Posted on 06/18/2009 8:48:47 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Radiometric dating is often used to “prove” rocks are millions of years old. Once you understand the basic science, however, you can see how wrong assumptions lead to incorrect dates.
Most people think that radioactive dating has proven the earth is billions of years old. After all, textbooks, media, and museums glibly present ages of millions of years as fact.
Yet few people know how radiometric dating works or bother to ask what assumptions drive the conclusions. So let’s take a closer look and see how reliable this dating method really is...
(Excerpt) Read more at answersingenesis.org ...
I might add to the last one, “and are ignorant enough of the Scriptures to keep repeating it when confronted with evidence to the contrary”.
Cheers.
“You might be a D-Cevo, if you’re quoting Leviticus as though it applies to Christians under the New Covenant.”
That’s a relief, because I found cheap slaves from distant nations on the Internet. It’s good to know that the New Covenant obviates the old rule about slave ownership. It probably also permits a more figurative reading of Genesis as well to allow for the possibility of evolution.
You creation rationalizers are really pieces of work. You interpret and distort the bible more than you claim that the “evolutionists” do. Say “hi” to your buddy Forrest for me. Ask him if he picked a good chocolate from the box...
If you’d ever cracked a Bible, instead of Googling like mad for what you presume to be “gotcha” passages, you’d understand this a tad better, Bucky. The possiblity of salvation through Him obviated the need to do many things required of Jews the Old Testament. It did not render the Old Testament false or even irrelevant, though. Why don’t you understand this? You profess to be Christian.
I not only profess to be a Christian, I am in fact a Christian. I need no lectures from the fascist wing of the faith, represented by you, on how to read and interpret the book. You and your ilk do a great disservice to Christianity, as your actions and positions are more in line with maintaining a social pecking order in your megachurch than they are with the true practice of Christianity.
Your weak understanding of the New Covenant, while a thrilling conversation enabler at your post-service coffee klatches, is a mockery of the truth of Christianity. To paraphrase Pogo, you, yourself, are the enemy you seek.
So, again, enlighten me. You're being oddly prissy and circumspect about something you've implied allows for evolution and Christianity to agree "perfectly," as you've so very often put it.
Here's your opening. Shine your light and banish the darkness, Bucky.
I'm certain I'm not alone in greatly anticipating your lengthy and insightful response.
Oh, and I'm not particularly oriented toward the modern, big box churches. I'm more partial to smaller gatherings, even house churches, myself.
Indeed, “profess” is key word.
St. Darwin, lol. Patron Saint of soup.
Yes, enlighten us all about how worship of Saint Darwin “fits perfectly” with “true practice of Christianity”? Please do!
It was Jay Gould that said Darwin had been elevated to sainthood if mot divinity. He did have some real zingers.
“I’m certain I’m not alone in greatly anticipating your lengthy and insightful response.”
Insight will be lost on you and Forrest. The weakness of your faith will not allow you to separate your professed Christian faith from your belief in the literal inerrancy of the bible. Without that crutch, your faith will falter.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible, as you may have heard. Evolution and your belief the literal inerrancy of the bible are not. However, Christianity is neither measured nor defined by the degree of literal inerrancy one chooses to accept. You represent a small minority, and your positions regarding the faith make the majority of the Christian world appear feeble-minded by association.
Where do you buy your slaves?
You've repeated the phrase "evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible," but as far as insight into just why you persist in believing this, you've provided no insight.
and Forrest
Referring to oneself in the third person is not as flattering as those who do so might suppose.
The weakness of your faith
I'm exhibiting faith, being pilloried for it by you, and you think that this constitutes weakness. You compromise faith for the knowledge of the world, and think that this constitutes strength. There are a few Biblical passages with which you might want to familiarize yourself, before you dig any deeper into that hole you've dug for yourself.
will not allow you to separate your professed Christian faith from your belief in the literal inerrancy of the bible.
... and you allow your worldy concerns to separate you from God, and resort to claiming that the BIble is in error to do so.
Without that crutch, your faith will falter.
