- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,851,057
- 51,498
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Ah, yes.Cosmic microwave background:
Remnants of a time (4004 BC) when this universe was bathed in Shekinah energy.
Upvote
0
Ah, yes.Cosmic microwave background:
Ah, yes.
Remnants of a time (4004 BC) when this universe was bathed in Shekinah energy.
Like how you guys interpret Genesis 1 and Joshua 10:13.Ah, yes. You making stuff up.
Like how you guys interpret Genesis 1 and Joshua 10:13.
Note: The way the Joshua passage is interpreted shows a willingness to suspend relativity to make the Bible look wrong.
Einstein is turning over in his grave!
I'd have to watch the relevant parts of the video again, but the latest DVD from creation astronomy adds additional information that you are not revealing here and casts significant doubt on what you have stated above.What we see is more than enough to confirm the BB theory.
Cosmic microwave background:
I'd have to watch the relevant parts of the video again, but the latest DVD from creation astronomy adds additional information that you are not revealing here and casts significant doubt on what you have stated above.
Are you saying it is an effective strategy by creationist leaders to deceive the gullible masses? If so, I agree with you.
I am making a statement AV, not a question. The statement is; the evidence is there but creationist use intellectual immature arguments to deny them.
I think that if you really did serious research, instead of being ready to jump at creationists being stupid or ignorant, you would have a better idea why we who do believe in a seven day creation. I most certainly am not a ignorant country boy in overalls sitting smoking acorn cob pipe in a barn. I would say I am fairly well educated, but I have looked at both sides of the coin, and feel that it is not necessary to attack those who think differently than I do.
If you think a Masters in Evolution qualifies a person to belittle others who think other wise, I surely do not respect that.
As a general rule, the creationists we see here just repeat what they read on creationist sites, never understanding the material, and definitely not understand why that information is false. From these types of interactions alone, it is pretty easy to see that the reason they believe in creationism has nothing to do with the scientific evidence since no honest appraisal of that evidence would ever lead to the conclusions they hold. It is more a case of Christians putting their faith in other Christians (i.e. creationists), and those Christians letting them down.
Even worse, when we discuss topics like genetics, phylogenomics, radiometric dating, and so on, they rarely show that they understand the basics of those fields. For example, we once had a creationist who tried to claim they were an expert in genetics while not understanding why bacteria do not have recessive genes.
Any informed discussion requires the participants to at least be able to get the gist of a primary paper and be able to discuss how the data presented supports the conclusions. I have rarely, if ever, found a creationist who is capable of doing that. At the same time, many of us on the evolution side can and do read the primary lit and understand it. While it may not require a masters degree in the specific field of science to read peer reviewed paper, it is a rather large hurdle for the newcomer to get over.
Thank you for a forth right respectful reply. I personally am not real familiar with many of the subject you have listed, no do I pretend to be. If I don't know something, I either don't respond, or ask for more information, at least I hope that is the way I come across.
I do subscribe to ACTS & FACTS witch is a creationists magazine, which I do trust. I believe there will always be debate between those who accept the Bible as accurate and those who totally disagree with the Bible.
However there is always a chance to dialogue with respect and kindness. For sure I do believe in what Scripture says, as I think you would expect. I may not agree with someone, and hopefully rather than becoming rude I would just drop out of a thread. I hope this give a little better understanding of who I am and that I believe respect is a key to any dialogue on such an important topic.
Going back to the previous post:
"I most certainly am not a ignorant country boy in overalls sitting smoking acorn cob pipe in a barn. I would say I am fairly well educated, but I have looked at both sides of the coin, and feel that it is not necessary to attack those who think differently than I do."--farout
I mean this in the most polite connotation of the term possible, you are ignorant of the science by your own admission. You haven't looked at the flip side of the coin. If you don't understand the science, then how do you know that it is wrong?
The majority of Christians in the world who accept the Bible as accurate also accept evolution, an old Earth, and the lack of a literal global flood. Your real battle is with the facts of the universe, not with atheists.
The raw nerve in these discussions is the hubris that most creationists exude. Without any real knowledge of the sciences they discuss, they will pronounce 150 years of science and millions of educated and knowledgeable scientists as being wrong, simply because the science goes against the creationists' preferred translation of the Bible. Creationists throw fuel on the fire by making such statements as "we are using the same evidence" when they are clearly not. It is obvious from the start that no evidence will change the mind of a creationist, which makes the whole scientific discussion a moot point from the start.
"Tribalism" seems a much more fertile opening concept.
Also "superstimulus": the production of exaggerated responses and reactions by exaggeratedly stimulating natural reflexes.
-Kudos for proofreading!
Perhaps they are not fully aware of the significance of Biblical Creation, and I am not referring to Theistic-Evolution.
Don't believe anyone with an Australian accent who tells you that
a young earth is an important stand to take. He's blowing smoke
not in the letter of ICR recommendations for biblical interpretation.
Yup.-
There is another axiom in publishing circles: Don't wait till it's perfect before you publish.
So I hit "Post" too fast many times...Oh well.
I understand your point. I however respectfully do not agree.
Yes, but we all know that he had no clue when it came to geology.According to Henry M. Morris, Young Earth Creationists are not reading scripture correctly.
That's not what he said, but that's what he said.
What questions do you have on geology? I could probably help you.