Still a long time back, predating most records of Middle eastern culture.
wikipedia : Early evidence for proto-Chinese rice paddy agriculture dates back to about 6000 BC.
Also 6000 is an uncommon number, most creationists I know use 4000. Which due to the record keeping of the chinese and archelogical evdence is easy to present a counter example. 6000 makes all counter-examples all non-anthropomorphic, which for some reason I know you will not beleive. Simple things liek the star light is actually counter point enough. Rationilization and over explination of such a simple event, when just saying "the universe is old" would be enough. Why use so many assumptions when just 1 will do.
Also, Distance of 200 light years will not fit much. 200 lights years will not contain more then 40 stars this far from the galatic core. Generally our view of the universe has been supported by emperical proof. The view the universe is 200 light years across or (400 if we're int he middle) has no basis. Why then wouldn't a super nove (like the hand full that have been observed) wipe all life out completly?
Can you provide a non-creationist source for any of the speculation on that one web site. The world is vast and so is the scientific community, if you can disprove somethign as basic as how old the universe is you'd be famous. Scientists arent' a homogenous organization seeking the undermining of religion, their a hetrogenous collection of people who have in interest int he world around us. Simply put, the rational behind creationism collapses under the number of assumptions you need to support it. And the light counter example is entirly enough to disprove yoru point and the speculation on a closed 200 light year universe or a change in the speed of light take assumptions that cannot or is not supported. Also they try to discredit red shift, if it works terrestially why should it not work extra-terrestially?
God exists outside of time - but that does not mean time is meaningless - for the earth & universe exist in time and thus time is relevant.
Perhaps, but that is something for which no Man can know except Jesus. It may not have any signifigance to God. It's never stated that God experiences time.
The fact that you paid $6.50 to sit in their theater, which coincidentally works along the same lines as an EULA; i.e. "by paying $6.50 you agree to the fact that you'll be able to watch Harry Potter on the big screen with the hella-loud sound system, and that if we catch you doing anything stupid like, say, yakking on your cell phone or taping the movie, we can and will throw you out".
In a way this is true, like food for instance. The posted signs say you cannot take food in. If we catch you (I used to work for a theatre) we can ask you to finish it outside, or tell you to leave and refund your ticket. As for this filming thing. It's already illegal so enforcement doesn't require a eula.
It's the lack of joined up thinking that annoys me.
Thats very true. Enviromentalists grourps act like terrorist cells. Independantly, all with differnt objectives. We need a solid non-radical organization to our efforts.
Bio diesel is at least 5 years away. Solar requires a lot of suny days which england doesn't have. Wind doesn't have the energy density required, Tidal might, but also consider the ecological damage, it's be something like a dam and I haven't heard much about tidal.
What I'm implying is the impetus to bring together all the stray technologies to make that specific technology was nessecity. They had a need and thus drove a lot of recources into those creations. A WWII tank (since by the time they had a usable tank the war was mostly over) was a product as a need to circumvent trench warfare and developed into a heavy weapons platform. The rockets were a response (V2 ect.. the modern rocket) the fact they had a horribel attrition rate over britian. The atom bomb is easy in principle but the eceltronic detonators and the innovation that went into fabricating one was not trivial and was due to the need for a clear victory in germany. Although it came too late so they nuked Japan(As a chinese citzen I firmly beleive they deserved it and more).
My poitn was, innovation and competition/need go hand in hand.
Also, Rockets I refered to haven't too much realation to the rockets you mention. The tanks you mention aren't the same as those I meantioned.
They are anolgous but different inventions all together. Dpn't tell me a Gunpowder rocket is entirly the same as a V2 rocket.
"Canadian tar sands holds as much oil as all of the middle east." -Syncrude.
You also assume "at current ussage". I'm pretty sure the rate of energy consumption is increasing, expecially in the third world. Think about 8 billion people all using as much energy as a Canadian or American? We're need to start canabilizing the sun. I don't help, I juts bought a new video card that eats twice the energy as my old one and makes my computer a space heater (expecially with the 6 fans - cpu- video- power- 1 intake -2 case exsuast.)
Nuclears costs will decline as the cost of oil and other energy source increase. IT will also make way for other energy sources when the price climbs. however you will never get 100% of your energy from eco friendly sources, because nothing is 100% eco friendly. Solar panels take some pretty vicous materials to make, and when your throw them away they need "decomissioning" and the energy density is such you'd have to get rid of a lot of this stuff. Wind changes climates and kills birds. Also it doesn't have the energy density needed. This leaves pretty few alternatives.
