-
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.
Dr. Dino's Science?
- Thread starter Jon
- Start date
An example. If I walked around and told people "The bible says Jesus was a women who was born in american." Then someone came up to me, and showed me the passage in the bible that said Jesus was a man and that he was born in Bethleham. But I continued to walk around and say that "the bible says jesus was a women who was born in america" Would I not knowingly be stating a falsehood?
Well, very little of anything written by Dr Dino that I have read is based in science or fact.
The Barcodes just shows that he didnt do any research about barcodes before putting on his website the Mark of the beast information.
If you read my other thread here about Dr. Dino, you will notice that he admits evolution is true in one of his own articles.
Well, very little of anything written by Dr Dino that I have read is based in science or fact.
The Barcodes just shows that he didnt do any research about barcodes before putting on his website the Mark of the beast information.
If you read my other thread here about Dr. Dino, you will notice that he admits evolution is true in one of his own articles.
Upvote
0
I've watched some Kent Hovind videos and whilst I thought they were interesting I did get the impression that he was too dogmatic on issues that no-one can properly explain.
One thing I do know is that God does excist, and so does his son Jesus. How do I know? Because he healed me. Yes healed me of my addictions that I could not have possibly given up by myself. I tried numerous times before and failed until I was "Born Again".
You people shouldn't really waste your time going through these arguments, they drive both people into evolution and christianity mad. God already said in the Bible that he would frustrate the intelligence of people here on the earth.
<DIV class=clsQuote>For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. {19} For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." {20} Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?</DIV>
<DIV class=clsQuote> </DIV>
<DIV class=clsQuote>
<DIV class=clsReference>1 Corinthians 1:18-20 NIV</DIV>
<DIV class=clsReference> </DIV>
<DIV class=clsReference>I can be certain that Jesus/God is real because he helped me. To believe in Evolution, you believe then that there is no moral absolutes. That is total rubbish, next time you have a discussion with someone that supports evolution/atheist theories, steal their car/bike/valuable possessions and see how they like that.</DIV>
<DIV class=clsReference> </DIV>
<DIV class=clsReference>God has given us proof enough that he excists, he has given us, for one thing, natural morality and a conscience.</DIV>
<DIV class=clsReference> </DIV>
<DIV class=clsReference>Then you're also gonna ask, why would he frustrate mens intelligence? Because if men fully understood everything that would totally do away with FAITH! People would abuse that aspect. Without faith they would just come to God when it suits them and it wouldn't be proper love.</DIV></DIV>
One thing I do know is that God does excist, and so does his son Jesus. How do I know? Because he healed me. Yes healed me of my addictions that I could not have possibly given up by myself. I tried numerous times before and failed until I was "Born Again".
You people shouldn't really waste your time going through these arguments, they drive both people into evolution and christianity mad. God already said in the Bible that he would frustrate the intelligence of people here on the earth.
<DIV class=clsQuote>For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. {19} For it is written: "I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate." {20} Where is the wise man? Where is the scholar? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?</DIV>
<DIV class=clsQuote> </DIV>
<DIV class=clsQuote>
<DIV class=clsReference>1 Corinthians 1:18-20 NIV</DIV>
<DIV class=clsReference> </DIV>
<DIV class=clsReference>I can be certain that Jesus/God is real because he helped me. To believe in Evolution, you believe then that there is no moral absolutes. That is total rubbish, next time you have a discussion with someone that supports evolution/atheist theories, steal their car/bike/valuable possessions and see how they like that.</DIV>
<DIV class=clsReference> </DIV>
<DIV class=clsReference>God has given us proof enough that he excists, he has given us, for one thing, natural morality and a conscience.</DIV>
<DIV class=clsReference> </DIV>
<DIV class=clsReference>Then you're also gonna ask, why would he frustrate mens intelligence? Because if men fully understood everything that would totally do away with FAITH! People would abuse that aspect. Without faith they would just come to God when it suits them and it wouldn't be proper love.</DIV></DIV>
Upvote
0
Completely wrong. Evolution is a scientific theory and has no stance on morality whatsoever. Besides, many scientists who accept evolution believe in a god, and a good part of them would probably also believe in moral absolutes.
And evolution isn't atheism, as evidenced by the existence of theistic evolution.
