Posted on 09/04/2009 8:50:36 AM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Once again, a NASA space probe is supporting the 6,000-year biblical age of the solar system...
(Excerpt) Read more at creation.com ...
ping
GGG he is correct you are harming Christianity with your repeated anti-science rhetoric
Your mean spirited replies, and insults are not very Christ like behavior.
I am sure Christ would be quite proud of you for insulting myself and my deceased Grandfather, because I simply asked a question that you refused to answer.
You are driving non-believers away from salvation.
Isn’t pride one of the seven deadly sins?
I don't have faith in the facts. The facts are the facts, no faith required. The facts fit and verify current physics, again no faith required. Faith is required only when you deny the evidence that proves your religious based age is wrong. You have faith in your theory, no facts to back it up.
BTW....the 4.5 billion year age for earth (+-200 million)is an established fact backed by the physical evidence and confirmed physics. A collection of tribal oral histories is not verifiable evidence.
Go look at Space.com, and you will see the evidence of new solar systems in the very act of coalescing in the various nebulaes around us. Again, facts, not faith.
Only a minority of “scientists” calim global warming is a fact, and again, they are making a statement of faith, this time in the religion of Gaia, that contradicts the established facts.
You are correct, science is a tool. But its use does not require faith that it works, as it explains the facts in a verifiable way. Faith does not.
It’s already there pal.
Surely you understand the notion of newbie, being here so long, and that it is common to deride people who have been here only a couple of months if they start ordering people who have been here for years to stop doing something.
If a newbie comes into a forum and, rather than discussing what the thread is about, tells the poster to stop posting, or to go give money, or get his own forum, they will be derided as a newbie; it has nothing to do with creation/evolution, it wouldn’t matter what thread you were on, it is simply the nomenclature of free republic to attack newbies who try to tell others what they should do here.
At least you should recognize that coming into one of these threads, and telling the poster to stop posting them, and saying that they shouldn’t be allowed, is a “newbie” thing to do, given that the owner of Free Republic has explicitly blessed these threads.
And he could well be; but it is often the case that when a real newbie gets caught, they say “I’ve been a long-time lurker”.
If a long-time lurker, they will certainly recognize the typical charge of being a retread, and will ignore it if it is not true.
I notice some of the same names that said you were wrong on those threads have once again taken it upon themselves to prove you wrong here. I give you props for your work here and I think you should keep at it.
It does not matter that they are upset. The world wide web is a big place and they can find another corner or keep pulling against the yoke. The believers who feel you should refrain from name calling have a point and maybe it is best if you try to control the tongue.
I reconcile God & science by realizing that science has a long history of being wrong about everything at some point in time. Books are constantly rewritten, even the ultra cool space shows on the history channel are being changed over periods of months not years as new info floods in. Another Bible prediction by the way which mentions the increase of knowledge at the end times.
The Creator along with His Word have the exact opposite track record. So I believe God spoke EVERYTHING into existence 6,000 years ago and its one of those mysteries that God mentions that are beyond our understanding.
And you couldn’t find any way to phrase your scientific point, other than to bury it in the middle of a multi-pronged personal attack?
You do understand that “Jane, You Ignorant Slut” was a comedic routine, not a primer on proper debate tactics, right?
The claim is almost always made when someone is trying to make an argument against another. It is intended not to extend the debate, but to cut if off, by charging malfeasance.
The suggestion that a Christian would never ever say anything negative about another person is belied by scripture in which we see Jesus doing things that, if done in a forum, would cause opponents to say He was “turning off people” who would otherwise believe in Him.
Like calling the Pharasees vipers, and saying they were leading people to Hell — hardly something that would make the Pharasees see the error of their ways and turn back to God. Or maybe it would, and Jesus just knows a little bit more about human nature than anonymous posters to the internet.
Rebel Ace, I respectfully suggest that you take a flying leap off a tall building, and enjoy the trip. Or maybe I could suggest you try removing your head from, well, you know where.....
As you can see, being civil “suggesting” things does not in itself make a post “civil” or acceptable.
It is true that the original poster did not use the typical language of evolutionists in these threads. But you are dead wrong to suggest that his “suggestions” were anything but a direct and baseless personal attack on the original poster.
Telling a poster to give money (which he already does) or get out, no matter how nicely you say it, is hardly a civil discussion of the issues raised in a post.
It’s a miracle! ;-)
Well, he also forgot that the sky opened up, and the oceans of the deep, in the flood narrative. So there were catastrophic rainstorms, which would provide rushing water, along with large amounts of water coming from an unspecified number of openings in the earth’s crust.
And of course, the very miraculous act of “raising up the mountains” performed by God after the flood would itself have greatly changed the landscape.
Again, the problem is that science has to presume that NONE of these things happened, because by it’s nature it deals with observable, natural events. So even if a scientist KNEW that God raised a mountain up out of the ground, there would be no scientific theory that could take that into account.
On the day God created Adam, if a scientist walked by just after God left, the scientist would argue that Adam had been there for 20 years, and that the garden must have existed for decades before that, since there was a stream bed, full-grown trees with fruit on them, and fully grown animals of every species.
If the scientist came back a little later, and saw Eve, the scientist would argue that there were other humans elsewhere, that Eve must have made some journey from a distance, and that, since people have to be born from others, that there must be generations of humans that existed before Adam and Eve.
There would be no arguing with this Scientist, and if Adam truthfully told him that God had just created Eve by taking out Adam’s rib, the scientist would call him an ignorant Cretin, and note that there were no medical facilities, no scar, and no way a living woman would come into being from a bone of a man, since the chromosones would be all wrong.
Science is incapable of telling the truth about a miraculous God, because that is the NATURE OF SCIENCE.
But in the past century, the humanists have worked hard to raise generations of children who have no idea that Science is biased against God, and instead believe that, if Science hasn’t proven God exists, it’s because God must not exist.
That is what we fight here.
Seriously, your story could be used by creationists to explain why they don't believe in evolution. After all, we have physical evidence of evolutionists lying to support their theory.
I entered this thread as I have entered a few others you have started, by asking the question you seem to ignore, and that I have asked repeatedly in this thread as well:
Actually, you did NOT ask a question when you entered this thread. Instead, you posted two definitions meant to personally attack the poster of this thread.
The nice thing about thread history is, unlike the unobservable history of the world that evolutionists can make up, we HAVE the thread right here, and can see what REALLY happened, and don't have to rely on the mythology told after-the-fact.
You think GGG gets PAID to post these threads?
Or are you just trying to be “cute”, without regard to the facts?
Your definition of “fact” is in opposition to the scientific definition.
The age of the universe is not a scientific “fact”. If it were, it wouldn’t change when we learn more information. It is a conclusion based on the set of facts we currently have available, reached by using theories we have postulated to apply.
If evolutionists would stop calling conclusions, hypotheses, and mythological stories “fact”, they probably wouldn’t get so much argument.
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.