An oddly disparaging way of describing the Word of God, for a professed Christian such as yourself. But, yes, my faith is strengthened by reliance upon the Bible. Your faith is strengthened by reliance upon ... what, exactly? You still decline to elaborate.
Evolution and Christianity are perfectly compatible, as you may have heard.
I've heard it again and again, from you. You consistently decline to elaborate. I can only conclude that you do so because you have no answer.
Evolution and your belief the literal inerrancy of the bible are not.
Huh? Evolution is not, upon this we can agree.
However, Christianity is neither measured nor defined by the degree of literal inerrancy one chooses to accept..
It's measured and defined by faith, which leads to salvation. It's just that faith part that seems to be getting you all tied up in knots. Do you accept that Jesus Christ died on the cross for your sins, and was resurrected on the third day, Buck W.? Or is that too much Biblical inerrancy for you?
You represent a small minority, and your positions regarding the faith make the majority of the Christian world appear feeble-minded by association.
Certainly not a small minority of Christians. Exactly who is it, that you're trying to impress with faux intellect? God is not impressed. As I've said before, if you knew your Bible, you would know that.
Where do you buy your slaves?
Where do you buy yours? I've never bought a slave, myself, and have no interest in owning another human being. Human bondage has taken many forms over the course of human history, though, and we're fortunate in our place and time to be without it. I honestly can't think of a people that hasn't been enslaved in one form or another. The Bible condemns unjust enslavement and unjust treatment of slaves. The state of bondage, however, is not in and of itself condemned.
But, none of this has a thing to do with the conversation at hand. Other than some left-field attempt at casting aspersions, what is your point?
You define Christianity by belief in the literal truth of the bible. Your definition of Christianity is narrow, and a reflection of a weak faith in God. That’s the nub, really. It’s not a question of evolution and Christianity at all. It’s instead a question of your heavy-handed attempt to define Christianity according to the narrow confines permitted by the pastor of your megachurch. Christians proudly embrace science, knowing that is is compatible with their faith. You, however, in an attempt to hang on by your fingertips, question their very Christianity by applying litmus tests and Christian scorecards.
So let’s stop kidding ourselves. We all know that Christianity is perfectly compatible with evolution. The real point is that you don’t think Christians who accept evolution are Christian at all because you DEFINE your faith that way. It’s a sad, oppressive, hateful, and counterintuitive faith as you practice it.
Let me ask you a question: Are Catholics and Episcopalins Christian?
And say hi to Forrest for me—you know who he is.
When Christ said “your word is truth” I don’t think he had in mind the doctrine of evolution taught in The Temple of Darwin.
Thank you, Forrest. Have a chocolate.
Hi!
To your question regarding Catholics and Episcopalians, I’ve known many fine people I’ve believed to have found and accepted salvation in Christ through faith, though their belief in the need for an intercessor is un-Biblical, extraneous and a possible pitfall. Can’t say the same about Episcopalians, since I can’t say I’ve known one who was anything but worldly, but no doubt there are some who’ve negotiated the maze of that snooty, hidebound country club of a “church” and found God. They do have really good architects though, those Episcopalians. Nice lines, great proportion, and the textures, so rich, all that stone and slate shingle. Their buildings show an almost Godly reverence for beauty in design. Too bad that reverence has left the building, though.
As far as my definition of Christianity, it was provided in a recent, previous reply to you on this thread, and your description of that definition is deliberately misleading. It’s through faith, and salvation through grace that one arrives at the logical conclusion of literalism regarding the Bible.
So, you’re putting the cart before the horse. And, I’m frankly not surprised, at this point.
Your megachurch-provided jargon has created one helluva smokescreen in that post of yours. I asked a question even simpler than that which you asked me: are Catholics and Episcopalians Christians? Yes or no (to each)?
I won't hold my breath ...
Not to mention the operation of our nuclear power plants, the nuclear bombs which could suddenly go off or our nuclear wastes.
Remind me not to trust my GPS the next time I take a trip ...
Didn't Newton think Catholics not really Christians?
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.