can't laugh any harder. do you honestly believe this?
http://atheism.about.com/od/creationismcreationists/p/scientific.htm
Last edited:
Upvote
0
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.
Creationism is testable and subject to observation.
You do not know what a miracle is. A miracle does not break the law. The law has already been broken. A miracle establishes or restores the law. Jesus did not come to abolish the law, but to fulfill the law.
mat 5 18 [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass away, one jot or one tittle shall in no wise pass from the law, till all be fulfilled.
Creationism does not in anyway deny that God works though natural laws. Creationism is testable and subject to observation.
[/FONT]
Yes, I believe there is NO direct conflict between Science and the Bible. You have NO science that can contradict the Bible in anyway. If any conflict exists it is found in the hidden knowledge of shadows and types. Science can not very well test something that is hidden from them. IN order to be science you have to be able to observe, test and confirm.can't laugh any harder. do you honestly believe this?
A miracle is a restoration. You have to understand the fallen state of mankind. Of course science does not accept that mankind is in a fallen state so that is why you have confusion trying to understand what a miracle is. If you look at entropy then a miracle is the energy that restores order to a system. I am trying to use scientific terms as an example so you can understand.So if you don't know what a miracle is, how do you know that they happen?
Yes, I believe there is NO direct conflict between Science and the Bible. You have NO science that can contradict the Bible in anyway. If any conflict exists it is found in the hidden knowledge of shadows and types. Science can not very well test something that is hidden from them. IN order to be science you have to be able to observe, test and confirm.
There are many areas of evolution that can not be tested and confirmed, so that means those area are NOT valid science. For example according to Collins: "Dispite substantial effort by multiple investigators, formation of the basic building blocks of RNA has NOT been achievable in a Miller-Urey type of experiment, nor has a fully self-replicating RNA been possible to design." These profound difficulties leads some scientists to propose that life forms must have arrived on Earth from outer space. Which of course resolves NOTHING, this only forces that event to another time and another place further back. So science does nothing to resolve the ultimate question of life's origin.
Bats are not fowl! Cough, science contradicting the bible.
Wrong. Biologists create self-replicating RNA molecule
Also wrong. RNA made in the lab!
"Like other would-be nucleotide synthesizers, Sutherlands team included phosphate in their mix, but rather than adding it to sugars and nucleobases, they started with an array of even simpler molecules that were probably also in Earths primordial ooze.
They mixed the molecules in water, heated the solution, then allowed it to evaporate, leaving behind a residue of hybrid, half-sugar, half-nucleobase molecules. To this residue they again added water, heated it, allowed it evaporate, and then irradiated it.
At each stage of the cycle, the resulting molecules were more complex. At the final stage, Sutherlands team added phosphate. Remarkably, it transformed into the ribonucleotide! said Sutherland."
Again, Jamin, you are wrong. You still have not, despite countless arguments, learned how to look for sources which actually back up your statements. Seriously, these things take me like 10 minutes to find...
Oh here we go with the infidel prats. I have been waiting for someone to come up with birds are not bats argument. I think we need to determine if SCIENCE knows what a fowl is. Last I heard they said dino are birds. Is that true? Are you here to defend science or are you here to argue for the infidel web sites?Bats are not fowl! Cough, science contradicting the bible.
I will look into your attempt to take on Francis Collins tomorrow. Right now my wife is working on trying to invite everyone over for dinner and I got to try and get her under control.10 minutes to find...
Oh here we go with the infidel prats. I have been waiting for someone to come up with birds are not bats argument. I think we need to determine if SCIENCE knows what a fowl is. Last I heard they said dino are birds. Is that true? Are you here to defend science or are you here to argue for the infidel web sites?
I have a suspicion that when they found that book that had fallen down the back of the altar doing the spring cleaning in Hezekiah's time the ink was suspiciously wet.
Aren't there missing links between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens?They're extinct. . .
And why are you, like, afraid to say Homo Erectus? It's not a dirty word, that's its name. Grow up please, you're embarrassing yourself.
Aren't there a missing links between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens?
There wouldn't be a real problem even if there was. As to whether there actually is- I'm not sure.
Then 'Homo [whatever]' is appropriate?
Homo Heidelburgensis.Aren't there missing links between Homo erectus and Homo sapiens?
Homo Heidelburgensis.
H. Heidelburgensis is not all that well-known outside anthropological circles - but at the moment it's currently thought the species diverged into the Neaderthals in Europe and Homo Sapiens in Africa.AV1611VET said:Then why isn't Homo heidelburgensis still around?
H. Heidelburgensis is not all that well-known outside anthropological circles - but at the moment it's currently thought the species diverged into the Neaderthals in Europe and Homo Sapiens in Africa.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?