ForwardFromEden

That would really depend on what frame of reference you're talking about. According to the Penrose-Hawking Singularity theorems gravity starts to get a little problematic for describing how a point with zero volume and infinite density behaves. Additionally, keep in mind that by leaving all conclusions open-ended science isn't expecting them to necessarily be contradicted as much as refined. Lurker It is truly amazing the ability you have to use so many words and say nothing of import. You are to be envied most certainly. You are on your own now, the circle remains unbroken in this "discussion".

This repeated statement is curious, regardless of the other stuff you said. Curious and without any discernible point as well.

Now with all due respect Arthur, it is terribly rude to confront evolutionists with facts. I hear it causes rashes, or was that rashness, oh well, it is just a word after all.

Exactly how open ended is the law of gravity? Please go to the center of the Golden Gate bridge, take one step off either side and report back on the openness of the law of gravity. Also please consider the law of the immovable force meeting the immovable object considering at that height water is like concrete when you hit it. I await your report with breathless anticipation.

Repeating an error doesn't make it right. Again, science simply does claim to "prove" things it merely a process used to gather evidence and create theories to explain observations. Please keep in mind that terms like "proof" have very specific meanings in science, so you need to be careful about how you use them in this context. We usually use the term "proof" to refer to a mathematical concept of proof which insists something is true in every case. "In mathematics, a proof is a convincing demonstration (within the accepted standards of the field) that some mathematical statement is necessarily true[1][2]. Proofs are obtained from deductive reasoning, rather than from inductive or empirical arguments. That is, a proof must demonstrate that a statement is true in all cases, without a single exception. An unproved proposition that is believed to be true is known as a conjecture." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mathematical_proof If, however, you are using "proof" in a more colloquial sense of a conclusion based on evidence then there is no problem. Again, you need to keep in mind that science, as with all professions, attaches very specific meanings to it's terms so you need to be cautious in using those terms. Technically science does not "prove" things, it is simply a tool to gather evidence in which we leave all conclusions open ended. You are either misunderstanding those studies or someone has misunderstood them for you. If you have something specific in mind I suggest your present it. It would certainly be a waste of time trying to convert me seeing as I already am a Christian. Observation without application is useless, Lurker Being a Bible-Believing Christian and being an evolutionist are two mutually exclusive points of view and life paths.

I'm open to discussing any of the above topics though at the moment in this thread I'm just trying to make sure that Christians aren't trying to attack evolution using lies about the life of Charles Darwin. Lurker Lies about the word of God and the life of Christ are ok, but don't mess with Darwin. Ok, I got it now.

I second the "emotion" above !!!

I send the Anti Christian Lawyers Union a Christmas card every day, from what I hear millions are doing so. I think it is great, because you know they are taking the time to open every letter to see if there is a check inside. That is "my" little protest. Ok, so it is a bit on the evil side, I'm forgiven, not perfect. God does work in mysterious ways, His wonders to perform.

I have noticed that in the last few years more and more people, especially media outlets refer to time as B.C.E. (Before the Common Era) and A.C.E. (After the Common Era). This confused me quite a bit since the calendars have not changed at all. My question to those promoting such a method for dating occurrences was/is what event divided the two eras? The answer of course is the birth of our Lord Jesus, The Christ. My question about the question is why will they not admit the obvious? Are we as reasoning being to suppose that the date dividing the two eras is just happenstance? Somehow I don't think so, do you?

Please point me to the Biblical reference that supports this position. I can't seem to locate it.

Oh and very nice post by Mr&Mrs Mike Irish.

Those are laudable earthly attributes. Given that you are someone who worries about his fellow man, it would seem to me you would be the first one in line to repent, renounce and turn away from your sins. Anyone who sincerely opens their heart to our Lord and savior and the gift he offers bought at such a terrible price, will see Heaven. The word of God says it plainly. This would include murderers, bank robbers, etc., anyone who finds them self convicted in their sin and do as I said above will see God and live forever in Heaven with the others who have accepted Christ and the truth of His story and tried to live as he would have them live. I said it before I'll say it again, the way to salvation is your heart, not a lack of sins. If you have repented your sins and strive not to commit them again, that is the key. We all sin I think, and we must ask for forgiveness of our sins and tell God that with his help you wish to create a heart within yourself that is pleasing to God..

No, they do not exist. Your analysis is correct. This is where evolution falls flat every time, there would have to be intermediate species that do not exist. If your question was directed at one person, I did not mean to be rude.

This is the point that is often lost in the shuffle.....a theory is only a sum of best guesses. Oh dear...how many times do I have to post the s-c-i-e-n-t-i-f-i-c definition of a theory before you get it? "The scientific definition of the word "theory" is different from the colloquial sense of the word. Colloquially, "theory" can mean a conjecture, an opinion, or a speculation that does not have to be based on facts or make testable predictions. In science, the meaning of theory is more rigorous: a theory must be based on observed facts and make testable predictions. In science, a current theory is a theory that has no equally acceptable or more acceptable alternative theory, and has survived attempts at falsification. That is, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point." Are we clear now? Evolution is both theory and fact. There is no 'factual' evidence of evolution. There are and have been mutations that have occurred, that is not evolution, it is what it is, a mutation. If evolution were a fact it would be a scientific 'law', not a theory.

It IS a conspiracy but it's not a theory....everyone knows the root of the denial of Creation. Yeah, logic. No, fear.