Posted on 01/30/2009 10:54:50 AM PST by GodGunsGuts
Since the Big Bang story of the origin of the universe has been refuted by a host of external observations and internal contradictions,1 secular science has been forced to postulate additional, exceedingly improbable events to keep it afloat. One of these is “inflation,” which attempts to explain the apparent uniformity of the universe.2 But new observations by the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe are forcing cosmologists to revamp inflation, at the cost of inventing yet another miraculous event to prop it up...
(Excerpt) Read more at icr.org ...
Get behind me you lying scumbag. This is the second time I have told you not to darken my my inbox with your wormtongue ways.
PS If anyone wants to see for themselves how a liar “for” Jesus operates, just trace back the exchange between me and the fidgety-DallasMike to the beginning of the thread.
All the best—GGG
GourmetDan: Really? You're quite indistinguishable from run-of-the-mill naturalists.
Nice streak of anti-intellectualism you've got there, Danny-boy. Why are you so scared of educated people? Do you really believe that God wants us all to be scientifically illiterate?
Excellent post, but that part alone has always been enough for me. Why would God create something purely to mislead us? There is no answer to that.
No, you are quite wrong. The Big Bang Theory is backed by years of observations and mountains of data.
Why are you YECs so anti-intellectual? It's very disturbing.
No, not by definition. You simply do not understand the terminology. That's no one's fault but yours.
[[This is too vast of a subject to cover. The simple fact is that all of the scientific evidence points to an earth that is about 4.5 billion years old and a universe that is between 14 and 15 billion years old. ]]
Let me stop you and correct you right here- the ONLY evidnece ‘supporting’ old age is evidence based on assumptions and methods used to date that are NOT accurate past 6000 or so years- Secondly, these folks absolutely REJECT any evidence which points to the contrary- of which there are a good many evidences- so let’s not state that ALL the evidence poitns to old earth- this simply is not true.
Lying scumbag? Do you realize how close I came to hitting the abuse button? Maybe someone else will and you will be banned from FR forever.
First, it is not your inbox.
Second, as long as you continue to post articles containing nonsense that hurts the cause of Christianity, I will fight ignorance with reason.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Mike, at the expense of repeating myself:
here, I said,
"DallasMike, If you will read my
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/religion/2172630/posts?page=393#393
I believe you will find that we share similar viewpoints (I'm a Christian -- and a physical chemist)."
In the interest of understanding me and my beliefs, I believe it would be well worth your while to read/re-read the entire post. And, at that same URL, I answered your question:
"Although I have the acadmic [sic] requirements for BS in biology, I am no particular fan of Darwin. I simply accept his work -- and that built upon it by his successors -- as our best (but still flawed) explanation to date of how life here on Earth reached its present state. I am not on a mission to "prove" anything. The fact that I see that progression as following the Creator's plan does not color my investigations -- I view myself as being - like all good scientists -- on a continual journey of discovery."
Fair enough?
Your reason arrives from below. Go ahead and hit the abuse botton. I want nothing to do with you, Mr. Wormtongue.
God did not create anything to mislead us. God does not lie to us through his general revelation (creation) or his word (special revelation). May YECs have claimed such things, like saying that God created the light already in motion from distant stars. In the past few years, they've come up with other implausible theories, like claiming that the speed of light was once much faster than it is now. None of it is supported by evidence, of course.
God's creation shows us the glory of his work. Since there is nothing in Genesis to indicate that the earth is 6,000 years old and all of the physical evidence indicates an old earth, we should go with what God has shown us -- the earth and the universe are very old.
I'm glad you're a seeker. May God bless you. Please do not get sucked in by the YEC nonsense.
My friend, do you understand the meaning and implications of the term, "light-year"?
This is the third time I have asked you to stop pinging me, Wormtongue. Get lost, stalker.
Not an excellent question. A ridiculous one.
God would never do that to deceive.
I don't get what this making God out to be a liar business is. It's just another manipulation technique to try to force people to accept that kind of reasoning and back them into a corner to force acceptance of a certain point of view.
The problem is, the whole premise is wrong. God is not a deceiver so He would never do something like that for that reason. Therefore there must be another reason for Him to have done it that way.
Did it not ever occur to you that man's interpretation of what he sees is wrong?
If you believe that God created the universe and man, then tell me, how old was Adam on the DAY he was created? Was he not created as a man, implying that he was a grown adult? Did God do that to deceive or as a matter of practicality?
Looking at a grown man, what conclusions would science have reached about his age? And if the creationist said that Adam was only a few hours old, what do you think that any scientists reaction would be?
Creating the universe and earth with the appearance of age would be nothing more than a matter of practicality. The earth needed to be habitable for man and that demands that certain conditions MUST exist.
I fail to see why whenever there's a conflict between science and Scripture, it's presumed that Scripture is wrong by default and that what man observes and concludes is the absolute truth.
So, scientifically speaking, how old would science estimate a grown man to be just by appearance? Who would have been right about Adam's age? The creationist who believed God or the scientist who analyzed the man?
This sort of hair-splitting KJV text-proofing is begging for embarassment.
If one doesn’t believe that “yom” must always mean 24 hours of Earth-standard frame of reference, one certainly doesn’t need to believe “adam” means always specifically a full-grown individual in his mid-20s.
FReepMail for you...
Really? I would love to here more about this amazing discovery of yours because it contradicts all known science.
Darn, I read it yesterday and forgot what you said. Sorry.
Yes, we do share the same beliefs
Knock off the personal abuse or the thread gets pulled. It is not stalking to reply to the original poster of a thread.
FYI, "stalking" is defined as following another FReeper from thread-to thread -- and attacking them with comments that are non sequiturs re that new thread.
"Stalking" IS NOT merely continuing (politely, I might add) a discussion on a subject on which you solicited comment -- by posting it as an article!
Oh, FYI, I acted on your suggestion...
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.