, but are mostly hidden.
It’s impossible that the God of the Bible used macro, Darwinist evolution.
Who decided that, on what evidence?
Is there nothing about Darwinism that was and is wrong?
The Bible. The only thing I can be sure of. God inspired it so we would know Him. I just read it without letting a bunch of modernist and post-modernist tell me what it says.
How does something come from nothing?
How does life comes from lifelessness?
That article is ridiculous. Materialism didn’t tell us that God created the heavens and the earth in six days, the BIBLE did. If anything, materialism is responsible for the idea that we must reduce those passages of the Bible to “poetry” or “allegory”, in order not to run afoul of materialism. That is certainly not the traditional, historical Christian interpretation of the passages.
The Bible doesn’t specifically address that. We can draw from inference that he was in his early to mid 20s.
evolve or adapt....there is a difference?
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.