To the darwinists

[sloth]

Fez, I am unable to use private messages. I hope that I will someday, if I can show good conduct and good intentions over time. However, I would love to discuss things with you in a private environment. You seem willing to listen to what I have to say, and willing to share what you know with me as well. Do you have any suggestions?

[MorningGlory]

A Christian cannot believe we descended from apes and that we are created in the Lord's image. It's not possible.

Curiously, your denial has no bearing on millions of Christians who do just that.

I believe they are referring to Christianity, with a literal translation of the Bible. I believe MorningGlory is stating that anyone who believes in evolution does not believe what the Bible is stating, and therefore are not truly Christian. I may be wrong. But this is what it sounds like to me.

No, sloth, you're not wrong. Unfortunately, A Christian cannot believe we evolved from apes and BE a Christian because the Bible tells us our origin.

[spiritman]

You know; I bet you look through my post; you won't find, any reference to me claiming that the work is my own work. If you can't find any reference claiming, that I said; this is my work, then you are committing Slander, if you continue that I just might take legal action. I doubt if you have a case for Plagiarism; but I'm 100 percent sure in this case, that you are Slandering me.

Really?

Part 3 My Response to; " How old is the Earth" By; G. Brent Dalrymple

http://www.worthychristianforums.com/index...t&p=1443668

Part 4: My response to " How old is the Earth" by G. Brent Dalrymple

http://www.worthychristianforums.com/index...t&p=1443691

Part 5: My Response to; "How old is the Earth"; by G. Brent Dalrymple

http://www.worthychristianforums.com/index...t&p=1443692

It must also be concluded, therefore, that because nuclear decay has been shown to have occurred at grossly accelerated rates when molten rocks were forming, crystallizing and cooling, the radiometric methods cannot possibly date these rocks accurately based on the false assumption of constant decay through earth history at today

[CSLewis]

I am very offended by being told I am not a Christian because I believe in evolution, you have completely bought intothe lie that the secular humanists have been propagating and it really is a lie from the pit of hell

If evolution is true there can be no god.

This fallacy must be attacked not the scientific theory of evolution.

I believe that Christ lived died and rose again- and He has changed my life from being a humanist living in depravity to someone who cares deeply for my neighbors and wants everyone I meet to have this same encounter with the living Christ. It was nothing I did that saved me but His grace that bore my sins.

I may disagree with many people here on many issues dealing with all kinds of issues transubstantiation, eschatology, soterology, sin, hell, metaphor in scripture, worship, interpretation of scripture, and the way in which God created everything and we all do! We all have differing ideas that is why we have so many sects whether orthodox catholic Protestant - but what is it that makes us christian? That we believe the word "day" is literal in genesis 1 ?( although when Jesus says these are the last days we don't take that as literal???) ? Or is it the central core belief that Christ lived died and rose again for the atonement of our sins?

And when we get heaven our petty theological disputes won't really matter anymore anyway.

Do you disagree with me?

[ellarose]

Come alive and take a New York minute to check the Dinesh D'Souza Web Site and his illuminating debates re the Judeo-Christian's Creator God and Darwin's god Fat Chance & Completely Accidental. Que sera, sera indeed!

Dawkins was on O'Reilly's show? Well, I would have watched that one for sure....had I known about it.

Its on Youtube. But I do warn you, O'Reilly gets owned. He's an idiot so its not that surprising. And I say he's an idiot because of a lot of things, not because of his religious affiliation.

Bill O'Reilly is a very intelligent man, from what I can see (although I'm not a huge fan of his). Maybe I will watch that clip to see what you're talking about.

*doh!* No he's not. He's a bigot and a racist and above all, an idiot. Not only that, he lies and manipulates and cuts off the feed to his guests' microphones when they're destroying him in a debate (or when he just doesn't agree with them). Seriously, separate your political views from your religious beliefs for one second. Bill O'Reilly is not someone you want to have on your side. He brings everyone down.

I wouldn't call it a debate, well not over evolution (which this thread is supposed to be about I think) as O'Reilly believes in evolution. You really need 2 sides for a debate... Careful who you call names CC as they may just be on your side...

[Guest shiloh357]

I am very offended by being told I am not a Christian because I believe in evolution, you have completely bought intothe lie that the secular humanists have been propagating and it really is a lie from the pit of hell

It is the truth. One cannot be a true Christian and a committed evolutionist. It would be as oxymoronic as "atheistic Christianity." Evolution and Christianity do not mix and cannot mix.

If evolution is true there can be no god.

This fallacy must be attacked not the scientific theory of evolution.

both are wrong. Both must be addressed.

I believe that Christ lived died and rose again- and He has changed my life from being a humanist living in depravity to someone who cares deeply for my neighbors and wants everyone I meet to have this same encounter with the living Christ. It was nothing I did that saved me but His grace that bore my sins.

That is something anyone can say. The Christian lingo is easy to learn and easy to regurgitate.

I may disagree with many people here on many issues dealing with all kinds of issues transubstantiation, eschatology, soterology, sin, hell, metaphor in scripture, worship, interpretation of scripture, and the way in which God created everything and we all do! We all have differing ideas that is why we have so many sects whether orthodox catholic Protestant - but what is it that makes us christian? That we believe the word "day" is literal in genesis 1 ?( although when Jesus says these are the last days we don't take that as literal???) ? Or is it the central core belief that Christ lived died and rose again for the atonement of our sins?

And when we get heaven our petty theological disputes won't really matter anymore anyway.

Do you disagree with me?

