NBC wrote:
I think that first of all we have to realise ....
Hold on a second. I asked a question (post #167 and again #273), and you didn't answer it.
Earlier, you said:
I don't have time to go into the technical stuff that scientists deal with, but I place my trust in those scientists who start from the standpoint that God did it now let's find out how, rather than those scientists that have decided that no god is necessary as everything got going and organised itself all on its own.
so I asked:
So, then if we look only at the scientists who are Christian, and ignore those who are atheists, Islamic, Hindu, Taoist, etc, and if they overwhelmingly agree on one way that God created, you go with their expert, Christian, position, right?
So do you stand by your original statement, or not?
I think that first of all we have to realise that there are two types of science. There is the type that forms conclusions based on ideas that be be tested over and over again with repeatable results when carried out in the same set of circumstances. That kind of science.....
False. This is another deception told by creationist websites. In reality, no circumstances can be exactly replicated, and all science is based on making a testable hypothesis and then using experiment to test it. That includes biology and all the other fields that show the evolution is a fact. Pretending that science can't establish past events simply means that all murder convictions have to be tossed out, and our entire criminal justice system ceases to exist.
.....Louis Pasteur's famous experiments confirmed the truth of that life does not arise from non-living material (abiogenesis). To believe otherwise is purely a faith-based statement as it has never been observed.
Um, abiogenesis is not evolution, nor is it common descent. How 'bout this: We agree that God may have poofed the first life into existence, and that evolution from there led to all life on earth today? After all, that's consistent with the evidence.
I personally prefer to put my faith in the account given in Genesis. I can't prove that it's true of course, but the Bible overall makes more sense to me if I just accept the straightforward reading of Genesis as historical fact as conveyed to us by God Almighty, who is the only one who was there and the only one who really knows for sure. You obviously take a different view and if you are comfortable with that then that's fine. We don't need to argue about it do we?
You prefer to put you faith in the human interpretation that Genesis is to be read literally. I agree, we really don't need to argue about it. So then why did you come on here and start all these discussions? Why do you continually and repeatedly assert that creationism is right and evolution is impossible? I contend that this is not a salvation issue, and that both creationist and evolution supporting Christians are among those saved. If we agree that it's not a salvation issue, then perhaps there is no need to argue - though you posts seem to indicate that you do indeed want to discuss this.
In Christ-
Papias
[VERSE=2 Kings 22:14,KJV]So Hilkiah the priest, and Ahikam, and Achbor, and Shaphan, and Asahiah, went unto Huldah the prophetess, the wife of Shallum the son of Tikvah, the son of Harhas, keeper of the wardrobe; (now she dwelt in Jerusalem in the college
and they communed with her.[/VERSE]
