Creation & EvolutionForum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers. There is a Christians-only forum in the Christians-only section too.
Or from one of those creationist groups that treat the human population like an exponential equation and pretend thats how it worked in real life?
Before this conversation continues... I am posting on a forum that is reserved for Christians.... might I hear your profession of faith before we continue... you seem to be standing against what the Bible teaches, and I don't believe that a professing Christian would make such a stand.
Maybe it's against the "rules" to ask for such a statement? *(I don't know) But then, maybe you don't mind sharing?
So, tell me one thing, is your number of around 32,000 based on a guess, or actual physical evidence?
And yes, taking 2 people and then making them reproduce exponentially is still just a guess, as it would need to be backed up by some evidence to be more than that.
"I am posting on a forum that is reserved for Christians.... might I hear your profession of faith before we continue"
This forum description is:
"Science, Creation & Evolution
Forum for the discussion of this important topic. This forum is open to non-believers."
Maybe it is you who are on the wrong forum. However, if you are looking for people who agree with your views, you may not find the christians only forum any more comforting, as there are many christians there who accept evolution and are against creationism (remember, there is a difference between creation and creationism).
Nope, im not christian. But im not against christianity either. I actually support it. Unfortunatly Creationists seem to present a distorted image of it, and I dont like that.
" you seem to be standing against what the Bible teaches, and I don't believe that a professing Christian would make such a stand."
Please tell me how I am doing that?
I may be standing against Your interpretation of what the bible teaches, but I have not said anything here that is against christianity.
Are you against the flat earth theory, and believe the earth is round? If so you are going against what a literal interpretation of the bible teaches.
However, if you would like to claim that you must be a YEC to be christian, maybe you should start a thread on it, I know quite a few christians who would probably want to have a word with you.
As far as the article, I dont really want a critique, just the evidence that should be there if those creationist claims in the "article" (I dont really think of it as one ) are right. however im always open to corrections.
However, it would be interesting to know if you are baseing your population count on actual physical evidence, just exponential math, or maybe something else?
Originally Posted by Malaka
Before this conversation continues... I am posting on a forum that is reserved for Christians.... might I hear your profession of faith before we continue... you seem to be standing against what the Bible teaches, and I don't believe that a professing Christian would make such a stand.
Maybe it's against the "rules" to ask for such a statement? *(I don't know) But then, maybe you don't mind sharing?
~malaka~
__________________
Wei wu wei
Green faeries
Last edited by Arikay; 20th August 2003 at 03:28 AM.
The members on this forum don't follow the rules, and therefore, I don't want to be a participant.
Again, my regrets. Have a good day.
~malaka~
in what way don't se follow the rules? I barely ever see any anti-christian postings in the science forum, and equally little pro-atheist posts. The majority of people here seem to be either theistic evolutionists, agnostic evolutionists, or atheistic who say so little about their religious bias that they may as well be agnostic.
please don't go round making accusations that we don't follow the rules, because we do.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
I PMed him to find out what he was talking about, and he doesnt like that we often break the guidelines posted at the top of the forum (the top post).
From the sound of it, I doubt we will get him back here to actually support his claims.
heh: well from what I see,
(1) is rarely broken
(2) not applicable
(3) broken more often than not by YECers, rarely broken by evolutionists
(4) see 3
(5) this seems to be fairly chilled out place, though anyone can reture from a convo if they like. so six of one and half a dozen of the other if it happens
(6) I'll let him have this one though as with 5, both sides are equally to blame, though I do see evolutionists try and limit the conversation more than the creationists do
(7) see 3 and 4.
__________________ MSci MSc ARCS DIC PhD..... yes, I am bragging.
Yeah, I was looking at them and I agree. And not to mention that number 4 (Im assuming thats the Talk origins and AIG one) states at the begining that its only a suggestion.
As far as 3 and 4, I have rarely seen evolutionists plagerize, but it almost seems common with some creationists that I have run into recently.
And with 4, I also rarely see evolutionists post entire articles, only quote sections, but we have recently had creationists do so with AIG articles.
It seems like he is either really sensative to rule breaking, or he just wanted a reason to leave. But I dont know.
Linear Mode
