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.
Your claim was both wrong and irrelevant, you do our own research
The standard, long held view of the connection between Darwin's religion and his theory is wrong. Supposedly he was a Christian who studied at Cambridge to become a minister. But then, during his voyage around the world on the Beagle, the scientific facts persuaded him to believe in evolution and give up his Christian faith. However, an examination of the various influences upon the youthful Charles Darwin reveals an entirely different story
There is no evidence in all of Charles Darwin's published correspondence and writings that he ever embraced biblical Christianity. As we have seen, virtually all the formative influences on his thinking were contrary to Christian faith. He always concealed his rejection of Christianity, but in his 1876 Autobiography he stated his unbelief in very blunt, even crude words. His closest scientific associates were all men who had given up biblical Christian faith, and some of them were committed enemies of the faith. For example, Sir Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, was determined to discredit the biblical record of earth history, and Charles' "bulldog," anatomist T.H. Huxley, wrote that he was "sharpening [his] claws," ready to "disembowel" any clergymen who criticized Darwin's Origin of Species.
The irony here is breathtaking when you don't even provide a reference for your original claim for another 5 posts after that one.answer me this: you claim i am wrong though i have done my own research and had it confirmed by another person, and yet, you can't even post the link or quote that backs you up. why should i answer any more of your posts or take you seriously, when your credibility has been undermined by this one singular act of refusal to post what you have found, then demand that i do my own research?
how arrogant is that? it certainly isn't the christian attitude you claim to follow.
please do not ask me to provide any more sources until you can do the same for your own argument.
The first quote is a strawman, I certainly don't know any TE in this forum who views Darwin that way. He was a Unitarian rather than a biblical Christian and he struggled with his faith because of the death of his daughter Annie. All your quote shows is that he did struggle with his faith and that some of his friends and associates were atheists. How does that back up you claim that Darwin never ascribed evolution to God?it is funny, i was doing some research for another topic and i ran nto this little tidbit which debunks the aboce rudenes:Your claim was both wrong and irrelevant, you do our own research
http://www.parentcompany.com/csrc/cdagenda.htm
The standard, long held view of the connection between Darwin's religion and his theory is wrong. Supposedly he was a Christian who studied at Cambridge to become a minister. But then, during his voyage around the world on the Beagle, the scientific facts persuaded him to believe in evolution and give up his Christian faith. However, an examination of the various influences upon the youthful Charles Darwin reveals an entirely different story
now hopefully this will inspire assyrian to re-think his uppity position and post links and quotes to back up his contentions instead of just declaring someone is wrong and going no further.There is no evidence in all of Charles Darwin's published correspondence and writings that he ever embraced biblical Christianity. As we have seen, virtually all the formative influences on his thinking were contrary to Christian faith. He always concealed his rejection of Christianity, but in his 1876 Autobiography he stated his unbelief in very blunt, even crude words. His closest scientific associates were all men who had given up biblical Christian faith, and some of them were committed enemies of the faith. For example, Sir Charles Lyell, the father of modern geology, was determined to discredit the biblical record of earth history, and Charles' "bulldog," anatomist T.H. Huxley, wrote that he was "sharpening [his] claws," ready to "disembowel" any clergymen who criticized Darwin's Origin of Species.
Now deal with the fact that your whole claim is irrelevant in the first place.http://members.iinet.net.au/~sejones/quotes/cequc101.html
"Darwin asked his imaginary reader to suppose the existence of: `a Being with penetration sufficient to perceive differences in the outer and innermost organization quite imperceptible to man, and with forethought extending over future centuries to watch with unerring care and select for any object the offspring of an organism produced under the foregoing circumstances, I can see no conceivable reason why he could not form a new race (or several were he to separate the stock of the original organism and work on several islands) adapted to new ends. As we assume his discrimination, and his forethought, and his steadiness of object, to be incomparably greater than those qualities in man, so we may suppose the beauty and complications of the adaptations of the new races and their differences from the original stock to be greater than in the domestic races produced by man's agency.... With time enough, such a Being might rationally (without some unknown law opposed him) aim at almost any result....Seeing what blind capricious man has actually effected by selection during the few last years, and what in a ruder state he has probably effected without any systematic plan during the last few thousand years, he will be a bold person who will positively put limits to what the supposed Being could effect during whole geological periods' (Darwin F., ed. "The Foundations of the Origin of Species, Two Essays Written in 1842 and 1844, by Charles Darwin," Cambridge UK, 1909, pp.85-87). A striking conception, this idea of a Master Breeder infinitely wise and patient, with infinite time at his disposal, who, carefully selecting from among the variations in nature those which suited his purposes, molded organic nature to his own wise ends. Such a Being could be little less than God Himself." (Greene J.C., "The Death of Adam: Evolution and its Impact on Western Thought," [1959], Mentor: New York, 1961, reprint, pp.261-262. Ellipses Greene's).