Upvote
0
supports evolution/atheist theories
Evolution isnt just an atheist theory. There are many many christians that agree with evolution. Quite a few more than there are creationists.
Im happy that god healed you, but Lack of god doesnt mean lack of morals. Intelligence doesnt mean lack of faith.
Generally all these things are myths that have been made up to make one side correct over the other.
Ignorance isnt bliss, and science isnt an attempt to destroy god.
Evolution isnt just an atheist theory. There are many many christians that agree with evolution. Quite a few more than there are creationists.
Im happy that god healed you, but Lack of god doesnt mean lack of morals. Intelligence doesnt mean lack of faith.
Generally all these things are myths that have been made up to make one side correct over the other.
Ignorance isnt bliss, and science isnt an attempt to destroy god.
Upvote
0
Some time you have to decide what you are going to belive.
Suppose you are in town one day and someone walks up to you and says, "Hi! I'm and atheist, I understand that you belive in God. What about science????"
what do you say??????
Would you say, "I don't need to know anything about science, all I need to know is about the Bible so I have no answer...."
Do you think that the athist is going to become a Christian???
However if you said this this and this about how we were created and this this and this why you don't belive the earth was created by itself then you would proably increase the chance that they would become a Christian
I think that we need to challenge what we belive and why belive it.
Upvote
0
Completely wrong? Think again because I think your brain has been whitewashed.
Prove to me that evolution has no stance on morality whatsoever, because you must then agree with survival of the fittest. And survival of the fittest means exactly what it says on the tin!
By Arikay
Evolution isnt just an atheist theory. There are many many christians that agree with evolution. Quite a few more than there are creationists.
Im happy that god healed you, but Lack of god doesnt mean lack of morals. Intelligence doesnt mean lack of faith.
Generally all these things are myths that have been made up to make one side correct over the other.
Ignorance isnt bliss, and science isnt an attempt to destroy god.You don't really know what you're talking about there, sorry, you can try to twist that all you want and it will never change my mind.
For a start, if you don't believe in creation and call yourself a "Christian" you are a hypocrite and you're not a "Christian".
And no matter what mis-informed info you type up here the evidence of the world actually speaks for itself. If evolution is correct they would find more missing links, in fact they would find thousands more. At the moment they are struggling to prove that one single remain is a missing link, but it's only a skull, and they only have the top half lol. And you can't quote neanderthals etc because they were obviously in-breeding, and it's a proven fact that when people in-breed, their features become more disformed.
And I'm afraid that without God, there is in fact no morals to abide by. That's why God used Noah's ark, to flush out the wicked people from the land.
And btw, I know people that support evolution can use very convincing arguments for their case. But the fact is that if you knew the Bible well enough, you would know that it talks about people accepting "Worldy" intelligence instead of "Salvation".
In the Bible it is prophesied that their would be a great increase in knowledge and travel coming up to the last days.
I believe the Bible.
Upvote
0
Well, let's see, depending on how I read that, you either made a fairly correct statement, or insulted about 75% of all Christians. Either you meant:
1) If you don't believe God created the world, in some way (direct creation, evolution, whatever), then it'd be hard to call yourself a Christian.
or
2) If you don't believe in Special Creation (YECism) then you're not a Christian.
Number 1 is probably a true statement. At least it's bland. Number 2, however, is you calling all Catholics and virtually every moderate and liberal Protestant "unChristian". Probably not a wise move, given both the numbers and the forum policies.
Yes. Science is based on that. Evolution and geology included.
What missing link? I'm aware of at least a dozen distinct species of hominids, most with multiple fossil finds, ranging from fragments to fully complete.
Goodness. You really are asking for it. Are you sure you want to claim 75% of all Christians aren't, and then insult them? They don't have morals, because they don't believe in God, right?
The awful things they might do to you!
Yes. It helps having the facts on your side, doesn't it?
Good for you!
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Today at 05:55 PM Gordi said this in Post #49
Prove to me that evolution has no stance on morality whatsoever, because you must then agree with survival of the fittest. And survival of the fittest means exactly what it says on the tin!
"Survival of the fittest" is a sound bite version of natural selection. Like all sound bites, it is not completely accurate. In this case, you seem to think that "survival of the fittest" means murdering your fellows. But that's not it at all.