If the amount of money invested in nulcear was invested in Wind? umm no. Solar? umm not for england. Water turbine? also not for england. hmm.. thats leaves bio diesel or Fussion.... a bit far away from now but maybe... really there aren't that many alternatives. Maybe you could burn soccer hooligans. Their pretty high energy and I don't think anyone will miss them.
My ecology prof said "Enviromentalists are ruining our enviroment". In context: he was refering to how successful activism in the first world has lead to over exploitation of the third world. We can't cut down biologically un-important boreal rain forest because english majors from the local college chain themselves to trees so they cut down biologically critical forests int he tropics/amazon/rain forests. Pitty really.
You'll have to add the cost of climate change to Wind. Massive wind turbine arrays affect the wind patterns int he local area and can change the weather, some parts of europe are experiencing an exstended frought due to some wind turbines.
It still may be cheaper in the end but you have to account for all costs.
Nessecity: The british, they shoot down planes too efficeintly.
Invention: Rockets/ space moduels.
Nessicity: IF we don't the damn ruskies will do it first...
People work better under pressure. A lot of thigns come from serindipity and imagination but desperation makes it come faster. For instance, most scientist do their most ground breaking work before their 40. Why? Becuase they are desprate to prove their worth.
You forget, Your groceries need to be refridgerate, shipped tored. Add 10% to your food bill. Consumer goods have to be made too, add 10% to them. Any service you might think of need electricity in some way, they pay more and pass it back to you, add 10%. Generally it's liek high gas prices, it affects the price of everything. So it might go 3.5 -> 7 but you get anothe 30 - 40 % increase from everythign else.
Energy difference for putting on the sun or on the moon isn't that big. Once you pay the price for excapign earths gravity, choosing a destination is much much cheaper in comparison.
Correction: not the last ruling dynasty but instead the history of all the dynasties and feudal kindowms. China is older then 6000.
Also, if god created everything 6000 years ago, our night sky woudl be much darker. 6000 light years is relativly few stars and absolutly no other galaxies. IF this is not true and it's only this world then the question is what was he doing to those stars. Test runs?
Also. God is All powerful and omnipotent, with tiem being merely one dimension of 4 we observe, would go not trancend tiem so time is thus meaningless?
KJV is much worse a translation then the NIV. the NIV isn't a revision of a revision. It's a derivation from as many old sources as possible to doubel check the language. the KJV was commishioned and does have a very very specific agenda. Namly it's very anti-jew. Revelations in the KJV is much different then in any other bible. Try comparing revaltion in NIV and KJV or even the Catholic bible.
I do not beleive the world is 6000 years old. IT's simply shows too many signs of being older. The chinese empire is older then 6000 years old.
Darwins Evolution isn't the entirty of the current theory. Only the baseline. Why would I be required to read a interesting but out dated book. As well. It is only used int he context of creationist arguements. Evolution is the whole system. Isolation of this to micro and macro are entirly a Creationist structure.
Yes, I think that would be the way to go too.. *Just secretly implement a resistive genetic weakness Earthians could use in case the future Martians decided to attack Earth.. (Or make sure Illudium Pew-36 Explosive Space Modulator is technically impossible to build.)*
Simple, Addict them to Crack and make sure you never send coke plants up there.
In bio 101, 102, 201, 207, 270, 265 Genetics 270, 275, 301, 304, 340 Zoo 235, 265.
I have never heard the term "micro-evolution". Speciation, trait selection and evolution have been discussed but "micro-evolution" isn't a term scientists use. IT's a term you might use but it's not a "term" for academics. There is nothign "micro" about evolution. Because evolution happens in populations not individuals. Exstinction is selection.
The terms are only relavant in the context of Cretionist arguements.
I spoke a few words and you state you cannot believe in both. Thus you accused me of being a non-christian. As for definition of a christian I did in fact outline that. As for being ironic. Yes it was. It was an intentional irony. Otherwise you would degenerate into speaking down to me about minutea of faith. To get your attention and avoid the snide tone you had already started using you have to use a little shock.
