You have to know how to prepare it!
Posted on 01/14/2007 5:31:07 PM PST by Tim Long
Just a quick note - I'm a believe in the scriptures. You could call me a YEC, but I probably won't fit into that mold after this.
How long did Adam live? 930 years.
When did time start for Adam? Gen 2:17 "But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die."
How long did Adam live BEFORE he and Eve sinned?
You have to know how to prepare it!
318- no sir nothign is lacking- you can readily find the info on secular science sites- as I said- not all scientists cover their ears eyes and mouths- some annalyze and dissect the facts truthfully- not afraid of confronting opposing facts.
320- If indeed- however, as I said- IF the coding is not there to begin with it can never be forced through mutations- decades of mutating fruit flies has pretty much sealed the deal on this issue- MANY mutations occured, and were recorded, and all were seen as alterations of coding that was already avasilable- NO introductions of NEW information were ever produced., nor have any been found in nature when scrutinized by science. This is backed up by forensic annalysis of the species. The Nylon eating bacteria was at first thought to have had NEW information produced through soem random mutation, but was later discovered to have always had the coding, but suppressed due to lack of nylon in the past- forensic discovery uncovered this- Oh- there were many, and still are many who refuse to admit this, but the facts don't lie.
You obviously don't know what naturalistic means. Why am I not surprised.
A) your fellow man and often religious scientiests are so wantonly wicked that they've successfully engaged in blatant fraud for the past century
Ever hear of Piltdown Man, Nebraska Man, Haeckel's embryo drawings, etc.? I doubt it. You're so obsessed with the religion of Darwin that you can do nothing but accuse thinking individuals of pride, which has nothing to do with objective truth.
I've heard that trite talking point enough. It's irrelevant. It doesn't matter if they can; they don't.
--Ever hear of Piltdown Man,--
Wasn't that the fraud by the French priest that was determined by scientists to be a fraud?
http://www.nmsr.org/nylon.htm
Where creationists have it all wrong.
But I have to give you credit. You certainly stay up to date with the creationist website lies.
Not at all. I appreciate sincere questions.
There is a theory that the verse refers to a water canopy present at creation that accounts for the doubled atmospheric pressure at the time, as evidenced in amber air bubbles. The canopy is thought to have fallen as rain after being disrupted by steam jets released in the tectonic chaos of the Deluge. This is a view that I accept, but the organization building the museum does not.
I'd disagree. The shoot was a great concept, but poor execution. : )
What about them?
Piltdown was a hoax that fooled a few British anthropologists for a while, but was increasingly ignored because it didn't fit the overall pattern of evolution. A few decades later scientists finally got around to showing why it didn't fit.
Nebraska Man fooled one fellow and an illustrator for a while. Big deal.
The drawings? Bah! Creationist exaggeration at its best.
If that's the best you can come up with against 150 years of evolutionary exploration and science you're not even half trying. Get over to AnswersinGenesis or one of those other sites and you can be an instant expert.
But don't expect scientists to pay much attention. Its already been debunked here: Index of Creationist Claims.
He can't hold a candle to Sirlinksalot on the other thread.
So does the Bible, but you'd never know it if you spent all of your time reading the posts of willfully ignorant people who have better things to do than actually read the book itself.
and you certainly don't keep up with errors presented to you by secular sites- those rebuttles on that site have all been re- rebuttled succsefully- your boys at nmsr do exactly what talkorigin.com does and that is put words in the mouths of their oponents in an attempt to discredit them and make them look foolish- nmsr's arguments are disingenuous and deceitful and so are talkorigins. Had you looked into the matter more closely- you would have seen that- nmsr is saying spetner said something when he waas NOT saying that at all- and nmsr does NOT even counter the valid points made by spetner-
Spetner was arguing that the bacteria fed on precursors to nylon and ALREADY had the info in their gene code that could adapt to actual nylon- NO NEW info was produced in the bacteria- nmsr then goes on to assert that INCREASES in info mean NEW information- you would catch that subtly unless you looked objectively at what nmsr was saying- but nmsr misses the point completely evidently- yet that doesn't stop them from trying to deceive by asserting that sptner 'admitted to an increase' and trying to deceive you by infering that increases mean evolution- it does NOT.
Mnsr's bacterial resistance to antibiotics argument that it would prove evolution is laughable at best and has been totally refuted by secular sciences.
But alas- you'll beleive what you want
yes, that's the whole point of the evolution theory of course. To justify our lower animalistic side as being natural. The darkside does it's best work through bad science. A very sophisticated brainwashing which seems like true knowledge. It's all driven by some anger towards parents or some bad authority which makes people tend to hate God. Not saying I'm free of all my anger but I just see how it opens our minds to false teachings.
my gosh- the more I read on that site the more disingenuous it really is- either that or it's ignorant of facts- 'right handed snails are sexually isolated, and thus a 'new species' was put forth as some kind of lame attempt to prove evolution? All it did was reinforce the fact that microevolution happens- which we all agree on- it's evolution through mutations that we don't agree on- species going outside their own KIND to create new KINDS with the NEW information that has been received (presumably by some biologically impossible lateral gene transferences that all worked in harmony to magically create the new KIND- despite hte fact that lateral gene transferences have never been recorded between dissimiliar KINDS.)
If radiocarbon dating is only good for 50,000 year-old specimens, or younger... how do we get the ages of older specimens? I can see where we can extrapolate ages of geological formations from what is in each layer, etc, but how do we know, for example, how old a rock is?
"Studies of the DNA code support evolution."
And studies of DNA code support creationism. It is such a complex system of information, and requires such an amazing organization make it work, that it couldn't possibly be mere random molecules, acting in a random fashion. If life is so easy, try making some, using only non-living materials, then get back to me. Hey, if DNA is just a bunch of molecules, then get a bucket of those molecular components, and let's see how much DNA you get from it.
"Show me some proof, some facts."
OK, take all the proof, and all the facts that your favorite scientists have already used to convince you that life was all one big coincidence. Now, draw the only plausible conclusion from all that evidence; life had to have been created, purposely, by a creator. Life is found everywhere, all over the world, even in the darkest, most inhospitable regions of the ocean floor, so it must be VERY EASY to make, right? If it's so abundant, as it is, then making some should be a lead-pipe-cinch. Heck, it's hard to keep the stuff at bay! So, go ahead. Take any non-living materials you want, and create some life. Take your time. Take 6 days, if you want.
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.