oh yeah, that was an intelligent statement
Posted on 07/09/2003 12:08:32 PM PDT by PatrickHenry
Watch those senate confirmation hearings and if you publicly state your beliefs and sincerity you are vetted - crucified ... there is supposed to be no religious - ideological special interest test or religious PLEDGE for office and now the supreme court has established them ... abortion - pornography - evolution - gun control - racial - sexual preferences especially !
oh yeah, that was an intelligent statement
You are writing the above tongue-in-cheek right?
Please explain the origins of sex according to evolution.
in their world, God must act directly from time-to-time to "fix" His creation, insert a species here, or take one out there.
No, He is just concerned with His creation as He says in the Bible.
So what is the atheist interpretation of how RNA learned to read the abstract DNA code? Was it sent to a public school?
Like you, I've drifted around within the agnostic spectrum, but continued to believe that nobody who claims to know for sure that there is or is not a God has a clue. For sure, God shouldn't be telling people to sabotage science teaching, or to get out there and lie their keisters off for him.
Actually I don't either. I do think that God is omnipresent in that the world is entirely a gift of His being, but I'm doubtful about omnipotence and omniscience. It seems to me that these attributes are incompatible with a personal God and even with God's perfection. God would be the ultimate knower, but I suspect He is also the ultimate learner, and is experiencing His own being in new ways through the evolution of the universe. God's knowledge must be profound and supreme, but not so that He is incapable of experiencing novelty and discovery.
If you read Snelling carefully, you will see that the material being measured can be totally changed based on the history of the rock (even have measured material ADDED) Post #1313 clearly shows why dating methods are so TOTALLY unreliable that they should not be used at all. Clearly dating results should not be used if one truely cares for dating accuracy. Not only are the starting condidions of rock under test unknown , (we cannot know the history of the rock, since we weren't there when the rock formed), it is also true that what the rocks go through can ADD or subtract relevant measurable material. Snelling clearly points this out
It is clear that these methods are used by evolutionists because they love the results...It doesn't matter to these "objective scientists" that the dates shouldn't be trusted "It's just gotta be old", says the hopefull evolutionist.
Hi Alamo-Girl, thanks for your thoughts on the subject. You are certainly not alone in this opinion. However, I do not believe God would have had the creation account written from a perspective of time He only understands. Clearly the context of Gen makes it clear to me the the writer was talking 24 hour days. Additionally, why would God have something written that had a totally different meaning then what is read in the text? If God wanted to say a billion years, I strongly believe He would have had the writer clearly state a billion years.. Not only that, Jesus makes it clear how the time frames should be understood by his own statement on the subject.
oh yeah, that was an intelligent statement
I'm puzzled by your response to Piltdown_Woman. You don't think species have been inserted or deleted? These figures are off the top of my head, but there are over a quarter million species indentified from fossil remains, and only about one percent of those are also known as living species. There must be millions of more species not preserved, discovered or identified as fossils. Where do you think they are all hiding out if they were not deleted?
I don't believe you answered my question. If they are so inaccurate, why do dating methods on a group of index fossils from a paleontological age so closely match? These fossils are from vastly different environments spread around the globe, and they each have been subject to varying amounts of these outgassings, presumably. How can fossil datings match so closely if this is such a large effect?
Even if that statement were not b.s., it still wouldn't matter. There is plenty of evidence that the world is ancient without radiometric dating. This was universally recognized by creationist geologists well before Darwin published The Origin. The young earth nonsense is a modern innovation of biblical literalists that doesn't even pass the muster of early 19th Century science, let alone that of the 21st.
Why am I not surprised?
You keep referring to this great "Christian community" as somehow proving creationism.
Don't recall that I used the fabulous "Christian Community" argument in proving creationism....care to point me to this post?
Just because individuals, brainwashed in churches with creationist religious doctrine, obtain a college degree in Theology, does not prove that what they were taught is "true".
Well, I certainly don't have a Theology degree, but I DO have an Electrical Engineering degree. To get that piece of paper, I had to take numerous college level courses in biology, chemestry, physics, and mathematics. As far as being "brainwashed", I'd like to refer to it as having my brain "cleansed in Truth".
There ya go, that is how it looks from our side, but ya see, we have an advantage, we can look at the evidence for ourselves, we can pick the fossils up, we can go into a genetics lab and talk to ACTUAL scientists doing experiments. We can SEE it.
Goodie...you can talk to other biased "scientists", hoping beyond hope, to find something, ANYTHING, that will prove their illogical theory. Sadly, they have failed.
You on the other hand have taken someones word, 4th 5th, 100th hand that A: the bible is the literal word of god and B: it is PERFECT.
No, I have read the testomony of many fine men and women on subjects like the creation, the resurrection, etc. Now I look around all around me and say, "Gee, it's so obvious that we have a Creator". I'm thankfull for that.
Well, it ain't perfect, it contradicts itself just in the first chapter, if ANYONE other then a religious theologian took a look at your bible from a neutral viewpoint as in they have never heard of it, nor have ever seen it, you would get one shocking surprise.
Point out this alleged, specific, "contridiction" so we can all discuss it.
There is NO evidence that creation happened the way it says in Genesis, the ONLY evidence you have is the bible.
The evidence is a clear as the eyes you have between your nose.
It is called CIRCULAR reasoning, you can get away with that in religion, but NOT science.
No, I start with God and simply observe what's around me. You evolutionist, however, start with some wild assumption and then try to somehow fit the evidence into said wild theory. That is truely Circular reasoning. The fact is your bias gets in the way of your objectivity.
Evolution is science, whether YOU like it or not, and TENs of thousands of scientists agree with me, and 10's of thousands of fundamentalists agree with you.
Since evolution cannot stand up to the scientific method, it is NOT science. I know you wish it to be. No matter how many biologists belong to the Church of Evolution, evolution is just another religion.
Hmm, so on science, who is the authority? Scientists, or a bunch of Religious fundamentalists? Tough call there big guy.
Insults aside, I know you like to chant, "evolution is science", but no matter how many times you, or other "scientists" chant it doesn't change the facts that apply to the evolution religion. . Sorry about that, "Big guy".
Aye, there's the rub!
Gives you a real flavor for the education we'll be getting if this freak show ever takes over.
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.