Christianity is faith in God, faith in Jesus, Faith in redemption. You fetisize the bible. It's god words but why worship it like god. Make no idols. Even the bible can be an idol. What did Jesus say? Nothing about any of that. Thats all old testement. Laws of the old testment don't apply to the new covinent so why try to understand the modern world using the old testiment. Jesus thought is was wrong. In writing it told us what to do but we mis used it and took it in the wrong spirit. So he told us, through him we are saved. Not the old covinent of Mosses but the new covinent.
As a christian we must love one another, not divide us on minutea. Did mary die a virgin? after the birth was she a virgin? Questions liek that have nothign to do with christianity. It's minutea. Un-impotant to faith. Yet it has split us into the Reformation churches and the catholic churches. I'm telling you, Move beyond strictly what you have read because it is wrong. Your translation is a pale shadow of a pale shadow of the word of god, yet you worship it like it was Jesus. The bible is important. It's a guide to our lives, comfort when we are in trying times. But to tie your faith to a translation of a translation of a language that does not resemble english is folly. You can point to specific passages and say "ahaha Got you " but it's meaningless. Learn hebrew, learn aramaic, learn greek and latin. Then try it again and someday Jesus will say to you himself "Poor son, It was enough you loved. Loved me, Loved each other." The bible is the word of god and it is good. But it is not god and cannot take his place.
Let me apologize. I was being cheeky. I asked for undertsandign and gave none and I knew it. I had a joke at your expense. Let me try an persuade you. Evolution is elegant. A mechanism thats beuatiful. If it is wrong so be it. So far the evidence backs it. We will know when we die or when Jesus comes back. For now, think about it. Think about it independant form yoru NIV bible. Why would god work in a way Humans would?
Evolution is about flaws and mistakjes. Man is about flaws and mistakes.
God did make a perfect creation, the angels. but he didn't love them because they did only his word and their obedience were part and parcel of their make up. He made man and loved man because when Man loved him back, it's because of Mans own will. We're flawed but god loves us anyway. Evolution is about refinement of ones self though the flaws that appear in our gene line. About the movement and dynamic flow of life. God works beyond our understanding. Evolution is so complex that we can understands small sub-sections but the whole dwarfs our intelect. This I see as a sign of god. A wonderous creation like the big ball of burnign plasma that rises everyday and the phase locked ball of rock that I see most nights.
Science was a christian devotion to undertsanding Gods works. Just ebcause it contravenes your dogma doesn't mean it's false. So Review evolution with untainted eyes you will see it makes sense. and it's beautiful.
micro-evolution: no such thing. Evolution is evolution.
Mechanism:
Population A. Has concentration of genes characterized by X. A force is applied to the populace, Gene diversity shifts to patter Y.
Over time this shifting cause significant changes to species. Nothign NEW come out of evolution, just the choice of one trait over another. Point mutation, mistranslation, and a whoel range of DNA errors is the mechanism for new traits. Vast majority are lethal and instantly remove that individual (and mutation) from the populace. Some are benign, neither helpign or hurting (ie eye color). or not enough to affect their concentration in the populace. At some points speciation happens and this divides the species into two or more distince populations.
Repeat the above for 2.4 billion years.
(evidence, in a few short millenia we made a proto wolf into a shitzu. Guess what God can do with 2 billion years).
The evidence that people use to support evolution is the same evidence used to support the truth that is the Bible. The evidence is just interpreted differently. It is much easier to interpret the evidence to support the Bible than it is to interpret the same evidence to support evolution.
Foolish. Then lets debate. Bring your evidence heathen. Bring your interpretation pagan. I have both the word of god and the weight of science behind me, you have empty rhetoric form a small branch of christianity native to Ameerica. From your words, you are no more christian then intellegent. Bring it Pharasy.
What is your definition of Christian? A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ clearly taught that the Bible was true and that male and female were there at the beginning - not millions or billions of years later. If you are a Christian, then you must believe that there was no death until sin entered the world - that the world was perfect until sin. Being a true follower of Jesus Christ - a true Christian - is completely incompatible with molecules to man evolution. If death was here before Adam & Eve sinned, then death is not the penalty of sin. If death is not the penalty for sin, then Jesus Christ did not need to take our sin upon himself and die on the cross for us and then rise from the dead to show he had power over death. Why do you believe Jesus Christ died on the cross?
