I apologize for making you think I was being snide or trying to degenerate into an argument about minutia. THat certainly was not my intent. I see no profit in that and we are warned about doubtful disputations. I am not looking to argue - I am just trying to get people to consider an alternative valid viewpoint - one that I believe points more perfectly to a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, sin-hating God.
All scripture was given by inspiration of God and all scripture is profitable. That's what it says in the New Testament. All scripture includes the Old Testament. Now, that doesn't mean we have to obey the dietary laws and the ceremonial laws and such. But all scripture is still good for us.
When Jesus said that he created them male & female from the begininning, what beginning do you think he was talking about?
As I said before, those who believe evolution and those who believe God created in six days have the exact same evidence. I can go to the Grand Canyon and say a whole lot of water and a little bit of time did that but an evolutionist would say a little bit of water and a whole lot of time did it (or at least that's what they used to say, now some evolutionists are coming around to the whole lot of water and a little bit of time viewpoint). Same evidence (the canyon), different interpretation.
When I was a Catholic, I was taught evolution in catholic schools and I believed it wholeheartedly and even argued for it with some who did not believe it. When I was 25, I called on Jesus Christ as my saviour in a Baptist church and I became a new creature. The next time I thought about the origin of life and how we came into existence, I believed the plain understanding of the scriptures. Not because I had read books or been persuaded by any man, it was only by the inner-working of the Holy SPirit that I was persuaded. Now, ten years or so later, I have read books and done some research and find it much more plausible to believe in a 6 day creation and about a 6,000 year old earth.
BTW, I only use KJV - never would I use NIV or any other of those revisions of revisions or revisions.
I too am a Baptist and former Catholic. Where did I ever say you were not a Christian? I asked what your definition of a Christian is and I gave you mine.
Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
BTW, you say a true Christian would never point and accuse another of not being a Christian. What was it that you just said about my soul?
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.
In the face of overwhelming evidence and support you cling to yoru beliefs.
The people who believe in the teachings of the evolutionary religion use the same evidence as those who believe the Bible. The evidence is just interpreted differently. We have the same fossils, the same rock layers, the same Grand Canyon, etc.
As a Christian I object to being grouped with you.
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?
Peppered moth was an outright fraud with the intent to make people believe in molecules to man evolution - and I heard it still is in textbooks currently being used to teach children.
I think you are confusing micro & macro evolution. Speciation is true - but speciation is not proof of molecules to man evolution. My wife & I have 4 children. None of them are exact duplicates of either of us. There was no evolution because they carry our genes and they express different traits that were encoded in those genes (i.e. green eyes, blue eyes). Evolution requires the addition of new information to make a new kind of animal. Mutations cause a loss of information - becoming less complex in the process.
Scientist who do not believe in molecules to man evolution:
Jeremy Walter - mechanical engineering
Jerry Bergman - biology
John Kramer - biochemistry
Paul Giem - medical research
Henry Zuill - biology
Jonathan Sarfati - Physical chemistry
Ariel Roth - biology
Keith Wanser - physics
Timothy Standish - biology
John Rankin - mathematical physics
Bob Hosken - biochemistry
James Allan - genetics
George Javor - biochemistry
Dwain Ford - organic chemistry
Angela Meyer - horticulture science
Stephen Grocott - inorganic chemistry
Andrew Mcintosh - mathematics
John Marcus - biochemistry
Nancy Darrall - botany
John Cimbala - mechanical engineering
Edward Boudreaux - theoretical chemistry
Theo Agard - medical physics
Ker Thomson - geophysics
John Baumgardner - geophysics
Arthur Jones - biology
George Howe - botany
A.J. Monty White - physical chemistry
D.B. Gower - biochemistry
Walter Veith - zoology
Danny Faulkner - Astronomy
Edmond Holroyd - meteorology
Robert Eckel - medical research
Jack Cuozzo - orthodontics
Andrew Snelling - geology
Stephen Taylor - electrical engineering
John Morris - geological engineering
Elaine Kennedy - Geology
Colin Mitchell - geography
Stanley Mumma - architectural engineering
Evan Jamieson - hydrometallurgy
Larry Vardiman - meteorology
Geoff Downes - forestry research
Wayne Frair - biology
Sid Cole - physical chemistry
Don Deyoung - physics
George Hawke - meteorology
Kurt Wise - geology
J.H. John Peet - chemistry
Werner Gitt - information science
Don Batten - agricultural science
Henry Morris - geology
Obviously, this list disproves your statement that the whole field of geology, astronomy, & genetics believe the earth is old. You can read these scientists' thoughts in the book "In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation." (Just so someone doesn't get the chance to think he/she is funny, there are more than 50 scientists who believe molecules to man evolution is false.)
