Posted on 02/08/2009 3:10:04 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
“Attack those why don’t you, weenies.”
It’s because all the other stories are stupid. Christian creation is the only one that threatens their monopoly on infinite wisdom.
“not about the ability of Jesus to perform miracles.”
Then who is Jesus and why should I believe what he has to say about faith?
The Calvinist/Arminian debate is old and tired. I don’t even think in terms of “am I ca Calvinist, am I an Arminian?”
Dumb post of the day.
I did not mention or reference religion in any of my posts in this thread.
I merely reported well know facts about the age of the earth, early formations of life and the age of the universe.
How does this mock HIM? is stating well known scientific facts about the age of things now considered to be offensive to religious belief.
“.....is stating well known scientific facts about the age of things now considered to be offensive to religious belief.”
You’re scientific facts assume too much. You assume the star was created/formed before the light of the star. It’s a reasonable assumption I guess, but still an assumption and not proof of an old universe. You also assume the light has always traveled at the same rate. That’s a small minded assumption. Your assumptions aren’t science. The existence of those assumptions in the minds of otherwise scientific people shows an agenda at worst, and at best, a blind spot.
Which is why I didn’t want to get it started here.
Thanks,
What percentage of “scientists” subscribe to the creationist or “historical interpretation” model?
You're now 2 for 2. Congrats.
If ignorance is bliss, you gotta be one happy puppy..
Joy of the Lord is my strength.
Yes, but two points: First, this was after Jimmy Carter. We all remember that buffoon. Second, this was before the big creationist movement got really organized and started pushing for legislation, taking over town councils, schoolboard, and filing multiple lawsuits. Second, this was before Terri Schiavo (with attended disgust and publicity), and the whole "contraception is murder" campaign.
I have many friends that are democtrat-lights, and when I ask them why, they invariably mention the creation movement, contraception, and "any abortion is murder" policies that seem to have taken over the republican party. These potential libertarian conservatives (small "l") think the party is nuts.
According to the longest running English interpretation of the Bible, it reads:
Genesis 1:16 And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also. 17And God set them in the firmament of the heaven to give light upon the earth, 18And to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness: and God saw that it was good. 19And the evening and the morning were the fourth day. KJV
The NIV is not substantially different.
Youa also wrote: Please note NO date or time stamp given, verse 3 begins the description of what I term the grandest environmental clean up this earth has ever had.
As you prepare to defend the "gap" theory that allegedly resides between verses 1 & 2, consider Exodus 20:11 11For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it.
The burden is upon you to prove the Bible does not simply mean what it simply says, God did it all in only 6 days, just like the plain reading of the text implies. One must also consider the reading of 2 Peter 3:5 (KJV) 5For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: Or, if you prefer NIV 5But they deliberately forget that long ago by God's word the heavens existed and the earth was formed out of water and by water.
The forcing of the "was" (KJV, ASV, NIV, YLT, et al) in "became", which from my brief understanding of Hebrew is permissable, does not change the reading when compared in the context of Exodus 20:11. Why force it to read as if the earth existed for a long period of time before it underwent the "grandest environmental clean up" as you called it? Only to allow for Billions of years as asserted by so called "science".
Since you entitled to disagree, you must agree that this assertion is a 20th century development. If not, please a pre-20th century source (ante-nicene, apostloic, middle age commentary, etc.) that supports the "gap" assertion.
What are the Big Bang assertions/assumptions about the speed of light and the mass of the universe in the first 1 second of the "event"?
Or the globe is warming, you know in the midsts of these record cold snaps. And the algoreacle says there's no debate about that either.
I think you've mistaken me for a "big bang" theorist. I have not said I was and don't claim to be.
So what happened 1 nanosecond, or 2 hours, or 5 years after the universe was initially formed is something I know nothing of, nor do I much care about.
How the universe got started (whether creation or big bang or some other way) is open to faith, assumptions, scientific theories, etc.
What is not open for debate is that the universe is at least 10 - 15 billion years old. And what is not open for debate is that the speed of light has been established and verified at 186,000 miles per hr.
Can you show us other threads where Christian creation wasn't mentioned right out of the gateand native American or other creation theories were singled out and attacked?
Why do I have to? It won't change the topic of this article.
I haven't seen anyone that smart, but there's plenty around who demand that they are to the point they sue others to be silent to enforce their views of science on everyone else.
This creationist stuff is a good part of the reason conservatives keep losing elections.
Everytime I see this statement in some form or another, it’s a red flag asserting liberal nonsense:
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html
Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719
**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63
**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts
***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp
************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63
************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties
************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/
You don’t have to, I was just pointing out the fact that the vast majority of these threads attack Christian creation while giving others a free pass, as liberals are want to do, rather the thread scpecifies Christianity or not.
It was a completely understandable observation from StAntKnee.
You can fail to acknowledge that fact, in fact I would expect nothing less/nothing more from you.
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.