Why accept evolution because it is the best theory when you can accept the truth found in the Bible
The two are not mutally exclusive and I'm am very offended you would suggest I am not a Christian. Apparently you say you are but the very fact you say this betrays your unChristian soul. No matter what words you say your just like pharasy. All talk, but with a heart of stone. Jesus taught us to love, he taught us through him we find salvation irregaurdless of what the lawyers and paharasies say. He converted prostitutes and tax collectors. You sir, are a lawyer.You speak the word of god but don't believe. You hold jusus up but don't speak jesus words. You speak the words of the Sarasies and the pharasies.
You cannot fight my logic, you cannot fault my faith. I am strong in the lords eyes and cannot not be driven away from my faith in god or my admiration for his works by some simpleton who cannot argue with the evidence I present.
I'd argue evolution is so elegant and beuatiful that to deny it is to deny the sun set. Just because you cannot understand evolution and YOUR faith cannot accomadate that truth does not diminish my truths. I am a Dutch Baptist, former Catholic. Neither deny evolution.
As for your arguement, Jesus died as a blood sacrafice for our sins. Because forgiveness requires blood. Requires a sacrafice. And our sins are such that the blood of GOD is needed to bridge the divide between us. A true christian is a man who loves and beleives, who does not poitn and accuse another of being not christian. Hippocrite! How can you call yourself a Christian when you do such thing. Charlatan.
Riiight... I'm ignorant, but you're telling me that these highly trained, experienced, extremely trusted fighter pilots from the best equipped, best funded, and largest air force on the planet just flipped out one day and willfully attacked Candians so they could get a higher score. But I look ignorant... Keep telling yourself that.
Highly trained means shit all. Your troops are only as good as the base of people they come from. Thats why the citizen soldier is often as good as the regular army. Because your regular army is draw froma certain sub group of people. They ignored a order. Thats telling enough.They willfully made a bad decision.
Your comments lack content. You do in fact look ignorant.
Actually, it is the other way around. The reason for WWII was that Germany had been "bitchslapped" so hard that it had fuelled a lot of hatred in Germany.
Thats was actually my point but in my haste I forgot the extra I in WWII.
Slashdot Mirror
Still a long time back, predating most records of Middle eastern culture.
.
wikipedia : Early evidence for proto-Chinese rice paddy agriculture dates back to about 6000 BC
Also 6000 is an uncommon number, most creationists I know use 4000. Which due to the record keeping of the chinese and archelogical evdence is easy to present a counter example. 6000 makes all counter-examples all non-anthropomorphic, which for some reason I know you will not beleive. Simple things liek the star light is actually counter point enough. Rationilization and over explination of such a simple event, when just saying "the universe is old" would be enough. Why use so many assumptions when just 1 will do.
Also, Distance of 200 light years will not fit much. 200 lights years will not contain more then 40 stars this far from the galatic core. Generally our view of the universe has been supported by emperical proof. The view the universe is 200 light years across or (400 if we're int he middle) has no basis. Why then wouldn't a super nove (like the hand full that have been observed) wipe all life out completly?
Can you provide a non-creationist source for any of the speculation on that one web site. The world is vast and so is the scientific community, if you can disprove somethign as basic as how old the universe is you'd be famous. Scientists arent' a homogenous organization seeking the undermining of religion, their a hetrogenous collection of people who have in interest int he world around us. Simply put, the rational behind creationism collapses under the number of assumptions you need to support it. And the light counter example is entirly enough to disprove yoru point and the speculation on a closed 200 light year universe or a change in the speed of light take assumptions that cannot or is not supported. Also they try to discredit red shift, if it works terrestially why should it not work extra-terrestially?
God exists outside of time - but that does not mean time is meaningless - for the earth & universe exist in time and thus time is relevant.
Perhaps, but that is something for which no Man can know except Jesus. It may not have any signifigance to God. It's never stated that God experiences time.
The fact that you paid $6.50 to sit in their theater, which coincidentally works along the same lines as an EULA; i.e. "by paying $6.50 you agree to the fact that you'll be able to watch Harry Potter on the big screen with the hella-loud sound system, and that if we catch you doing anything stupid like, say, yakking on your cell phone or taping the movie, we can and will throw you out".
In a way this is true, like food for instance. The posted signs say you cannot take food in. If we catch you (I used to work for a theatre) we can ask you to finish it outside, or tell you to leave and refund your ticket. As for this filming thing. It's already illegal so enforcement doesn't require a eula.
It's the lack of joined up thinking that annoys me.
