[[[footnote: there was no ‘Before militant islam took over’ Islam was born in blood, lives in blood, and glories in blood. It’s first acts of faith were at the edge of a sword, and to this day they follow the same formula that fueled their growth from day one: Convert or die.] ]]
Yes there was- They were a peaceful tolorant group who lived alongside Christians and other religious groups in harmony, not bloodshed as happened AFTER Muhammahd came on the scene and hijacked an already established relgious group.
[[Ummmmm. Take a breath. When your beliefs are threatened your spelling goes all to heck. Please spell check to make it easier for my old tired eyes to follow what you are saying]
Working harder to read works the brain cells and improves the mind- you dshould be thnakinging me,
[[Nearly all were copies of Pagan Greek, Pagan Roman, and Pagan Hindu texts, all of which predated the Christian European invention of the scientific method. Fortunately the early Arab (and Irish) scholars preserved these historical records during the Church induced Dark Ages in Europe.]
Muhamahd ordered them destroyed, vast libraries of knowledge were lost ofrever.
[[Bruno was burned alive because, unlike Galileo, he refused to deny what he observed.]]
Bruno was burned alive because he refused to cave in to peer pressure and infact did beleive his eyes, not some imaginary scenarios proposed by folks with absolutely no scientific evidence to support their assumptions.
[[I never doubted that for an instant. Nor do I think that you are capable of seeing anything that might fit into that category.]
In all my years of arguing for ID on the net, in many different forums, all the coutner arguments boil down to assumptions about past events and are entirely without scientific support concering the so called macroevolution.
[[Where to begin? Gravity? So far every time I’ve dropped something, it fell. Maybe that isn’t ‘factual’ or ‘verifiable’ enough for you, but it is for me.]]
Gravity proved old earth age? Ealy Christians denied gravity? If soem did (which I’m sure htere were secularists that did too) it certainly wasn’t denied based o nthe bible- it was denied by people who obviously didn’t know any better- to try to assert that science indicted the bible because soem peopel might have denied gravity is disingenious. Those Christians who did infact beleive somethign such as Gravity of course wouldn’t be mentioned by those who try to indict htose hwo beleive in the bible. (and just for hte record, the early “Church of Rome wasn’t infact lead by true Christians but by peopel prophessing to be such, and by people who worshipped hteiro wn power over God- The early church was a corrupt organization who was more cocnerned with politcal weight and power than they were abotu obeying God. They were not God’s representatives despite hteir claism to be so.
[[Is not the fact that another planet, a bare dot in our sky, has bodies that orbit it, and not us, proof that we are not the very center of all of God’s creation, like the Bible says?]]
First of all, geoncentrists have eivdnece which makes a case for hteir idea- I donm’t take a stand on this one way or hte other as there are controversies about hte situation that are ongoing- sdecondly, I’m not aweare that bible states that we are the center, Where the evidenc3 isn’t solidified, but rather controversial, I don’t indict folks for having a different itnerpretation on issues of no real relevence. If the bible infact states that we are hte center, and isn’t open to interpretation, then one has to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that we are infact heliocentric, not geocentric. From what I know, Helicentricity has strong points to support it’s case, and so does Geocentric. I’m almost positive that in the time of Gallilaeo, there certaintly wasn’t sufficient evidences one way or hte other, and htose stating heliocentricty were doing so purely on their opinion abotu hwat they saw, and other dissagreed. Differneces of opinion have always existed on many issues of uncertainty. Soem Christians may indeed have ofrmed an opinion about hwat was seen, but to state that it was a ‘deseprate attempt’ to reconcile the observances with the bible, one has to show that the bible indeed states in no uncertain terms that we’re the center.
[[Thanks!]]
Don’t mention it.
[[What empirical evidence supported the Biblical account of creation before cosmic background radiation and telescopic observation lead to the Big Bang Theory of the last century?]]
Divine revelation. God’s word was proved tiem and time again to those He apepared to. They gave witness to the revelations, and whether you agree it happened or not, it did accordign to their own writings and the verifications and certainties garnered from the lives of the prophets and writers. As well, We have followed the geentic evidnece back throug time showing htat people did descend from a single person, further strengthening the evidence from revelation, and we know through genetics that species are discontinuous, further solidifying the idea that species are uniquely created and can’t ‘morph’ beyond hteir own kinds. There is enough evidences to establish a high degree of certainty- there is no logical reason to dismiss the revelations of htose who wrote abotu creation as God has proven Himself as Truthful, as have htose who He revealed Hismelf and His word to- one can ONLY dismiss the historical records based on bias- opinion.
