Posted on 01/23/2006 4:31:58 PM PST by PatrickHenry
>So, what does God look like?
God is spirit. It's not tangible asa person is. To say we where made in His image is to say that we share in His spirit. That is the way I understand it.
( ;-D
I have to adsmit you are the first to posit an evolutionary theory about the Rings of Saturn.
Boy, I see the error of my ways. Who needs physics? God created the rings of Saturn {poof}.
We now have proof there is no science, only God's hand. I hope you make it a point to thank Him when you get in an airplane, since His Hand is all that holds the thing up!
But just in case He gets bored, you might want to double up on your insurance.
And thanks for another example of CRIDer "analysis."
His point being that God is an artist as well as a scientist. I agree. When a human creates something, we usually separate the art from the science. God combines them. He's much more multidimensional and interesting then are we.
Madman, I don't think conservatives who choose to believe the theory(?) of evolution are necessarily stupid or immoral....exactly. It may be more a case in which they allow themselves to be "taken in", as it were, by mouthy academics who are determined to make their "bandaided" theory work in order to "cut God off at the knees". When you do this, you are saying, in effect, that you trust this mouthy academic more than you trust God and the account of creation He presents in Book of Genesis. You are ascribing a higher level of confidence to the flim flam theory of evolution and its apostles and you are
accusing God of lying. I wouldn't want to place myself in that position based on the flimsy story the evolutionists have to offer.
No, not an insult- just that since earliest time, man has made up stories as to how he came into being. Evolution is, for the most part, just a very complex myth. At least the Indians were trying to tell a story.
I thought the debunking of the standard Evolitionists' Evolutionary Theory of The Rings Of Saturn was pretty good.
This is almost as good as DUmmie FUnnies. I have been LOL since I started reading.
I picked Koalas and pandas because in my mind at least- they're not terribly sturdy. They eat one thing, and so if their supply runs out- so does the entire population in that area. But you know that.
It would have been unfortunate if anything had occurred to give weight and currency to the foolish notion which some have diligently propagated, but for which Mr Darwin was not responsible, that there is a necessary conflict between a knowledge of Nature and a belief in God
. A later, widely believed, rumour of a deathbed conversion to Christianity was denied by his daughter, who was actually present at his death. A bronze memorial, with a life-sized relief bust, was erected by his family in the north choir aisle, near to the grave, in 1888. The sculptor was Sir J.E. Boehm. The inscription just says simply DARWIN.
No, the Indian myth and the Creation Myth are equivalent. No proof, no scientific method, no peer review, certainly no DNA studies. They say a Raven, you say God. No difference.
Because you want to scream in the face of a massive body of scientific evidence doesn't make it a "myth."
The "myth" is that Man (or anything else) was created by {poof}.
You have zero proof.
>In any case the evidence of transitional fossils, morphological similarity and molecular evidence trumps your - we aren't related because we are a little better than them.
We are much, much different than chimps. But who cares? We're humans and of God and they're just plain chimps and closer to the inanimate than the animate. Humans are of God, chimps are of the inanimate.
He's been told before by many people and with countless references, including creationist websites. He is either too arrogant or too much of a coward (or both) to admit that he was wrong, so he just continues to repeat the lie.
Hey, thanks for all the ink. Even poorly done ink is appreciated! But seriously, which way do you want it; either we can or can't be more related to kumquats than grapefruits?
And earlier you wrote:
I would expect that in liberal academia there is a Mapes/Rather team manipulating the numbers to get the desired result. That we should be more related to Bonobos than the Chimpanzee is like saying a peach is more closely related to a Red Delicious than a Macintosh. That we share evolution with the apes is obvious, to claim we share it with one subspecies of ape is ridiculous.
Some day, I'm sure, humans will come up with self replicating technology. That's not a stretch of the imagination- but they won't evolve because God anticipated the problems we would have on the earth, and built into teh genome line after line of extra programming- also called "junk" genes. Not all of it is junk. Much of it has saved us again and again I imagine. What you call evolution, I call redundancy.
And solar radiation as a means to add lines of code? Take a floppy disc with software and wave a magnet over it, and see how many new lines are written.
Thanks for letting me know. This way I won't have to waste any more electrons on the mook...
I believe that less is more sometimes and all I need to say about it right now, I've said.
My decision was pretty straight forward.
Just like if you believe in "physics" you are denying God because after all , Genesis says God made the light. If you believe in "astronomy" you are denying God because Genesis says God made the stars in the sky. If you believe in "Dinosours" you are denying God because Genesis says God made all the animals and had Adam go and name them.
This particular stawman is the easiest to identify. It is sad that people won't use the Brain God gave them and instead persist in choosing myth over the raw facts and huge montain of evidence and examination available to them.
And they do great damage in the process.
Excellent reposte.
Saved for later cut-and-paste as a response.
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.