When Darwin spoke of "competition", he was very clear that he meant a metaphorical competition, not a fight to the death between two members of a species. For instance, two plants in a drought are in competition, and the one that is fittest in that environment of little water will survive. But one plant isn't going over and stabbing the other. Both are in a metaphorical competition against the drought.
Also, "winning" the competition is just as often done by cooperation as it is by murder. Perhaps more often.
Gould described it very well:
"This characterization of evolution has been asserted in many contexts for nearly 150 years - by German militarists, by Kidd, by host of the vicious and the duped, the self-serving and the well-meaning. But it remains deeply and appallingly wrong for three basic reasons.
1. Evolution means only that all organisms are united by ties of genealogical descent. This definition says nothing about the mechanism of evolutionary change: In principle, externally directed upward striving might work as well as the caricatured straw man of bloody Darwinian battle to the death. The objections, then, are to Darwin's theory of natural selection, not to evolution itself.
2. Darwin's theory of natural selection is an abstract argument about a metaphorical "struggle" to leave more offspring in subsequent generations, not a statement about murder and mayhem. Direct elimination of competitors is one pathway to Darwinian advantage, but another might reside in cooperation through social ties within a species or by symbiosis between species. For every act of killing and division, natural selection can also favor cooperation and integration in other circumstances. Nineteenth-century interpreters did generally favor a martial view of selection, but to every militarist, we may counterpose a Prince Kropotkin, urging that the "real" Darwinism be recognized as a doctrine of integration and "mutual aid."
3. Whatever Darwinism represents on the playing fields of nature (and by representing both murder and cooperation at different times, it upholds neither as nature's principal way), Darwinism implies nothing about moral conduct. We do not find our moral values in the actions of nature. One might argue, as Thomas Henry Huxley did in his famous essay "Evolution and Ethics," that Darwinism embodies a law of battle, and that human morality must be defined as the discovery of an opposite path. Or one might argue, as grandson Julian did, that Darwinism is a law of cooperation and that moral conduct should follow nature. If two such brilliant and committed Darwinians could come to such opposite opinions about evolution and ethics, I can only conclude that Darwinism offers no moral guidance."
Stephen Jay Gould, essay "William Jennings Bryan's last campaign" in Bully for Brontosaurus, 1991 pp. 426-427.
By Arikay
Evolution isnt just an atheist theory. There are many many christians that agree with evolution. Quite a few more than there are creationists.
You don't really know what you're talking about there, sorry, you can try to twist that all you want and it will never change my mind.
I'm sorry, but he does. Most of the Christian denominations have statements supporting evolution. Go to http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9375_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp and see for yourself.
Also consider the 1982 MacLean vs Arkansas trial to keep creationism out of public schools and evolution in. Of the 26 plaintiffs, 23 were ministers or rabbis. MacLean himself was Rev. Maclean.
For a start, if you don't believe in creation and call yourself a "Christian" you are a hypocrite and you're not a "Christian".
Believing in creation is not the same as believing in creationism. They are two separate things. God can create by evolution just as well as by creationism.
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
That last is your opinion, not fact. Many Christian theologians were delighted with evolution, because evolution by natural selection rescued Christianity from several really bad theological problems that special creation has.
And no matter what mis-informed info you type up here the evidence of the world actually speaks for itself. If evolution is correct they would find more missing links, in fact they would find thousands more. At the moment they are struggling to prove that one single remain is a missing link, but it's only a skull, and they only have the top half lol.
There are lots of transitional series of individuals in the fossil record. I have posted them several times. I'll be happy to post them again. It is amazing, but creationists like you never answer them.
And you can't quote neanderthals etc because they were obviously in-breeding, and it's a proven fact that when people in-breed, their features become more disformed.
Talk about misinformed info!! Neandertals were not inbreeding any more than any other species. They stretched from Spain to the Ural Mountains. Look at all the H. sapiens in that area now. Were they ever inbreeding?
And I'm afraid that without God, there is in fact no morals to abide by.
Is a behavior good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good?
I believe the Bible.
You believe your interpretation of the Bible. Not the same as what you posted at all.
Prove to me that evolution has no stance on morality whatsoever, because you must then agree with survival of the fittest. And survival of the fittest means exactly what it says on the tin!
"Survival of the fittest" is a sound bite version of natural selection. Like all sound bites, it is not completely accurate. In this case, you seem to think that "survival of the fittest" means murdering your fellows. But that's not it at all.
When Darwin spoke of "competition", he was very clear that he meant a metaphorical competition, not a fight to the death between two members of a species. For instance, two plants in a drought are in competition, and the one that is fittest in that environment of little water will survive. But one plant isn't going over and stabbing the other. Both are in a metaphorical competition against the drought.
Also, "winning" the competition is just as often done by cooperation as it is by murder. Perhaps more often.
Gould described it very well:
"This characterization of evolution has been asserted in many contexts for nearly 150 years - by German militarists, by Kidd, by host of the vicious and the duped, the self-serving and the well-meaning. But it remains deeply and appallingly wrong for three basic reasons.
1. Evolution means only that all organisms are united by ties of genealogical descent. This definition says nothing about the mechanism of evolutionary change: In principle, externally directed upward striving might work as well as the caricatured straw man of bloody Darwinian battle to the death. The objections, then, are to Darwin's theory of natural selection, not to evolution itself.
2. Darwin's theory of natural selection is an abstract argument about a metaphorical "struggle" to leave more offspring in subsequent generations, not a statement about murder and mayhem. Direct elimination of competitors is one pathway to Darwinian advantage, but another might reside in cooperation through social ties within a species or by symbiosis between species. For every act of killing and division, natural selection can also favor cooperation and integration in other circumstances. Nineteenth-century interpreters did generally favor a martial view of selection, but to every militarist, we may counterpose a Prince Kropotkin, urging that the "real" Darwinism be recognized as a doctrine of integration and "mutual aid."
3. Whatever Darwinism represents on the playing fields of nature (and by representing both murder and cooperation at different times, it upholds neither as nature's principal way), Darwinism implies nothing about moral conduct. We do not find our moral values in the actions of nature. One might argue, as Thomas Henry Huxley did in his famous essay "Evolution and Ethics," that Darwinism embodies a law of battle, and that human morality must be defined as the discovery of an opposite path. Or one might argue, as grandson Julian did, that Darwinism is a law of cooperation and that moral conduct should follow nature. If two such brilliant and committed Darwinians could come to such opposite opinions about evolution and ethics, I can only conclude that Darwinism offers no moral guidance."
Stephen Jay Gould, essay "William Jennings Bryan's last campaign" in Bully for Brontosaurus, 1991 pp. 426-427.
By Arikay
Evolution isnt just an atheist theory. There are many many christians that agree with evolution. Quite a few more than there are creationists.
You don't really know what you're talking about there, sorry, you can try to twist that all you want and it will never change my mind.
I'm sorry, but he does. Most of the Christian denominations have statements supporting evolution. Go to http://www.ncseweb.org/resources/articles/9375_statements_from_religious_orga_12_19_2002.asp and see for yourself.
Also consider the 1982 MacLean vs Arkansas trial to keep creationism out of public schools and evolution in. Of the 26 plaintiffs, 23 were ministers or rabbis. MacLean himself was Rev. Maclean.
For a start, if you don't believe in creation and call yourself a "Christian" you are a hypocrite and you're not a "Christian".
Believing in creation is not the same as believing in creationism. They are two separate things. God can create by evolution just as well as by creationism.
"Christians should look on evolution simply as the method by which God works." James McCosh, theologian and President of Princeton, The Religious Aspects of Evolution, 2d ed. 1890, pg 68.
That last is your opinion, not fact. Many Christian theologians were delighted with evolution, because evolution by natural selection rescued Christianity from several really bad theological problems that special creation has.
And no matter what mis-informed info you type up here the evidence of the world actually speaks for itself. If evolution is correct they would find more missing links, in fact they would find thousands more. At the moment they are struggling to prove that one single remain is a missing link, but it's only a skull, and they only have the top half lol.
There are lots of transitional series of individuals in the fossil record. I have posted them several times. I'll be happy to post them again. It is amazing, but creationists like you never answer them.
And you can't quote neanderthals etc because they were obviously in-breeding, and it's a proven fact that when people in-breed, their features become more disformed.
Talk about misinformed info!! Neandertals were not inbreeding any more than any other species. They stretched from Spain to the Ural Mountains. Look at all the H. sapiens in that area now. Were they ever inbreeding?
And I'm afraid that without God, there is in fact no morals to abide by.
Is a behavior good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good?
I believe the Bible.
You believe your interpretation of the Bible. Not the same as what you posted at all.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
What we can prove is that the earth is not 6,000 years old. The exact age can't be proven.
1. Formation of all the sedimentary rocks, some in layers miles thick. Deposition of those miles of sediments can't have happened in 6,000 years. Bringing in the Flood to try to account for it doesn't help, because there is other evidence showing there never was a Flood.
2. Metamorphic rock. This rock is sedimentary rock subjected to heat and pressure to change it, and then it is eroded so that it is exposed. Again, the processes of deposition, slow heat and pressure to get it to it's current composition, and erosion to expose it can't have been done in 6,000 years.
3. The type of isotopes present on the earth. There are 64 nuclides that have half-lives in excess of 1,000 years. Of these, 47 have half-lives in the range 1,000 to 50 million years. Seven must be excluded from this analysis because they are being generated by interaction with cosmic rays or the decay of other nuclides. If the earth were new (within 10,000 years) then there should be significant amounts of all 40 nuclides in the earth's crust. If, on the other hand, the earth is billions of years old, then these 40 nuclides should have decayed, leaving no trace. We would then be able only to find nuclides with very long half-lives. So how many of the 40 short half-lived nuclides can we find in the crust? None. Zip. Of the 17 nuclides with half-lives greater than 50 million years, we can find detectable amounts of all 17. You may object to specific dating procedures, but this data indicates that the earth is well over 50 million years. In fact, for the half-life decay of nuclides with 50 million year half-lives to eliminate those nuclides, the earth has to be very old. Certainly more than 6,000 years.
Upvote
0
For a start, if you don't believe in creation and call yourself a "Christian" you are a hypocrite and you're not a "Christian".
Well, there Are more christians that believe in evolution than creation. A christian is someone who believes in god and that Jesus died for their sins. So, Yes, you can be a christian and agree in evolution, sorry.
And no matter what mis-informed info you type up here
Unfortunatly it seems you are the one miss informed. I would say to go do some research, both about the followers of christianity and about evolution. Remember, Arrogance is a sin.
And I'm afraid that without God, there is in fact no morals to abide by. That's why God used Noah's ark, to flush out the wicked people from the land.
Really, so I guess im just an evil heathen atheist.
He didnt do a good job then.
In the Bible it is prophesied that their would be a great increase in knowledge and travel coming up to the last days.
So are you one of those people that believes the end is coming soon? If you do, I would again, suggest more research into your religion and the people who you are getting your information from.
Remember, if worldly intelligence is evil, then your ability to read the bible is evil as well.
Well, there Are more christians that believe in evolution than creation. A christian is someone who believes in god and that Jesus died for their sins. So, Yes, you can be a christian and agree in evolution, sorry.
And no matter what mis-informed info you type up here
Unfortunatly it seems you are the one miss informed. I would say to go do some research, both about the followers of christianity and about evolution. Remember, Arrogance is a sin.
And I'm afraid that without God, there is in fact no morals to abide by. That's why God used Noah's ark, to flush out the wicked people from the land.
Really, so I guess im just an evil heathen atheist.
He didnt do a good job then.
In the Bible it is prophesied that their would be a great increase in knowledge and travel coming up to the last days.
So are you one of those people that believes the end is coming soon? If you do, I would again, suggest more research into your religion and the people who you are getting your information from.
Remember, if worldly intelligence is evil, then your ability to read the bible is evil as well.
Today at 02:55 PM Gordi said this in Post #49
Completely wrong? Think again because I think your brain has been whitewashed.
Prove to me that evolution has no stance on morality whatsoever, because you must then agree with survival of the fittest. And survival of the fittest means exactly what it says on the tin!
By Arikay
Evolution isnt just an atheist theory. There are many many christians that agree with evolution. Quite a few more than there are creationists.
Im happy that god healed you, but Lack of god doesnt mean lack of morals. Intelligence doesnt mean lack of faith.
Generally all these things are myths that have been made up to make one side correct over the other.
Ignorance isnt bliss, and science isnt an attempt to destroy god.You don't really know what you're talking about there, sorry, you can try to twist that all you want and it will never change my mind.
For a start, if you don't believe in creation and call yourself a "Christian" you are a hypocrite and you're not a "Christian".
And no matter what mis-informed info you type up here the evidence of the world actually speaks for itself. If evolution is correct they would find more missing links, in fact they would find thousands more. At the moment they are struggling to prove that one single remain is a missing link, but it's only a skull, and they only have the top half lol. And you can't quote neanderthals etc because they were obviously in-breeding, and it's a proven fact that when people in-breed, their features become more disformed.
And I'm afraid that without God, there is in fact no morals to abide by. That's why God used Noah's ark, to flush out the wicked people from the land.
And btw, I know people that support evolution can use very convincing arguments for their case. But the fact is that if you knew the Bible well enough, you would know that it talks about people accepting "Worldy" intelligence instead of "Salvation".
In the Bible it is prophesied that their would be a great increase in knowledge and travel coming up to the last days.
I believe the Bible.
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Today at 09:11 AM Francie said this in Post #23
AS a christian I don't doubt God's word !
We are not asking you to doubt God's word. Just ask yourself if your interpretation of that word is correct. The Bible is a theological document, and none of us are arguing that the basic theology is wrong.
We are saying that your interpretation of Genesis 1-8 as history instead of the theology it was meant to be is wrong.
All you people who are criticzing Christians for stand for standing up for what they beleive in out to look in the mirror!
We are not questioning your belief in God or Jesus. Creationists are not Christianity. Most of Christianity gave up on creationism a long time ago. St. Augustine of Hippo as long ago as 400 AD. John Calvin didn't accept your literal reading of Genesis 1-8.
What we are criticizing you for is: 1) thinking that you are God by insisting that your interpretation of Genesis 1-8 is really what God meant to say, 2) ignoring the evidence God put in His Creation to tell you how He really did create, and 3) trying to destroy Christianity by insisting that to accept God's Creation means having to leave Christianity.
we are called pathetic and idiots!
Has anyone here done that? Yes, atheists do attack Christians, and some of the more militant atheists are quite cruel about it. Well, you have seen examples in this thread of Christians being just as cruel or worse to people who aren't even attacking Christianity. Is that any better.
I will be a pathetic idiot for CHRIST any day
Good for you. But ask yourself something: is it correct to say that if God didn't create according to your reading of Genesis that God either didn't create or doesn't exist? Why can't you read the Bible to see what God is saying about who created and why and listen to God telling you how He created by the evidence He left in Creation?
AS christians are supposed to tell others about him and HIS love and forgiveness and mercy!
And where does evolution at any point deny God's love, forgiveness, and mercy?
I was not calling any body a name I just said you sounded like a non christian!
Francie, aren't you calling them "non christian" not because they aren't Christian but simply because they disagree with you? Is that fair? Can't people disagree with creationism and still be Christians?
AS a christian I don't doubt God's word !
We are not asking you to doubt God's word. Just ask yourself if your interpretation of that word is correct. The Bible is a theological document, and none of us are arguing that the basic theology is wrong.
We are saying that your interpretation of Genesis 1-8 as history instead of the theology it was meant to be is wrong.
All you people who are criticzing Christians for stand for standing up for what they beleive in out to look in the mirror!
We are not questioning your belief in God or Jesus. Creationists are not Christianity. Most of Christianity gave up on creationism a long time ago. St. Augustine of Hippo as long ago as 400 AD. John Calvin didn't accept your literal reading of Genesis 1-8.
What we are criticizing you for is: 1) thinking that you are God by insisting that your interpretation of Genesis 1-8 is really what God meant to say, 2) ignoring the evidence God put in His Creation to tell you how He really did create, and 3) trying to destroy Christianity by insisting that to accept God's Creation means having to leave Christianity.
we are called pathetic and idiots!
Has anyone here done that? Yes, atheists do attack Christians, and some of the more militant atheists are quite cruel about it. Well, you have seen examples in this thread of Christians being just as cruel or worse to people who aren't even attacking Christianity. Is that any better.
I will be a pathetic idiot for CHRIST any day
Good for you. But ask yourself something: is it correct to say that if God didn't create according to your reading of Genesis that God either didn't create or doesn't exist? Why can't you read the Bible to see what God is saying about who created and why and listen to God telling you how He created by the evidence He left in Creation?
AS christians are supposed to tell others about him and HIS love and forgiveness and mercy!
And where does evolution at any point deny God's love, forgiveness, and mercy?
I was not calling any body a name I just said you sounded like a non christian!
Francie, aren't you calling them "non christian" not because they aren't Christian but simply because they disagree with you? Is that fair? Can't people disagree with creationism and still be Christians?
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Today at 05:46 PM Jon said this in Post #48
Some time you have to decide what you are going to belive.
Suppose you are in town one day and someone walks up to you and says, "Hi! I'm and atheist, I understand that you belive in God. What about science????"
what do you say??????
Would you say, "I don't need to know anything about science, all I need to know is about the Bible so I have no answer...."
Do you think that the athist is going to become a Christian???
However if you said this this and this about how we were created and this this and this why you don't belive the earth was created by itself then you would proably increase the chance that they would become a Christian
Good point. The answer to the atheist is that he isn't using science correctly. Science is agnostic. But if you simply chant the mantra "evolution is wrong" you will never get to that point. All you are doing is handing the atheist the victory and driving people away from Christianity.
Some time you have to decide what you are going to belive.
Suppose you are in town one day and someone walks up to you and says, "Hi! I'm and atheist, I understand that you belive in God. What about science????"
what do you say??????
Would you say, "I don't need to know anything about science, all I need to know is about the Bible so I have no answer...."
Do you think that the athist is going to become a Christian???
However if you said this this and this about how we were created and this this and this why you don't belive the earth was created by itself then you would proably increase the chance that they would become a Christian
Good point. The answer to the atheist is that he isn't using science correctly. Science is agnostic. But if you simply chant the mantra "evolution is wrong" you will never get to that point. All you are doing is handing the atheist the victory and driving people away from Christianity.
Upvote
0
What I meant by... without God that there are no morals to abide by was actually if there was no God, not that there is no morals if you don't believe in him.
Morat, I would be interested in seeing info about the distinct species, not being sarcastic by the way.
Sorry, but I have a real zeal after feeling the Holy Spirit. I really get angry sometimes when I can'r express myself and see people attacking what I know as Christianity.
And yes I would tend to disagree with Catholicism.
Morat, I would be interested in seeing info about the distinct species, not being sarcastic by the way.
Sorry, but I have a real zeal after feeling the Holy Spirit. I really get angry sometimes when I can'r express myself and see people attacking what I know as Christianity.
And yes I would tend to disagree with Catholicism.
Upvote
0
If you were talking to me then you were only 5months off.
______________________________________________________
Anyways - back to the question:
Is there anything wrong with Dr. Dino science???(other than 666)
Arikay: Just because one thing that Dr. Dino says dosn't mean that everything is wrong.....I have a math textbook and it got a question wrong, dose that mean that all the answers are going to be wrong???
Upvote
0
lucaspa
Legend
Today at 06:34 PM Gordi said this in Post #57
What I meant by... without God that there are no morals to abide by was actually if there was no God,
Gordi, is a behavior good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good?
Morat, I would be interested in seeing info about the distinct species, not being sarcastic by the way.
Let me answer for Morat here. I'm going to post to you studies where speciation occurred in the lab or was observed in the wild. It is only a very brief list. The real list would run to hundreds of papers. Many of the papers are in journals carried by public libraries so you can go look them up for yourself.
I really get angry sometimes when I can'r express myself and see people attacking what I know as Christianity.
Here we disagree. What you "know" as Christianity isn't Christianity, but is instead a heretical religion trying to pass itself off as Christian.
Now the instances of observed speciation:
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
3. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
4. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
7. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
8. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
9. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
10. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
11. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
12. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
10. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
11.. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
12. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
13. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
That last one I like because it is a mutation in these plants that allows them to live thru a Minnesotal winter. A separate species.
What I meant by... without God that there are no morals to abide by was actually if there was no God,
Gordi, is a behavior good because God commands it or does God command it because it is good?
Morat, I would be interested in seeing info about the distinct species, not being sarcastic by the way.
Let me answer for Morat here. I'm going to post to you studies where speciation occurred in the lab or was observed in the wild. It is only a very brief list. The real list would run to hundreds of papers. Many of the papers are in journals carried by public libraries so you can go look them up for yourself.
I really get angry sometimes when I can'r express myself and see people attacking what I know as Christianity.
Here we disagree. What you "know" as Christianity isn't Christianity, but is instead a heretical religion trying to pass itself off as Christian.
Now the instances of observed speciation:
1. G Kilias, SN Alahiotis, and M Pelecanos. A multifactorial genetic investigation of speciation theory using drosophila melanogaster Evolution 34:730-737, 1980. Got new species of fruit flies in the lab after 5 years on different diets and temperatures. Also confirmation of natural selection in the process. Lots of references to other studies that saw speciation.
2. Speciation in action Science 72:700-701, 1996 A great laboratory study of the evolution of a hybrid plant species. Scientists did it in the lab, but the genetic data says it happened the same way in nature.
3. JM Thoday, Disruptive selection. Proc. Royal Soc. London B. 182: 109-143, 1972.
Lots of references in this one to other speciation.
4. M Nei and J Zhang, Evolution: molecular origin of species. Science 282: 1428-1429, Nov. 20, 1998. Primary article is: CT Ting, SC Tsaur, ML We, and CE Wu, A rapidly evolving homeobox at the site of a hybrid sterility gene. Science 282: 1501-1504, Nov. 20, 1998. As the title implies, has found the genes that actually change during reproductive isolation.
7. P. H. Raven, R. F. Evert, S. E. Eichorn, Biology of Plants (Worth, New York,ed. 6, 1999).
8. M. Ownbey, Am. J. Bot. 37, 487 (1950).
9. M. Ownbey and G. D. McCollum, Am. J. Bot. 40, 788 (1953).
10. S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, P. S. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 78, 1586 (1991).
11. P. S. Soltis, G. M. Plunkett, S. J. Novak, D. E. Soltis, Am. J. Bot. 82,1329 (1995).
12. N Barton Ecology: the rapid origin of reproductive isolation Science 290:462-463, Oct. 20, 2000. www.sciencemag.org/cgi/content/full/290/5491/462 Natural selection of reproductive isolation observed in two cases. Full papers are: AP Hendry, JK Wenburg, P Bentzen, EC Volk, TP Quinn, Rapid evolution of reproductive isolation in the wild: evidence from introduced salmon. Science 290: 516-519, Oct. 20, 2000. and M Higgie, S Chenoweth, MWBlows, Natural selection and the reinforcement of mate recognition. Science290: 519-521, Oct. 20, 2000
1. ME Heliberg, DP Balch, K Roy, Climate-driven range expansion and morphological evolution in a marine gastropod. Science 292: 1707-1710, June1, 2001. Documents mrorphological change due to disruptive selection over time. Northerna and southern populations of A spirata off California from Pleistocene to present.
10. Rice, W. R. 1985. Disruptive selection on habitat preference and the evolution of reproductive isolation: an exploratory experiment. Evolution. 39:645-646.
11.. Ringo, J., D. Wood, R. Rockwell, and H. Dowse. 1989. An experiment testing two hypotheses of speciation. The American Naturalist. 126:642-661.
12. Schluter, D. and L. M. Nagel. 1995. Parallel speciation by natural selection. American Naturalist. 146:292-301.
13. Butters, F. K. 1941. Hybrid Woodsias in Minnesota. Amer. Fern. J. 31:15-21.
That last one I like because it is a mutation in these plants that allows them to live thru a Minnesotal winter. A separate species.
Upvote
0
Gordi,
Evolution has no stance on morals, it is strictly a scientific theory.
Evolution does not deny God or christianity in any way, it has no stance on the origin of the earth, it only shows how life changes and adapts over time.
Evolution has no stance on morals, it is strictly a scientific theory.
Evolution does not deny God or christianity in any way, it has no stance on the origin of the earth, it only shows how life changes and adapts over time.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
- Locked
- Poll