Thats very true. Enviromentalists grourps act like terrorist cells. Independantly, all with differnt objectives. We need a solid non-radical organization to our efforts.
Bio diesel is at least 5 years away. Solar requires a lot of suny days which england doesn't have. Wind doesn't have the energy density required, Tidal might, but also consider the ecological damage, it's be something like a dam and I haven't heard much about tidal.
What I'm implying is the impetus to bring together all the stray technologies to make that specific technology was nessecity. They had a need and thus drove a lot of recources into those creations. A WWII tank (since by the time they had a usable tank the war was mostly over) was a product as a need to circumvent trench warfare and developed into a heavy weapons platform. The rockets were a response (V2 ect.. the modern rocket) the fact they had a horribel attrition rate over britian. The atom bomb is easy in principle but the eceltronic detonators and the innovation that went into fabricating one was not trivial and was due to the need for a clear victory in germany. Although it came too late so they nuked Japan(As a chinese citzen I firmly beleive they deserved it and more).
My poitn was, innovation and competition/need go hand in hand.
Also, Rockets I refered to haven't too much realation to the rockets you mention. The tanks you mention aren't the same as those I meantioned.
They are anolgous but different inventions all together. Dpn't tell me a Gunpowder rocket is entirly the same as a V2 rocket.
"Canadian tar sands holds as much oil as all of the middle east."
-Syncrude.
You also assume "at current ussage". I'm pretty sure the rate of energy consumption is increasing, expecially in the third world. Think about 8 billion people all using as much energy as a Canadian or American? We're need to start canabilizing the sun. I don't help, I juts bought a new video card that eats twice the energy as my old one and makes my computer a space heater (expecially with the 6 fans - cpu- video- power- 1 intake -2 case exsuast.)
Nuclears costs will decline as the cost of oil and other energy source increase. IT will also make way for other energy sources when the price climbs. however you will never get 100% of your energy from eco friendly sources, because nothing is 100% eco friendly. Solar panels take some pretty vicous materials to make, and when your throw them away they need "decomissioning" and the energy density is such you'd have to get rid of a lot of this stuff. Wind changes climates and kills birds. Also it doesn't have the energy density needed. This leaves pretty few alternatives.
If the amount of money invested in nulcear was invested in Wind? umm no. Solar? umm not for england. Water turbine? also not for england. hmm.. thats leaves bio diesel or Fussion.... a bit far away from now but maybe... really there aren't that many alternatives. Maybe you could burn soccer hooligans. Their pretty high energy and I don't think anyone will miss them.
My ecology prof said "Enviromentalists are ruining our enviroment". In context: he was refering to how successful activism in the first world has lead to over exploitation of the third world. We can't cut down biologically un-important boreal rain forest because english majors from the local college chain themselves to trees so they cut down biologically critical forests int he tropics/amazon/rain forests. Pitty really.
You'll have to add the cost of climate change to Wind. Massive wind turbine arrays affect the wind patterns int he local area and can change the weather, some parts of europe are experiencing an exstended frought due to some wind turbines.
It still may be cheaper in the end but you have to account for all costs.
Invention: Atom bomb
Nessecity: Win a war quickly.
Invention: Tanks
Nessicity: Trenches from world war I were a bitch
Invention: Surgery
Nessecity: War time causualties.
Invention: Rockets
Nessecity: The british, they shoot down planes too efficeintly.
Invention: Rockets/ space moduels.
Nessicity: IF we don't the damn ruskies will do it first...
People work better under pressure. A lot of thigns come from serindipity and imagination but desperation makes it come faster. For instance, most scientist do their most ground breaking work before their 40. Why? Becuase they are desprate to prove their worth.
You forget, Your groceries need to be refridgerate, shipped tored. Add 10% to your food bill. Consumer goods have to be made too, add 10% to them. Any service you might think of need electricity in some way, they pay more and pass it back to you, add 10%. Generally it's liek high gas prices, it affects the price of everything. So it might go 3.5 -> 7 but you get anothe 30 - 40 % increase from everythign else.
Energy difference for putting on the sun or on the moon isn't that big. Once you pay the price for excapign earths gravity, choosing a destination is much much cheaper in comparison.
Correction: not the last ruling dynasty but instead the history of all the dynasties and feudal kindowms. China is older then 6000.