Go to www.icr.org and read some of the papers there. You'll get plenty of reasons why molecules to man, goo to you via the zoo evolution is built upon shaky premises.
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth..."
Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
The assumption of an old earth does not support evolution. An old earth is required for the far-fetched theories to be even remotely plausible but just having an old earth does not mean molecules to man evolution is true.
Not all branches of science support molecules to man evolution. Many scientists want to believe molecules to man evolution is true but there are so many problems with the various theories about how complexity evolved and they are constantly changing. More and more scientists are being intellectually honest and admitting problems with evolutionary theory. There is no proof the earth is old, there are no missing links, we do not currently observe one kind evolving into another kind.
Many of the so-called proofs of evolution that were in my grade-school science books have now been proven to be intentional frauds (peppered-moths, piltdown man, etc.)
It's a shame that the Christian religion is not allowed in the school systems anymore but the evolutionary religion is.
There's micro & macro evolution. The evolution that is faith based and has never been observed and can never be proven true is the molecules to man evoution. Change within a kind is true. Origin of life evolution is not true.
The theory of gravity can be backed up by experimentation and observation. Evolution cannot. Evolution can never be proven by science. And that goes for the entire array of evolutionary theories.
It would be nice if the theory of evolution was approached in that manner. However, it is not. Many evolutionists accept evolution as truth and then go out to find evidence.
Evolutionists and creationists have the exact same evidence. It's the interpretation of the evidence that differs. We see billions of dead things buried in layers of rock all over the earth. Evolutionists claim these layers were put down over long periods of times (millions of years). Creationists believe those layers were deposited rapidly during a cataclysmic flood during the days of Noah. Same evidence - two different interpretations. Science cannot prove either to be true. Science cannot prove either to be false.
Science can prove/disprove the operational but not the historical.
I never met them, but I would not trust them either until I got to know them, and they'd earned my trust.
Have you ever taken any medication? Did you meet the people who produced it? Have you driven a car or flown in a plane? Did you meet the people who designed and built them? Did they earn your trust?
Everyone lives by faith - but not always faith in the right thing/person.
But unless you have personally met God, it would seem unwise to have faith in that hypothetical entity. Why implicitly trust someone you have never met, and who you have never seen?
Have you ever met George Washington? Thomas Edison? Albert Einstein? Plato? Socrates? Were they real people or hypothetical entities? What you know about these hypothetical entities you probably learned from a book that was written by someone else that you have never met or seen. Why do you implicitly trust them?
Honesty is integral to science? No scientists are motivated by "cooking" up some results to gain funding? What about the scientists who perpretrated the peppered-moth hoax that was taught in so many science textbooks? What about the scientists who perpretrated the piltdown man hoax that was taught so many students as proof of evolution?
At least one scientist was honest. He said he believed in evolution because the alternative was unacceptable to him. It is convenient (at least on the surface) to not believe that God created you. If God did not create you, then you can ignore God's rules and make up your own.
I'll believe in science over "My religion SAYS SO!" any day.
I believe in science and religion. Evolutionists believe in religion. The origin of the universe, the earth, and life cannot be determined by science. Science involves observations, tests, and repeatability to prove/disprove ideas. No scientist has or will ever be able to reproduce the creation of life or matter. Evolutionists cannot prove evolution in the molecules to man, goo to you via the zoo sense. It is not repeatable and has never been observed. Therefore, that form of evolution is religion and not science.
On the other hand, I know someone who did observe the creation of the earth and I have his word:-)
You really shouldn't use anything from many evolutionists if you want to practice real science. Their tenets of belief are to ignore any evidence that contradicts their pre-supposed truths.
According to creation science, the pairs that boarded Noah's ark contained in their genes all the information needed to produce all the variation within the kind that we see today. But the variations we see today do not contain all that information as well. The variations came about as a result of a loss of information. Obviously, 2 purebred Great British Bulldogs do not have the information within their genes to produce purebred Great Danes.
Creationists do not believe in molecules to man, goo to you via the zoo evoltion. Creationists do believe in speciation. Speciation does not produce new kinds (biblical term) but rather produces variation within the kind.
Slashdot Mirror
Wasn't the first Chinese emporer Emporer Shun who ruled from 2256 BC to 2205BC?
This is an interesting article on the various possiblities to explain star light within the 6 day creation model.
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.
