-
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
-
CF has always been a site that welcomes people from different backgrounds and beliefs to participate in discussion and even debate. That is the nature of its ministry. In view of recent events emotions are running very high. We need to remind people of some basic principles in debating on this site. We need to be civil when we express differences in opinion. No personal attacks. Avoid you, your statements. Don't characterize an entire political party with comparisons to Fascism or Communism or other extreme movements that committed atrocities. CF is not the place for broad brush or blanket statements about groups and political parties. Put the broad brushes and blankets away when you come to CF, better yet, put them in the incinerator. Debate had no place for them. We need to remember that people that commit acts of violence represent themselves or a small extreme faction.
Exodus 20:9-11 (Creation)
- Thread starter Xalith
- Start date
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,412
- 11,948
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
What explanation is needed for "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science"
When in fact
" statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,"
I think each time you usee an irrefutable point made about the flaws in blind faith evolutionism your response is to ignore the details and "double down" as if we joined you in ignoring those details.
I find your logic "illusive" at that point.
Indeed a miracle - in the virgin birth, the world-wide flood, the 7 day creation week, the resurrection of Christ, the ascension of Christ in to heaven.
If you are going to toss out your Bible each time a scientist says he can't do what the Bible says God did - you will have a great many opportunities to do so.
Darwin figured that one out as well.
Upvote
0
- Nov 21, 2008
- 53,412
- 11,948
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
Dear fossil deniers --
What explanation is needed for "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science"?
Why not accept the fossils as they are - instead of as evolutionism re-imagines them? Think about it.
When in fact your own Collin Patterson is telling you that
" statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,"
I see one of the fossil deniers is going on a road trip. Hope all goes well with that.
What explanation is needed for "stories easy enough to tell but they are not science"?
Why not accept the fossils as they are - instead of as evolutionism re-imagines them? Think about it.
When in fact your own Collin Patterson is telling you that
" statements about ancestry and descent are not applicable in the fossil record. Is Archaeopteryx the ancestor of all birds? Perhaps yes, perhaps no there is no way of answering the question. It is easy enough to make up stories of how one form gave rise to another, and to find reasons why the stages should be favoured by natural selection. But such stories are not part of science,"
Going on a road trip to here some good AA speakers. Good night fossil deniers.
I see one of the fossil deniers is going on a road trip. Hope all goes well with that.
Upvote
0
I love it when all creation scientists are full of crap and evolutionists are right. We love to pick on each,other don't we? We think evolution science is,bunk and they think creation science,is bunk. Meh. We'll never convince each other. I don't know why we try so,hard.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Upvote
0
We've got fossils that sure look like intermediates. There is nothing more the fossils could possibly leave us in terms of quality.
Today, the duckbilled platypus qualifies as an intermediate species in terms of evolution. Why? Clearly any living platypus today cannot have been ancestral to any other species of mammal . . . . and yet . . .
they preserve a line from a distant past when mammals developed milk and had not yet developed birth without the egg laying stage. From the platypus, we learn that live birth developed after the development of mammary glands.
Because we have the mammary glands there without the live birth.
So the Platypus is a transitional species.
Upvote
0
Well, if both sides would leave each other alone, that would be better, but . . . . there is also the matter of what will be taught in the schools. There are those who would argue over that issue very, very strenuously.
Upvote
0
We don't worship,the Bible either. But we do,believe it. Not because of the paper it's printed on but because of our faith in God. It is the Word of God. It is God's word to us. We learn about and understand God through the word.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Upvote
0
Hmmm..... Interesting. What theology is that?
Never mind I figured it out.
Sent from my VS980 4G using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I'm not here to pick on anyone. I reject creation science and consider it a propaganda mill for very good reasons. Consider major spokesman "Dr." Hovind. He ended u with 58 felony charges and ten years in jail. Prior to that , he claimed he received a "doctorate" from Colombia Pacific Bible College, I think. Anyhow, the school is not accredited. And you should read excepts from his dissertation supposedly on the harmful effects of teaching evolution. What a trip. He didn't use page numbers and misspelled all over the place, not to mention, saying nothing abut teaching evolution. Now, when I see those kinds of guys at work, I know I'm not dealing with legit science in any sense of the term. Telling me I'm picking on them is like telling the cops they pick on the Mafia.
Upvote
0
There is only one problem with radiometric dating, and that is, you don't like the dates it reveals.
Upvote
0
Colter
Member
You wouldn't want to live near a nuclear power plant if radiometric dateing was a farce.
It's the Hebrew priest redacted history that is the farce. Cultures from all around the world lived long before the Israelites historical claims and they still exist today outside of the Bible bubble.
Upvote
0
You wouldn't want to live near a nuclear power plant if radiometric dateing was a farce.
It's the Hebrew priest redacted history that is the farce. Cultures from all around the world lived long before the Israelites historical claims and they still exist today outside of the Bible bubble.
It is true that scientists show via successful nuclear plants and successful atomic bombs that they do indeed understand radioactivity at the nuclear level. Which just goes to show the rejection of the dates is based not on science or other revelations of reality but solely on religion.
Upvote
0
Gee, for someone who calls himself a christian yet doesn't believe the bible....good point.
Upvote
0
- Jun 18, 2006
- 3,856,270
- 52,669
- Country
- United States
- Gender
- Male
- Faith
- Baptist
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Republican
Upvote
0
Similar threads