Completely. Being a true Christian renders certain kinds of evidences. One of those evidences is a belief in the Divine inspiration of the entire Bible, its inerrancy/infallibility. The Bible itself makes no room for the theory of evolution so one is forced to choose between the biblical account as written, or evolution. To make a case for evolution, one is forced to question the inerrancy and Divine origin of the Bible. A Christian will always place their faith in the word of a God who cannot lie rather than fallible, errant men.

[CSLewis]

So do you believe in the new testament when Jesus says "This is my body" this was metaphor or literal? And when referring to the end times as last days is that a figure of speech or is that literally days long gone?

I really don't remember a place in scripture that says disbelief in evolution is essential to be saved-

And that is not regurgitated Christian jargon I really do have a relationship with Christ and the indwelling of the Holy Spirit. I guess when we get to heaven and you pass by me on those golden streets you will pretend I'm not there or Charles for that matter!

[CSLewis]

And by Divinely inspired do you include the deutero canonical books? Who do you think decided on what books would be included in that canon?

So really what you are saying is that only those with the exact same interpretation of scripture as you are saved? So salvation is not God's grace but your interpretation is God which really makes you God. And I won't be joining your cult any time soon.

[spiritman]

I am very offended by being told I am not a Christian because I believe in evolution, you have completely bought intothe lie that the secular humanists have been propagating and it really is a lie from the pit of hell

If evolution is true there can be no god.

This fallacy must be attacked not the scientific theory of evolution.

I believe that Christ lived died and rose again- and He has changed my life from being a humanist living in depravity to someone who cares deeply for my neighbors and wants everyone I meet to have this same encounter with the living Christ. It was nothing I did that saved me but His grace that bore my sins.

I may disagree with many people here on many issues dealing with all kinds of issues transubstantiation, eschatology, soterology, sin, hell, metaphor in scripture, worship, interpretation of scripture, and the way in which God created everything and we all do! We all have differing ideas that is why we have so many sects whether orthodox catholic Protestant - but what is it that makes us christian? That we believe the word "day" is literal in genesis 1 ?( although when Jesus says these are the last days we don't take that as literal???) ? Or is it the central core belief that Christ lived died and rose again for the atonement of our sins?

And when we get heaven our petty theological disputes won't really matter anymore anyway.

Do you disagree with me?

Well let's just say, that you are falsely believing a lie (evolution) here is why? If you are a Christian then you believe the word of God all of it, why? because in John 1 it says;

"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

2 The same was in the beginning with God

John 1:1-2 (KJV)

Since God is the word, then in essence to call any of his word a lie is to say that God is a liar, which if you call God a liar, you are not of Christ, but the anti-christ. if you call Gods' word a lie.

This is what evolution does, it calls God's word a lie, so if you believe in Macro-Evolution, then you are in league with the father of lies.

What does God's word say about the creation of the earth, and man. In the book of Genesis we see that God created the Earth in 6 literal days. Evolutionists say that earth evolved in 4.5 billion years give or take, the two are not compatible.

The Bible says in Genesis Chapter 2, that God Created man from the dust of the earth, evolution says; that man evolved from a common ancestor; these are not compatible.

so either you believe the word of God, and consider Macro-evolution a lie, or you believe macro-evolution and make God a liar.

By saying man evolved from a common ancestor, they are leaving God completely out of the equation. They don't believe there is a God; why would you want to side with a group like that?

your choice.

[spiritman]

So now that I have admitted to forgetting to list my source for the article in question. I invite you to take a stab at this article, which by the way, you have not done yet.

Now that we have placed on the back burner this minor subject I invite you to answer the real subject at hand; which is the fact, that Radiometric dating can not be trusted.

Again, I can't. I've posted detailed threads on the reliability for radiometric dating here only to have them deleted as not being allowed according to forum rules. I can answer your basic questions if you'd like to rephrase them in a non-Gish-Gallop format, but this forum prevents me from going into too much detail. Essentially, though, your source is using exceptionally poor science and, what's more, they know it. The instances of radiometric dates giving off weird dates they talk about are known cases in which dating methods were used inappropriately. Compare this to the numerous correlations between radiometric dating and non-radiometric dating. If radiometric dating can never be trusted by do radiometric dates correlate with non-radiometric dates? Here's a few to get you started.

Age Dating Correlations

you said; "dating methods were used inappropriately. "

I agree Radiometric dating is never appropriate. Thanks for making my point.

Here's the problems involved as stated in my AIG article, 1. while observation science can be done with Radiometric dating, Historical science cannot.

here's an example: Earlier I posted a comment about how Science has believed in error for the last 20 years or so about the speed of light being constant, when in fact new scientific information has been discovered that depending on environment, when it passes through certain gases, light can be sped up to 300 times its normal speed. And depending on it's environment, light can be slowed down to practically a stop. If the speed of light would have been constant at 186,000 miles per second, this method of estimating the age of the earth, and the distance of the stars using this method, would have been accurate. But now this has been proven to be faulty science as well.

So while seeing light in the present represents observational science, seeing light in the past, and all the environments, that light passed through would represent historical science, something that cannot be observed because there were no humans there to observe it.

So in the same way though observation science (radiometric dating), can see the present amount of daughter elements left in the rocks; radiometric dating cannot predict, the Historical Science( Whether or not decay was sped up, then slowed down), in the past, or whether other outside forces may have acted upon the rock. If decay of the parent element is sped up or slowed down, this would effect the amount of Daughter elements left in the rock. Giving a false reading.

get my point. All the information is not there; so correct Radiometric dating is impossible, and should not be used as a scientific method of dating rocks.