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 ...
I am happy to add anyone to the prayer list that would like to be there...That said, I have friends on both sides of this issue. I would prefer to not be drawn into the middle of this fight.
Since no one has responded to my request for the best single argument against evolution, I'll modify the request.
What's the best single example of a lie on talkorigins?
I’m coming down with another cold- The pages are waving back and forth- Could you please restate what you just said in a little easier to follow reasoning? No sure what you’re riving at- I apologize- but my head feels liek a football today. Did you read through that .pdf link I gave you on miracles? Just curious- I enjoyed soem of the insights into how we should view htigns when being told of events from eyewitnesses- was quite informative really.
I understand. I appreciate what you do, and wouldn’t try to get you into the middle of this.
Where did you find this version, Darwin central? God said Let US make man in OUR image. Nothing about oceans having anything to do with where flesh man came. Abiogenesis is a fraud planted by that symbolic tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Thank you FRiend.
[[What’s the best single example of a lie on talkorigins?]]
Single Best? Or do you want reams of examples? IF so, (Not that I think you’ll spend much time here- but here’s the link for anyone interested in how Talkorigins misrepesents the evidence to intentionally mislead- )
But for starters, their ‘29 evidences for evolution’ was a doozy-
As well, their argument for Nature being able to subvert the second law of thermodynamics was a real whale of a tale too- Wallace soundly tromped the ‘scientist’, and the scientst ran off whining about being ‘picked on’ by Wallace- it was quite the exchange
I’ll take prayer to quite smoking- and 6to be more Christlike if you don’t mind? Being serious here.
I’m goign to have to bow out for a bit- Not reading straight here- Thought you implied there was noone on FR who accused Christians of being one or hte other-
what is the problem with the 2nd law?
That's on Ken ham's list of arguments that creationists should not use.
"If you're going to take some parts literally, then you have to take all of what he said literallyand if you're going to take some parts metaphorically, then you have to take it all metaphorically."
It was further submitted in a subsequent post that this what the "evos" accuse the "biblical literalists" of doing with the Bible. I asked for an example of someone acutally saying that.
One of the most basic laws in the universe is the Second Law of Thermodynamics. This states that as time goes by, entropy in an environment will increase. Evolution argues differently against a law that is accepted EVERYWHERE BY EVERYONE.Evolution says that we started out simple, and over time became more complex. That just isn't possible: UNLESS there is a giant outside source of energy supplying the Earth with huge amounts of energy. If there were such a source, scientists would certainly know about it.
I didn't say that, but it got answered as if I had.
I would argue that Biblical literalists pick and choose the things they think are mandatory and the things they think are optional.
For example, I don't see many FReepers advocating turning the other cheek.
I’ll send a freepmail prayer request. You will get prayer replies in freepmail. Thank you for giving us the opportunity to pray for you.
The literal meaning of turning the other cheek is when a Christian offends one who is unlearned in the WORD. Nice try in changing meanings of what is WRITTEN.
The question is about literal interpretations and metaphoracal interpretations. What the Bible says is:
“38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘AN EYE FOR AN EYE, AND A TOOTH FOR A TOOTH.’ 39 “But I say to you, do not resist an evil person; but whoever slaps you on your right cheek, turn the other to him also. 40 “If anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, let him have your coat also. 41 “Whoever forces you to go one mile, go with him two.”
Applied to evolutionists and their demands they are on the big time loser side. Maybe you all ought to start practicing a bit of what you can conveniently find WRITTEN.
Clearly God called for the Oceans and the Earth to bring forth life. Thus the Biblical view is that life came from unliving matter under the command of God. Science can determine the methods whereby life could come from unliving matter (a science called abiogenesis, not evolution), but cannot determine if this was in accordance with God's will; but to a Christian such as myself that is self evident.
Now nothing about oceans here and a whole lot about planting *seeds* after his kind. Which occurs 10 times 11, 12, 12, 21, 21, 24, 24, 25, 25, 25.
Genesis 1:20 And God said, “Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, *and* fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.”
Nothing here about a steaming pot that led one single cell to gravitate to form these creatures.
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.