Old Timer Posted May 26, 2004 Group: Soapbox - Members Followers: 2 Topic Count: 68 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 962 Content Per Day: 0.13 Reputation: 52 Days Won: 1 Joined: 05/18/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 02/11/1932 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Gosh, another Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted May 26, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 86 Topics Per Day: 0.01 Content Count: 624 Content Per Day: 0.08 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/20/2004 Status: Offline Share Posted May 26, 2004 In other words forget conservation and burn oil like there's no tomorrow. Cute. Anyone else see the fallacy in this? I can't believe people actually buy into an unlimited supply of oil. Not only is it foolish, it violates the first law of thermodynamics, something creationists are so fond of quoting. Can you name a single evolutionary theory that all evolutionists agree upon? After reading through almost all of this long post I'll answer that: It's a THEORY and it's a work on progress, it constantly gets refined as more information is found, such is the nature of science. If scientists didn't do this you'd still be stuck driving a horse and buggy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted May 26, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 26, 2004 After reading through almost all of this long post I'll answer that: It's a THEORY and it's a work on progress, it constantly gets refined as more information is found, such is the nature of science. If scientists didn't do this you'd still be stuck driving a horse and buggy. So the answer is 'no'. Thank you. And the study of the theories of evolution has had NOTHING to do with advances in technology. Let's stop calling it the "theory of evolution". It should be called "Theories of evolution" since there are so many varying ones and no unanimous agreement on any of them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 26, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Artsyladay - I keep trying to find a way to graciously back out of these debates, as they have become the equivalent of a dog chasing it's tail. Literarily, Gen. 1 is written different than even Gen. 2. This has been observed by many Bible scholars. If you were to compare Gen. 1 with the other ancient accounts of creation from that area, a similar format would be observed. We have a tradition that God revealed Genesis to Moses and Moses wrote it all down ver batem. This is a tradition. There is no saying that Gen. 1 could not have predated Moses, and that he just happened to be the first to write it down. After all, Noah and Job and Abraham had been followers of the Lord long, long before Moses. Who is not to say Abraham did not pass down this account to his son and his son to his sons and so on down the line. Really, there is no reason to believe the Lord gave Gen. 1 to be a scientific account of creation as 1) Science as we know it did not exist then, and 2) why would the physical history of the Earth be the point the Lord was trying to make? Was hHis intent for us to know the Earth or to know Him? I believe it is to know Him, and if you read Gen 1 with the intent of finding Him and not the Earth, you will be amazed at what you see there. **************************************************************** Old Timer - FYI, no one claims oil and coal came from dinosaurs. The claim is that they came from plants. There's a big difference between dinosaurs and plants! I know you could care less, but when setting up a debate or a rebuttal, not getting the facts straight that you are trying to rebut makes you look more like a ranter and provokes others to be less likely to give you credance. I say this not to lessen your arguments, but to encourage you to become a better debater. I speak as a teacher in this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest arkon Posted May 26, 2004 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Really, there is no reason to believe the Lord gave Gen. 1 to be a scientific account of creation as 1) Science as we know it did not exist then, and 2) why would the physical history of the Earth be the point the Lord was trying to make? Was hHis intent for us to know the Earth or to know Him? I believe it is to know Him, and if you read Gen 1 with the intent of finding Him and not the Earth, you will be amazed at what you see there. To know Him of course. That is why he showed us it only took 6 days. It could have been faster...but God had a plan in mind. Even atheists follow it...its the 7 day week. So why make the book at all? People. God knows us...because He made us ...the way we are. We want to know People cant stand it. We want to know. We want to know where we came from. People are forever tracing their roots. Science spends trillions on origins. We want to know what when where why how. So God told us. Not only that.....we love to explore the unknown. The future. So God told us. Next up, Gog-Magog and the rapture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 26, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 26, 2004 Not only that.....we love to explore the unknown. The future. So God told us. Next up, Gog-Magog and the rapture. Oh, yeah - and that's crystal clear information! Everyone understands the what's, when's, why's, and how's so-o-o-o perfectly! NOT! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest arkon Posted May 27, 2004 Share Posted May 27, 2004 1Cor 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nebula Posted May 27, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 10 Topic Count: 5,823 Topics Per Day: 0.75 Content Count: 45,870 Content Per Day: 5.94 Reputation: 1,897 Days Won: 83 Joined: 03/22/2003 Status: Offline Birthday: 11/19/1970 Share Posted May 27, 2004 Oh, brother!!!! If we were in a debate class, a response like that would get a C - if you were lucky! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bread_of_Life Posted May 27, 2004 Group: Diamond Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 22 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 872 Content Per Day: 0.12 Reputation: 1 Days Won: 0 Joined: 04/17/2004 Status: Offline Birthday: 03/24/1981 Share Posted May 27, 2004 By the way, someone asked earlier if anyone could name an evolutionary theory all evolutionists agree upon. The answer is yes. Common ancestry. It was the cornerstone of darwin's original theory, it is still the cornerstone of the neo-darwinian synthesis. I cannot think of one evolutionist who disagrees with the theory of common ancestry. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
artsylady Posted May 27, 2004 Group: Royal Member Followers: 1 Topic Count: 171 Topics Per Day: 0.02 Content Count: 4,813 Content Per Day: 0.64 Reputation: 150 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/26/2003 Status: Offline Share Posted May 27, 2004 Just 'common ancestry'? That's like saying, 'yes, we all beleive in evolution'. Common ancestry of what species? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts