Bad Science Journalism: The Underdog Story

[Molal]

The Wall Street Journal is sub-Islamic propaganda.

Oh come on.......can you actually evidence that assertion?

 

[TheManeki]

The Wall Street Journal is sub-Islamic propaganda.

Oh, I like you. You're no EnemyPartyII, but you're a sweet leetle Poe nonetheless.

 

[FightForFamily]

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/06/08/evolution-in-real-time-how-bacteria-beat-antibiotics/
http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader...-evolution/?mod=homeblogmod_theinformedreader

 

[Molal]

http://blogs.wsj.com/health/2007/06/08/evolution-in-real-time-how-bacteria-beat-antibiotics/
http://blogs.wsj.com/informedreader...-evolution/?mod=homeblogmod_theinformedreader

What are these links for?

 

[FightForFamily]

Oh come on.......can you actually evidence that assertion?

What you asked me to do.

 

[Molal]

What you asked me to do.

You need to explain your links. reading through them suggests to me they have nothing to do with:

The Wall Street Journal is sub-Islamic propaganda.

 

[AV1611VET]

.

So what? The beginning of creation could have been 13.5 billion years ago too.

But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

 

[AV1611VET]

Then Jesus did not know how the Earth was formed. Hence, Jesus was not the son of the creator of the earth, or at least the two were not talking to each other.

Um ... Jesus created it ---

[bible]Colossians 1:16-17[/bible]

 

[Lakercom]

I am the ninth poster on this page and all the icons are for christians. Weird, did all the atheists and agnostics etc get raptured?

 

[Morcova]

I back my claims up, in writing; something I don't see Theistic Evolutionists ever do.

You mean rantings.
No science just more of, "I'm right cuz."

 

[AV1611VET]

I am the ninth poster on this page and all the icons are for christians. Weird, did all the atheists and agnostics etc get raptured?

No --- the Rapture is upward ---

 

[pgp_protector]

.

Originally Posted by MrGoodBytes View Post
So what? The beginning of creation could have been 13.5 billion years ago too.

Originally Posted by Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

So God made Man & Woman at the Beginning, or after the Beginning?

 

[AV1611VET]

So God made Man & Woman at the Beginning, or after the Beginning?

You want the exact day? It's in Genesis 1.

 

[thaumaturgy]

What you asked me to do.

I don't understand how a WSJ Blog about evolution and diseases is "sub Islamic". Unfortunately I don't have a copy of the Q'ran here either.

Can someone help me?

 

[pgp_protector]

You want the exact day? It's in Genesis 1.

No I want you to answer was it at the beginning or after the beginning ?

 

[AV1611VET]

No I want you to answer was it at the beginning or after the beginning ?

It was Day Six --- during the beginning.

 

[Molal]

It was Day Six --- during the beginning.

Mark 10:6
But from the beginning of the creation God made them male and female.

So, which is it at the beginning or during the beginning? Mark 10:6 literally says at the beginning. But it appears you do not take that to be literal, since man was made on the sicth day, after the beginning.

Or, maybe your definition of beginning is different? Can you define it so we understand your definition?

 

[AV1611VET]

Or, maybe your definition of beginning is different? Can you define it so we understand your definition?

How about we define it so we understand Jesus' definition, instead?

He would have certainly been talking about the Creation Week here. After all, "the Creation" took a week, not a day.

We can say, "In the beginning, God made the whales," and, "In the beginning, God made man," and both statements would be correct.

literal, confined to the simplest primary meaning of a word, statement, or text, as distinct from any figurative sense which it may carry—whether ironic, allegorical, metaphoric, or symbolic. Thus the literal sense of a text is its most straightforward meaning. Literalism is a tendency to interpret texts according to their most obvious meaning, often disregarding their connotations as well as their figurative senses. A literal translation is one that tries as far as possible to transfer each element of a text from one language into the other, without allowance for differences of idiom between the two languages.

 

[TheManeki]

And how are you sure that is Jesus' definition? Perhaps you should establish that first, if you can.

 

[AV1611VET]

And how are you sure that is Jesus' definition? Perhaps you should establish that first, if you can.

Because He is the One Who wrote Genesis 1 - (through a human author).