Ovedya Posted December 13, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Please learn some science from someplace other than a creationist web site. Is science somehow less meaningful if taken from a creationism site? Absolutely. AiG in particular is misleading when not down right dishonest. I have yet to see a creationist site that was not based on a particular theological reading of Genesis. That is not science. That is religion. If scientific methods are used, then, yes, it is science; regardless if the foundation or cause of that science is Creationism or not. What's the difference if an evolutionist uses science to prove the theory of evolution or if a creationist uses science to prove creation theory? One starts with evolution and the other starts with creation. Not all creationism is religious either, by the way. It doesn't have to be. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MorningGlory Posted December 13, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 0 Topic Count: 1,022 Topics Per Day: 0.16 Content Count: 39,193 Content Per Day: 6.09 Reputation: 9,977 Days Won: 78 Joined: 10/01/2006 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2007 If you believe that the Bible must be read to state that the earth is 6000 years old, give or take a few hundred or even thousan years, then yep, the Bible is wrong. The evidence is that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. To think otherwise is to ignore the evidence and to suggest that nuclear physics is wrong. Good luck. Learn some science. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. There is NO evidence of a young earth, of Noah's flood, of the special creation of "kinds" 6000 +/- years ago. Go find a geologist at a local college--ask questions, seek answers. I have learned some science, you? I'm not sure I made a reference from nuclear physics to evolution, you are the one who did that. Standard fundy attempt to move the goal posts. The issue with nuclear physics deals with radiometric dating. Radiometric dating indicates the earth is 4.5 billion years old. To suggest otherwise is to suggest that nuclear physics is now somehow different than it was 4.5 billion years ago (or 6000 years ago). That is ignorant. Got info, bring it here, but spare me any citations to AiG or ICR or the rest of the fundy web sites. They are simply dishonest and misleading. Try real hard to stop being a lemming and think for yourself. I had science courses in college, yes, but I'm an engineer...not a biologist or paleontologist or whatever. May I ask what your scientific background is? I'm not a 'standard fundie', how rude, not to mention pedestrian, of you. That's a standard evolutionist tactic, i.e. saying something then denying it. Well it's bolded above and you did make the reference. I'm very aware of the radiometric dating methods. I don't believe they are accurate enough to depend on. And, since you weren't around 4.5 billion years ago, you don't know what (if anything) was going on then. Oh, btw, I will cite any, and all, sources I deem relevant; not your call. But, it must wait. Gotta get up early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneLight Posted December 13, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 22 Topic Count: 1,294 Topics Per Day: 0.21 Content Count: 31,762 Content Per Day: 5.22 Reputation: 9,763 Days Won: 115 Joined: 09/14/2007 Status: Offline Share Posted December 13, 2007 Genesis is not literal. Not sure of the rest. Then allow me to ask if you are a Christian or not? Have you accepted Jesus as your Savior? How people reply to posts are determined on this factor. We can not assume that you believe on way when you do not, and it would not be fair to you if we did. OneLight Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge S Posted December 13, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/03/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1963 Share Posted December 13, 2007 ... to say that God could not have used the theory of evolution to create what we have now is, I believe, a sin; it limits God. Are you serious? Why not. If your is god is as powerful as you say he(she) is he(she) could have done it easily. To life quest i though that was an excellent post. Especially your point about when jesus returns will it matter if you believe in young or old earth. I'm not a believer myself but if Jesus existed and did return i think it would be whether you were a good person and teated others as you would treat yourself that would matter not how old the land you are standing on is. WARNING, LifeQuest! Isn't it odd that your liberal theology has triggered the wholehearted support of an unbeliever? Then faith is of hearing, and hearing by the Word of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge S Posted December 13, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/03/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1963 Share Posted December 13, 2007 ...The evidence is that the earth is about 4.5 billion years old. To think otherwise is to ignore the evidence and to suggest that nuclear physics is wrong. Good luck. Learn some science. The earth is 4.5 billion years old. There is NO evidence of a young earth, of Noah's flood, of the special creation of "kinds" 6000 +/- years ago. Go find a geologist at a local college--ask questions, seek answers. My friend, The evidence does not speak for itself and it is not exhaustive at any given moment. Data needs to be interpreted within a particular framework in order to yield some meaning. Philosophic presuppositions influence the way data is interpreted. There is nothing final or even cohesive with the evolutionary interpretation of the available evidence. Yes, we all need to learn some science. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1Cor6:11Man Posted December 13, 2007 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 42 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/07/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1976 Share Posted December 13, 2007 (edited) Your reply is why I do not post in scientific threads. Have you not figured out that there are some things others can do better then you and things that you can do better then others? You may have a gift for science, I do not and never did, so ... please, keep your condescending remarks to yourself. I'll wait and get the information straight from God Himself, when I get to meet Him face to face. Yo go ahead and continue to stick you prideful nose up in the air and talk down to those who do not see things your way. It really brings out your maturity level! OneLight Then it is simple. Dont bother to post on any boards relating to science. That way you dont even have to try to learn any. Too bad for you. After reading more of your posts, are you saying that you do not believe that the Bible is true? OneLight Genesis is not literal. Not sure of the rest. What do you mean by that? What support do you even have to make such a statement? Just because you don't think it is? Give us something a little more than opinion please. The reason I say, is because Genesis is literal. It assumes the reader is going to take it literally when it speaks. Now, whether you believe it is true or not is another matter all together. But it is a historical, literal book. You may not believe that it is literally true, but that doesn't mean that it is not written to be taken literally (Two different things). It's not poetry, it's not wisdom literature, it's not didactic (teaching), it's not prophetic. It's history, and it's meant to be taken literally. What I think is funny, is that everyone seems to take Genesis literally, except the very beginning. Which is the silliest thing I've ever heard. Genesis is still a piece of literature, and doesn't change genre less than halfway into the book! Another classic example of literary/grammatical sloppiness. C'mon folks, this is English 101. Edited December 13, 2007 by 1Cor6:11Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1Cor6:11Man Posted December 13, 2007 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 42 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/07/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1976 Share Posted December 13, 2007 By the way, Jukia, you still haven't directly responded to any of my post #29 on page 3. I gave you quite a bit of neutral references. Or do I have to mail you one of the videos myself? (Which I really don't mind doing.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ovedya Posted December 13, 2007 Group: Royal Member Followers: 3 Topic Count: 375 Topics Per Day: 0.05 Content Count: 11,400 Content Per Day: 1.44 Reputation: 125 Days Won: 0 Joined: 08/30/2002 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/14/1971 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Genesis is not literal. Not sure of the rest. So....you're not sure if the rest of the Bible is literal, but you know that Genesis is not? How do you know that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1Cor6:11Man Posted December 13, 2007 Group: Members Followers: 1 Topic Count: 0 Topics Per Day: 0 Content Count: 42 Content Per Day: 0.01 Reputation: 0 Days Won: 0 Joined: 09/07/2007 Status: Offline Birthday: 08/26/1976 Share Posted December 13, 2007 (edited) Oh, yeah, by the way, maybe scientists should stop nitpicking about the anomaly of HIV. (I'm being satirical here to make my point.) Or maybe we should stop nitpicking about the worse anomaly of faulty Radio and Carbon Dating, which no one so far has given any resources to show it's accurate. And yet the resources we mention here are dismissed, which clearly show, with a 10 year old intelligence level needed to understand when you watch it (DVD), that it's not. (Whose the one really checking their brains out at the door here?) Or maybe we should stop nitpicking about the fact that no human skeleton has ever been found apart from evidence of current intelligence (ie, tools). Or maybe we should stop nitpicking about the fact that no human skeleton has ever been found that supposedly supports evolution, more than six to 10 feet underground. I mean, that's a lot of time for dirt to pile up, you know. ( Again, I'm being satirical here.) Yeah, I agree. The nitpicking should stop. Let the evidence prevail in truth. And so far, I have heard nothing, and I mean nothing, when it comes to resources, references, or scientific data that has shown otherwise. Again, whose really doing their homework here? I know I have. I've got posts to prove it. Still in Love, 1 Cor. 6:11 Man. Edited December 13, 2007 by 1Cor6:11Man Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jorge S Posted December 13, 2007 Group: Advanced Member Followers: 2 Topic Count: 1 Topics Per Day: 0.00 Content Count: 289 Content Per Day: 0.04 Reputation: 3 Days Won: 0 Joined: 03/03/2006 Status: Offline Birthday: 12/04/1963 Share Posted December 13, 2007 Sorry, I have yet to see a reliable creationist website. Try +++//THE-BIBLE.GOD Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts