Creation ping list
See my profile for info
Posted on 05/23/2005 3:29:06 AM PDT by PatrickHenry
Perhaps you should.
The basic argument is that the current model of Egyptian chronology is flawed.
I see. Well, your link appears to discuss Moses, not Noah. Whatever the case may be, I gave you both pharaohs to work with depending on whichever biblical timeline (that I'm aware of) fits your preferences. Look on the bright side, that gives you twice the opportunity to explain the mystery of aquatic pharaohs!
I'm also not sure about the Pyramids. The second article claims they were built after the flood. I remember reading, but not sure where, that some of the pyramids show evidence of massive water damage. Not sure which is right.
Probably neither.
Creation ping list
See my profile for info
By pushing the teaching of creation as some Christians see it in the public schools, Creationists are indeed using taxpayer dollars. Creationists are also using them in funding these pseudo-debates, legal actions and so on.
There are not a whole lot of scientists from India, China or Japan opposing evolution. They have their own journals to publish in, so if there was a real case, we'd see some fascinating articles from one of these places.
Accepting Creation as an act of faith is an honorable thing. Pushing pseudo-science is not.
There is no reason to be teaching the religion of evolution to kindergardeners.
No one teaches religion to kindergartners (in the public schools), and no one teaches evolution to kindergarteners, either. Although ... adding this claim to the list creationist fatuosities might be a good idea.
One of the things I love about FR is that I learn something every time I log on!
-------------------
According to HistoryBuff.com, you are correct:
-------------------
OTOH, (years ago) I read somewhere that ol' P.T. adopted and adapted the saying after it was directed at him. His version supposedly went:
P.T.B.: "There's one born every minute!"
Sucker: "One what?"
P.T.B.: "Hello, there, Sucker!"
-------------------
True or not, it (like the "Egress" gag) sounds like something PhineasT. would have delighted in doing... '-)
"BTW, it is not for my honor that I believe...instead I give God the honor he deserves for his creation."
I am seriously puzzled by that sentence as a response to my comment that accepting Creation by faith is an honorable thing whereas pushing pseudo-science is not.
My intended interpretation is that is it *because* someone is honorable, not in order to acquire honor.
A lot of what is published on Creation advocating sites is clearly dishonest, and I cannot reconcile that with any religious precepts that I know of outside of the Islamic permission to lie to infidels. Certainkly nothing in Christianity.
Creation Science is practiced by grabbing rocks to throw at evolution. It doesn't matter if one rock says Archaeopteryx is a fake, one says it is just a bird, and another says it is just a dinosaur. You're not supposed to pay attention to that, anyway. You're just supposed to notice he has all these rocks to throw and be impressed.
Either one, but not both
Commie pig!
"Pushing pseudo-science is not."
You mean like your precious little Prof. Reiner Protsch von Zeiten, and his cute carbon-dating hoax?
Evo frauds are so precocious.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1196571/posts
I take this to mean that for me as a Christian to accept Creationism means that I am simply trying to maintain my "reputation" or "good name". IOW, I believe it for my own sake. I wanted to simply take the focus away from me deserving any honor for believing to the one who is honorable because of his creation.
Sounds like with your response you've clarified that. ??
And another BTW, saying "A lot of what is published..." seems a bit much for such a blanket statement of comparing Creationists to extreme Islamofascists.
Doesn't seem to stop you from doing so, for example:
Evolutionists probably take it personally, because their decision to reject God and live the way they want to hangs in the balance.
Sure, it's all about my guilty conscience.
First, the stakes are extremely high. Emotion that you sense, may reflect the stakes rather than "taking it personally".
I tend to disagree. I think you are *over stating* the importance of this issue. People take things personally because personal things are said on these threads. Even on this, an ostensibly conservative website, a majority of posters do not participate in these threads. This indicates a lack of controversiality. The threads often reach into the many hundreds of posts, but it is largely the same group of people.
Most people, including those people working in the sciences, have no problem holding both religious beliefs and scientific knowledge at the same time. There are many religious people working in the sciences, and there are many people who don't "disbelieve" the scientific theory of evolution working in religious venues. As I have said before and I'll say it again, the only conflict between science and religion is that which people make.
The stakes are the reliability of the scripture.
No, because scripture is not science. The Hebrew Bible (and Christian Bible, too) does not speak to scientific issues. It is silent about such things as deoxyribonucleic acid and the inverse square law. Science, on the other hand, is silent on such issues as morality and ethics. The bronze age Hebrews were not blessed with our understanding of biology, geology, and astronomy. Why modern science should be shoe-horned to fit within the constraints bounded by the limits of the scientific understanding of the bronze age Hebrews is beyond me.
If people doubt the reliability of the scripture, they may reject God's plan of salvation with eternal consequences for them. Therefore it is important to refute erroneous claims and interpretations of data that conflict with scripture.
If there's anything that drives people away from faith, it is not science but hypocrisy on the part of the faithful.
There seems to be a general sense among some people that science drives folks away from faith, despite the fact that many people working in scientific fields, including genetics and evolutionary science, hold religious views. Science and religion are neither mutually exclusive nor diametrically opposed. However, this preconceived notion remains. Thus some people seek to re-define science to fit within their individual religious beliefs. The only real conflict comes about when people pit science against religion, but this is a mis-use of both.
But Creationists may take it personally because they feel people are calling God a liar and they love God. It's not unlike saying something bad about your momma.
If science determines that insects preceeded birds, some people need to understand that this is not designed to impugn their religious beliefs. But people though, when they want to, can find insult in anything.
Very nicely said. If the evidence of a 6,000 year-old Earth is so compelling, why is NO ONE outside the Christian, Bible-reading community advancing the same concept?
I wouldn't be suprised at all to learn that he took the phrase and turned it to his advantage. :)
(I was referring to your "Pushing pseudo science ... " statement)
Love your tagline!
As long as Creationists (i.e.; flat earthers) continue to spew their uneducated views among conservatives, we will continue to be perceived by the left as uneducated bumpkins.
Let's see:
A scientist's work is challenged by other scientists and found out to be incorrect. Looks to me as if the system's working just fine.
100.
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.