Also, if god created everything 6000 years ago, our night sky woudl be much darker. 6000 light years is relativly few stars and absolutly no other galaxies. IF this is not true and it's only this world then the question is what was he doing to those stars. Test runs?
Also. God is All powerful and omnipotent, with
tiem being merely one dimension of 4 we observe, would go not trancend tiem so time is thus meaningless?
KJV is much worse a translation then the NIV. the NIV isn't a revision of a revision. It's a derivation from as many old sources as possible to doubel check the language. the KJV was commishioned and does have a very very specific agenda. Namly it's very anti-jew. Revelations in the KJV is much different then in any other bible. Try comparing revaltion in NIV and KJV or even the Catholic bible.
I do not beleive the world is 6000 years old. IT's simply shows too many signs of being older. The chinese empire is older then 6000 years old.
Darwins Evolution isn't the entirty of the current theory. Only the baseline. Why would I be required to read a interesting but out dated book. As well. It is only used int he context of creationist arguements. Evolution is the whole system. Isolation of this to micro and macro are entirly a Creationist structure.
Yes, I think that would be the way to go too.. *Just secretly implement a resistive genetic weakness Earthians could use in case the future Martians decided to attack Earth.. (Or make sure Illudium Pew-36 Explosive Space Modulator is technically impossible to build.)*
Simple, Addict them to Crack and make sure you never send coke plants up there.
micro-evolutionary
In bio 101, 102, 201, 207, 270, 265
Genetics 270, 275, 301, 304, 340
Zoo 235, 265.
I have never heard the term "micro-evolution". Speciation, trait selection and evolution have been discussed but "micro-evolution" isn't a term scientists use. IT's a term you might use but it's not a "term" for academics. There is nothign "micro" about evolution. Because evolution happens in populations not individuals. Exstinction is selection.
The terms are only relavant in the context of Cretionist arguements.
Macro vs Micro
It isn't a scientific term.
I spoke a few words and you state you cannot believe in both. Thus you accused me of being a non-christian. As for definition of a christian I did in fact outline that. As for being ironic. Yes it was. It was an intentional irony. Otherwise you would degenerate into speaking down to me about minutea of faith. To get your attention and avoid the snide tone you had already started using you have to use a little shock.
Christianity is faith in God, faith in Jesus, Faith in redemption. You fetisize the bible. It's god words but why worship it like god. Make no idols. Even the bible can be an idol. What did Jesus say? Nothing about any of that. Thats all old testement. Laws of the old testment don't apply to the new covinent so why try to understand the modern world using the old testiment. Jesus thought is was wrong. In writing it told us what to do but we mis used it and took it in the wrong spirit. So he told us, through him we are saved. Not the old covinent of Mosses but the new covinent.
As a christian we must love one another, not divide us on minutea. Did mary die a virgin? after the birth was she a virgin? Questions liek that have nothign to do with christianity. It's minutea. Un-impotant to faith. Yet it has split us into the Reformation churches and the catholic churches. I'm telling you, Move beyond strictly what you have read because it is wrong. Your translation is a pale shadow of a pale shadow of the word of god, yet you worship it like it was Jesus. The bible is important. It's a guide to our lives, comfort when we are in trying times. But to tie your faith to a translation of a translation of a language that does not resemble english is folly. You can point to specific passages and say "ahaha Got you " but it's meaningless. Learn hebrew, learn aramaic, learn greek and latin. Then try it again and someday Jesus will say to you himself "Poor son, It was enough you loved. Loved me, Loved each other." The bible is the word of god and it is good. But it is not god and cannot take his place.
Let me apologize. I was being cheeky. I asked for undertsandign and gave none and I knew it. I had a joke at your expense. Let me try an persuade you. Evolution is elegant. A mechanism thats beuatiful. If it is wrong so be it. So far the evidence backs it. We will know when we die or when Jesus comes back. For now, think about it. Think about it independant form yoru NIV bible. Why would god work in a way Humans would?
Evolution is about flaws and mistakjes. Man is about flaws and mistakes.
God did make a perfect creation, the angels. but he didn't love them because they did only his word and their obedience were part and parcel of their make up. He made man and loved man because when Man loved him back, it's because of Mans own will. We're flawed but god loves us anyway. Evolution is about refinement of ones self though the flaws that appear in our gene line. About the movement and dynamic flow of life. God works beyond our understanding. Evolution is so complex that we can understands small sub-sections but the whole dwarfs our intelect. This I see as a sign of god. A wonderous creation like the big ball of burnign plasma that rises everyday and the phase locked ball of rock that I see most nights.
