Posted on 06/11/2007 2:09:09 PM PDT by Alter Kaker
Sorry, that happens not to be the case. Most experts place the flood at about 4350 years ago, and that is a time period that is well known to archaeologists (note: archaeologists, not geologists).
If there was such massive evidence it would be easy to find. It has not been found. Instead, there is massive evidence that no such global flood occurred at about 4350 years ago.
Show us a few hundred examples, just to prove the truth of your statement, then no one here will doubt your veracity, else sell that cr@p somewhere else.
I can actually find you more scientists who are Christians and don't see a conflict between Christianity and the Bible. At that, it seems the more scientific knowledge one has, the more 'spiritual' (for lack of a better term) they become... A lot of this battle is fought or vocalized, in the middle area of people who have only rote (High School/Sunday School) level knowledge of the Bible and Science.
Good luck proving any of that. Lots of hypothesis in there.
There are many gaps and many assumptions that have to be made to make the link.
In any case, suppose that it is all true, it only argues for a God that must have known what He is doing.
There are only two possibilities: you're either not familiar with the evidence, which is overwhelming and conclusive, or you willfully choose to ignore that evidence. The former explanation is more charitable than the latter, which implies dishonesty on your part. I don't like to think that people are dishonest, so I choose the former.
You can say that again.
Oh, I just did.
Ape
My dad used to say we had family that swung by their necks but never by their tails.
People don’t reject evolution because they are intellectually incapable of understanding it. To phrase this as a conflict between intelligence and stupidity is way off the mark. It is fundamentally a conflict between two basic beliefs: (1) mind and intelligence can evolve from non-mind and non-intelligence; and (2) mind and intelligence must spring from a greater mind and greater intelligence. Position #2, the anti-evolutionist position, insists that the cause cannot be inferior to the effect.
All articles written about evolution always come from the perspective of ...”how stupid, all these people still don’t believe in evolution...what is wrong with them”. But the truth is there is no evidence that proves the “theory” of evolution. The person who put forth the theory of evolution thought Blacks were an inferior offshoot or animalistic race.
I personally believe in “adaptation”, not evolution. I don’t think we evolved from a single cell. I think we were a planned creation that has adapted to our surroundings. And for all of the holier-than-thou evolutionists to say they are right, when they openly admit they cannot prove this, is all about egotism. Them being smarter than anyone else. Just because the Libs and the schools have “taught” evolution for decades doesn’t mean it’s true.
The “fact” that blacks were inferior, not human, was taught for hundreds of years. Didn’t mean it was true. So, evolutionists, I think it’s adaptation, prove me wrong. You can’t.
Hey I thought the earth was flat otherwise maps would be round.
Because you refuse to listen. Scientific voices are silenced because there are some emotionally invested in the idea of evolution, even though the rational mind rejects it on its face as laughable and absurd.
Now you are conflating a scientific knowledge of the “evolutionary process” of mutations and genetic manipulations with the historical recreations of the origins of species using an evolutionary, non-creative framework.
They are two separate things. If a person doesn’t think mutations exist, they are denying what can be seen with their own eyes, and tested and proven.
But (not advancing a theory) if God simply created the universe 10,000 years ago with exactly the properties it would possess had it evolved over 4 billion years, all your “science” would be unable to tell the difference.
And if there WAS a creation, that creation had to make everything SOMEHOW, so to argue that it’s absurd that a Creator WOULD make things in one manner or another is simply to argue against something you probably don’t believe anyway.
After all, some things would almost have to be created with appearance of age — gravity seems to operate in the time domain, so to create a solar system, the Creator would best apply gravity as if the things brought into being had done so minutes earlier (such that the gravity was already effecting the outcome), and if you are going to create lights in the sky, it makes sense to create the light waves reaching the earth.
In fact, it would be really funny if God just created the light wave/particles/effects, and skipped the whole actual BODIES, for things that were “too far away”.
This is not what I believe, or don’t believe, it’s just to point out that once I accept that there is a God powerful enough to create the universe, your entire theory of Evolution is useless for explaining origins, as my God’s creation could be precisely aimed at misleading those who refuse to believe in Him.
After all, what makes ‘man’, man? Is it our flesh or is it the Spirit God put in us?
The interesting thing about Genesis 1:26, is, in Genesis 2:4, it says God created man ‘before any shrub appeared or any plant sprung up’. This seems to indicate that ‘man’ in some way, preceded the Genesis 1 creation (at least the vegetation steps.) Could this be reflecting on our true selves, our Spirit? All through the Bible, it says that we are not our body, we are our Spirit.
They probably noticed their closets are never organized when they open the doors, even when they are certain they arranged them neatly earlier. :-)
Guessing that it’s just easier to dismiss Creationists as a bunch of ignorant morons.
And that would be? (A genuine question, not a dare)
The article also ignores the Christian belief that humans, unlike animals, are not just a body, but instead are made up of both a body and a soul. I think this is pretty critical to understanding the perspective of a lot of the people attempting to respond to the poll.
Also, I think the questions would have been more interesting without the 10,000 year figure, as it is very possible to reject human evolution without believing that the approximately 10,000 year age of mankind is literal or even having an opinion on that issue.
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.