I apologize for making you think I was being snide or trying to degenerate into an argument about minutia. THat certainly was not my intent. I see no profit in that and we are warned about doubtful disputations. I am not looking to argue - I am just trying to get people to consider an alternative valid viewpoint - one that I believe points more perfectly to a perfect, all-powerful, all-knowing, sin-hating God.
All scripture was given by inspiration of God and all scripture is profitable. That's what it says in the New Testament. All scripture includes the Old Testament. Now, that doesn't mean we have to obey the dietary laws and the ceremonial laws and such. But all scripture is still good for us.
When Jesus said that he created them male & female from the begininning, what beginning do you think he was talking about?
As I said before, those who believe evolution and those who believe God created in six days have the exact same evidence. I can go to the Grand Canyon and say a whole lot of water and a little bit of time did that but an evolutionist would say a little bit of water and a whole lot of time did it (or at least that's what they used to say, now some evolutionists are coming around to the whole lot of water and a little bit of time viewpoint). Same evidence (the canyon), different interpretation.
When I was a Catholic, I was taught evolution in catholic schools and I believed it wholeheartedly and even argued for it with some who did not believe it. When I was 25, I called on Jesus Christ as my saviour in a Baptist church and I became a new creature. The next time I thought about the origin of life and how we came into existence, I believed the plain understanding of the scriptures. Not because I had read books or been persuaded by any man, it was only by the inner-working of the Holy SPirit that I was persuaded. Now, ten years or so later, I have read books and done some research and find it much more plausible to believe in a 6 day creation and about a 6,000 year old earth.
BTW, I only use KJV - never would I use NIV or any other of those revisions of revisions or revisions.
I too am a Baptist and former Catholic. Where did I ever say you were not a Christian? I asked what your definition of a Christian is and I gave you mine.
Psalm 119:165 Great peace have they which love thy law: and nothing shall offend them.
BTW, you say a true Christian would never point and accuse another of not being a Christian. What was it that you just said about my soul?
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.
Why accept evolution because it is the best theory when you can accept the truth found in the Bible?
Read the post to which I replied.
Who needs a theory when he already knows the truth? :-)
Peppered moth was an outright fraud with the intent to make people believe in molecules to man evolution - and I heard it still is in textbooks currently being used to teach children.
I think you are confusing micro & macro evolution. Speciation is true - but speciation is not proof of molecules to man evolution. My wife & I have 4 children. None of them are exact duplicates of either of us. There was no evolution because they carry our genes and they express different traits that were encoded in those genes (i.e. green eyes, blue eyes). Evolution requires the addition of new information to make a new kind of animal. Mutations cause a loss of information - becoming less complex in the process.
Scientist who do not believe in molecules to man evolution:
- Jeremy Walter - mechanical engineering
- Jerry Bergman - biology
- John Kramer - biochemistry
- Paul Giem - medical research
- Henry Zuill - biology
- Jonathan Sarfati - Physical chemistry
- Ariel Roth - biology
- Keith Wanser - physics
- Timothy Standish - biology
- John Rankin - mathematical physics
- Bob Hosken - biochemistry
- James Allan - genetics
- George Javor - biochemistry
- Dwain Ford - organic chemistry
- Angela Meyer - horticulture science
- Stephen Grocott - inorganic chemistry
- Andrew Mcintosh - mathematics
- John Marcus - biochemistry
- Nancy Darrall - botany
- John Cimbala - mechanical engineering
- Edward Boudreaux - theoretical chemistry
- Theo Agard - medical physics
- Ker Thomson - geophysics
- John Baumgardner - geophysics
- Arthur Jones - biology
- George Howe - botany
- A.J. Monty White - physical chemistry
- D.B. Gower - biochemistry
- Walter Veith - zoology
- Danny Faulkner - Astronomy
- Edmond Holroyd - meteorology
- Robert Eckel - medical research
- Jack Cuozzo - orthodontics
- Andrew Snelling - geology
- Stephen Taylor - electrical engineering
- John Morris - geological engineering
- Elaine Kennedy - Geology
- Colin Mitchell - geography
- Stanley Mumma - architectural engineering
- Evan Jamieson - hydrometallurgy
- Larry Vardiman - meteorology
- Geoff Downes - forestry research
- Wayne Frair - biology
- Sid Cole - physical chemistry
- Don Deyoung - physics
- George Hawke - meteorology
- Kurt Wise - geology
- J.H. John Peet - chemistry
- Werner Gitt - information science
- Don Batten - agricultural science
- Henry Morris - geology
Obviously, this list disproves your statement that the whole field of geology, astronomy, & genetics believe the earth is old. You can read these scientists' thoughts in the book "In Six Days: Why Fifty Scientists Choose to Believe in Creation." (Just so someone doesn't get the chance to think he/she is funny, there are more than 50 scientists who believe molecules to man evolution is false.)Go to www.icr.org and read some of the papers there. You'll get plenty of reasons why molecules to man, goo to you via the zoo evolution is built upon shaky premises.
Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning, God created the heaven and the earth..." Exodus 20:11 "For in six days the LORD made heaven and earth, the sea, and all that in them is, and rested the seventh day: wherefore the LORD blessed the sabbath day, and hallowed it."
The assumption of an old earth does not support evolution. An old earth is required for the far-fetched theories to be even remotely plausible but just having an old earth does not mean molecules to man evolution is true. Not all branches of science support molecules to man evolution. Many scientists want to believe molecules to man evolution is true but there are so many problems with the various theories about how complexity evolved and they are constantly changing. More and more scientists are being intellectually honest and admitting problems with evolutionary theory. There is no proof the earth is old, there are no missing links, we do not currently observe one kind evolving into another kind. Many of the so-called proofs of evolution that were in my grade-school science books have now been proven to be intentional frauds (peppered-moths, piltdown man, etc.) It's a shame that the Christian religion is not allowed in the school systems anymore but the evolutionary religion is.
There's micro & macro evolution. The evolution that is faith based and has never been observed and can never be proven true is the molecules to man evoution. Change within a kind is true. Origin of life evolution is not true.
The bacteria are still bacteria and the cows are still cows. Molecules to man, goo to you via the zoo evolution is simply not true.
I should have been more specific - evolution in the molecules to man, goo to you via the zoo sense can never be proven.
What does the pope know about Christianity?
The theory of gravity can be backed up by experimentation and observation. Evolution cannot. Evolution can never be proven by science. And that goes for the entire array of evolutionary theories.
Absolutely.
It would be nice if the theory of evolution was approached in that manner. However, it is not. Many evolutionists accept evolution as truth and then go out to find evidence.
Evolutionists and creationists have the exact same evidence. It's the interpretation of the evidence that differs. We see billions of dead things buried in layers of rock all over the earth. Evolutionists claim these layers were put down over long periods of times (millions of years). Creationists believe those layers were deposited rapidly during a cataclysmic flood during the days of Noah. Same evidence - two different interpretations. Science cannot prove either to be true. Science cannot prove either to be false.
Science can prove/disprove the operational but not the historical.
Have you ever taken any medication? Did you meet the people who produced it? Have you driven a car or flown in a plane? Did you meet the people who designed and built them? Did they earn your trust?
Everyone lives by faith - but not always faith in the right thing/person.
Have you ever met George Washington? Thomas Edison? Albert Einstein? Plato? Socrates? Were they real people or hypothetical entities? What you know about these hypothetical entities you probably learned from a book that was written by someone else that you have never met or seen. Why do you implicitly trust them?
Honesty is integral to science? No scientists are motivated by "cooking" up some results to gain funding? What about the scientists who perpretrated the peppered-moth hoax that was taught in so many science textbooks? What about the scientists who perpretrated the piltdown man hoax that was taught so many students as proof of evolution?
At least one scientist was honest. He said he believed in evolution because the alternative was unacceptable to him. It is convenient (at least on the surface) to not believe that God created you. If God did not create you, then you can ignore God's rules and make up your own.
I believe in science and religion. Evolutionists believe in religion. The origin of the universe, the earth, and life cannot be determined by science. Science involves observations, tests, and repeatability to prove/disprove ideas. No scientist has or will ever be able to reproduce the creation of life or matter. Evolutionists cannot prove evolution in the molecules to man, goo to you via the zoo sense. It is not repeatable and has never been observed. Therefore, that form of evolution is religion and not science.
On the other hand, I know someone who did observe the creation of the earth and I have his word :-)
You really shouldn't use anything from many evolutionists if you want to practice real science. Their tenets of belief are to ignore any evidence that contradicts their pre-supposed truths.
You show me your missing link and I'll show you mine.
According to evolutionists, those same dogs as well as everything else originally came from a single-cell organism.
According to creation science, the pairs that boarded Noah's ark contained in their genes all the information needed to produce all the variation within the kind that we see today. But the variations we see today do not contain all that information as well. The variations came about as a result of a loss of information. Obviously, 2 purebred Great British Bulldogs do not have the information within their genes to produce purebred Great Danes.
Creationists do not believe in molecules to man, goo to you via the zoo evoltion. Creationists do believe in speciation. Speciation does not produce new kinds (biblical term) but rather produces variation within the kind.