Science was a christian devotion to undertsanding Gods works. Just ebcause it contravenes your dogma doesn't mean it's false. So Review evolution with untainted eyes you will see it makes sense. and it's beautiful.
micro-evolution: no such thing. Evolution is evolution.
Mechanism:
Population A. Has concentration of genes characterized by X. A force is applied to the populace, Gene diversity shifts to patter Y.
Over time this shifting cause significant changes to species. Nothign NEW come out of evolution, just the choice of one trait over another. Point mutation, mistranslation, and a whoel range of DNA errors is the mechanism for new traits. Vast majority are lethal and instantly remove that individual (and mutation) from the populace. Some are benign, neither helpign or hurting (ie eye color). or not enough to affect their concentration in the populace. At some points speciation happens and this divides the species into two or more distince populations.
Repeat the above for 2.4 billion years.
(evidence, in a few short millenia we made a proto wolf into a shitzu. Guess what God can do with 2 billion years).
The evidence that people use to support evolution is the same evidence used to support the truth that is the Bible. The evidence is just interpreted differently. It is much easier to interpret the evidence to support the Bible than it is to interpret the same evidence to support evolution.
Foolish. Then lets debate. Bring your evidence heathen. Bring your interpretation pagan. I have both the word of god and the weight of science behind me, you have empty rhetoric form a small branch of christianity native to Ameerica. From your words, you are no more christian then intellegent. Bring it Pharasy.
What is your definition of Christian? A Christian is a follower of Jesus Christ. Jesus Christ clearly taught that the Bible was true and that male and female were there at the beginning - not millions or billions of years later. If you are a Christian, then you must believe that there was no death until sin entered the world - that the world was perfect until sin. Being a true follower of Jesus Christ - a true Christian - is completely incompatible with molecules to man evolution. If death was here before Adam & Eve sinned, then death is not the penalty of sin. If death is not the penalty for sin, then Jesus Christ did not need to take our sin upon himself and die on the cross for us and then rise from the dead to show he had power over death. Why do you believe Jesus Christ died on the cross?
Why accept evolution because it is the best theory when you can accept the truth found in the Bible
The two are not mutally exclusive and I'm am very offended you would suggest I am not a Christian. Apparently you say you are but the very fact you say this betrays your unChristian soul. No matter what words you say your just like pharasy. All talk, but with a heart of stone. Jesus taught us to love, he taught us through him we find salvation irregaurdless of what the lawyers and paharasies say. He converted prostitutes and tax collectors. You sir, are a lawyer.You speak the word of god but don't believe. You hold jusus up but don't speak jesus words. You speak the words of the Sarasies and the pharasies.
You cannot fight my logic, you cannot fault my faith. I am strong in the lords eyes and cannot not be driven away from my faith in god or my admiration for his works by some simpleton who cannot argue with the evidence I present.
I'd argue evolution is so elegant and beuatiful that to deny it is to deny the sun set. Just because you cannot understand evolution and YOUR faith cannot accomadate that truth does not diminish my truths. I am a Dutch Baptist, former Catholic. Neither deny evolution.
As for your arguement, Jesus died as a blood sacrafice for our sins. Because forgiveness requires blood. Requires a sacrafice. And our sins are such that the blood of GOD is needed to bridge the divide between us. A true christian is a man who loves and beleives, who does not poitn and accuse another of being not christian. Hippocrite! How can you call yourself a Christian when you do such thing. Charlatan.
Riiight... I'm ignorant, but you're telling me that these highly trained, experienced, extremely trusted fighter pilots from the best equipped, best funded, and largest air force on the planet just flipped out one day and willfully attacked Candians so they could get a higher score. But I look ignorant... Keep telling yourself that.
Highly trained means shit all. Your troops are only as good as the base of people they come from. Thats why the citizen soldier is often as good as the regular army. Because your regular army is draw froma certain sub group of people. They ignored a order. Thats telling enough.They willfully made a bad decision.
Your comments lack content. You do in fact look ignorant.
Actually, it is the other way around. The reason for WWII was that Germany had been "bitchslapped" so hard that it had fuelled a lot of hatred in Germany.
Thats was actually my point but in my haste I forgot the extra I in WWII.