[[Such as?]]
Everythign stated so far.
Islam did not exist before Mad Mo crawled into a hole to be enthralled by the hissings of The Serpent.
Muhamahd ordered them destroyed, vast libraries of knowledge were lost ofrever [sic].
True. As was the new world version of the Bible. It was a little different that the one The Church used, and the padres assumed it was satanically inspired. Given the culture that they found, one can hardly blame them!
Bruno was burned alive because he refused to cave in to peer pressure and infact [sic] did beleive [sic] his eyes, not some imaginary scenarios proposed by folks with absolutely no scientific evidence to support their assumptions.
Yes, he refused to cave to The Church's peer pressure, and believe the imaginary scenarios in that book they worship.
In all my years of arguing for ID on the net, in many different forums,
All that practice, and this is all the better you can do?
all the coutner [sic] arguments boil down to assumptions about past events and are entirely without scientific support concering [sic] the so called macroevolution.
Talk to me, what exactly do you think the term 'macroevolution' means?
Gravity proved old earth age?
Never said that. You asked How were they ‘verified’? I merely gave an example of the verification process. That is one tests the hypothesis with physical tests.
First of all, geoncentrists [sic] have eivdnece [sic] which makes a case for hteir [sic] idea- I donm’t [sic] take a stand on this one way or hte [sic] other
No doubt.
sdecondly [sic], I’m not aweare [sic] that bible states that we are the center, Where the evidenc3 [sic] isn’t solidified, but rather controversial, I don’t indict folks for having a different itnerpretation [sic] on issues of no real relevence [sic].
I've seen nothing that indicates that the Bible says the earth is it, you have stumbled on my whole point: science improves the understanding of God's creation.
From what I know, Helicentricity [sic] has strong points to support it’s case, and so does Geocentric.
Geocentric is a perfectly good enough model for throwing a baseball.
It starts to fail for aiming an ICBM, and is utterly useless for sending a probe to another planet.
I’m almost positive that in the time of Gallilaeo [sic], there certaintly [sic] wasn’t sufficient evidences one way or hte [sic] other, and htose [sic] stating heliocentricty [sic] were doing so purely on their opinion abotu [sic] hwat [sic] they saw, and other dissagreed [sic].
*sigh* Galileo DISCOVERED the facts, verifiable by anyone willing to look through even a low powered telescope, that the earth was not the center of every orbit (that's why the 4 biggest moons of Jupiter are called the Galilean Moons) and that the heavenly bodies aren't perfect.
People no less intelligent than you and I looked at the blotchy surface of the moon, and blandly decreed that all heavenly bodies were perfect. It simply never occurred to any of them, over thousands of years, that the same level of blotches on a face would be horribly disfiguring!
Galileo looked and said, ummmmmm, guys? Result? He narrowly escaped with his life!
So please don't say "I’m almost positive that in the time of Gallilaeo [sic] , there certaintly [sic] wasn’t sufficient evidences one way or hte [sic] other,". It sounds as ignorant is if you had said: "I’m almost positive that in the time of Columbus, there certainly wasn’t sufficient evidences one way or the other, to say there was a 'new world' on the other side of the Atlantic."
Divine revelation.
Maybe He routinely talks to you, but He's been notably silent on the world stage lately for the rest of us.
As well, We have followed the geentic [sic] evidnece [sic] back throug [sic] time showing htat [sic] people did descend from a single person,
Source please?. Last I heard there were seven distinct Eves based on mitochondrial DNA evidence.
and we know through genetics that species are discontinuous, further solidifying the idea that species are uniquely created and can’t ‘morph’ beyond hteir [sic] own kinds.
To be a separate species, something has to be genetically discontinuous with other species, otherwise they'd be the same species, wouldn't they?
Also, the second half: "and can’t ‘morph’ beyond hteir [sic] own kinds." doesn't necessarily follow from the first half.