You mean you don't understand what the prophecy about the seed crushing the serpent's head meant? And you lecture us on the meaning of Genesis?part 1--assyrian:
not afraid, just not there yet.
Yet he uses the same word to describe his rest as are used to describe weary labourers. He was refreshed after he had a rest. How is the God who does not get tired refreshed after having a rest? Besides Jesus tells us his Father never stopped working. John 5:17 But Jesus answered them, "My Father is working until now, and I am working."are you saying God can't literally take a rest?or how about He rested to provide an example for His creation to follow? still is literal.
What passages? The off topic word search for 'follow'? the word search for every reference to 'create' in the bible? You just claim unspecified passages support your claims about evolution. Show us which passages and show us why they mean what you think.read the passages again. it is quite clear how God did it.
So I can only have a sensible discussion with you if I accept your unsupported view about evolution first?you don't get it. evolution is not of God it is in opposition to Him. until you realize that fact, this is pointless.
So what? It does not say there were six days. It mentions six different days but does not say they were consecutive, it does not even count the the way it does consecutive days are counted in the rest of the bible. And there was day and night before 'day one' even began. Look at the first half of verse 5.yes it does. each close of a day the number is mentioned.
And that does not count as an answer. OK read Gen 2:4These are the generations of the heavens and the earth when they were created, in the day that the LORD God made the earth and the heavens. How many days?now you are desperate and reaching.it never says the days are consecutive
Check out Lev 23:32 the Sabbath runs from evening to evening.which biblical calendar days?? you really need to start posting links and quotes to make sense.
I know what he wrote in Psalm 90.prove this. do you really know moses' mind?
So this is where you got the argument from. I asked you about it before and you did not answer. I will ask again:not at all. you obviously do not deal with atheists very much or people who regard the bible as fairy tales. what i ask of you is the exact same thing they ask of me.
Why do you keep making the same mistakes over and over again? No science is not infallible, no one ever claimed it was infallible. No one ever claimed it is on a par with God.you are assuming that science is infallible, sinless and has the ability to discern what God did eventhough God said 'my ways are not your ways' so how can science know if it is right if it can discern what God did?
youplace science on par with God yet it is rife with sin, corruptibility and under the authority of the evil one.
If Jesus taught bible interpretations, then you claim i don't believe that Jesus taught that we are to follow interpretations is completely unscriptural.you love playing word games--did Jesus just give us His interpretation and the disciples were free to disagree with His words? or did Jesus tell them the truth about what the scriptures said and the disciples learned the true story?
which is it? you can't have it both ways.
I don't add evolution to God's word. It doesn't mention it just like it doesn't mention a round earth, heliocentrism, gravitation, of the double helix of DNA. But they are all part of the heaven and earth the bible does say God created.the minute someone adds something to the Bible, like evolution, they have changed the God's word.
My watch is digital and the last computer to be made of clockwork was by Babbage. You were talking about clockwork computers weren't you? You do know we have progressed a bit since Babbage's Difference Engine?that is amazing. iguess everyone needs to throw their clocks and watches out now.
No they just work. Ancient boats never led a person to God, they weren't meant to. That responsibility is given to the church, not technology, though the church has always used the technology of the day.do cell phones, satellites, movies, computers lead to God, give Him glory or is the glory given to man's intelligence? if you say the latter, then it is wrong.
more than one meaning to the word 'wrong'.
You try to use Ecclesiates to support some weird view about ancient technology and when I point out the obvious flaws in your interpretation you tell me to take it up with Solomon?take it up with him, he is the one who said it. i don't know if i could explain this so you would be able to answer it.
What we see are the results of sexual and asexual reproduction. How does this 'prove' creation? Your claim you can 'prove creation' while science cannot prove evolution. Back it up.not at all. i told you in another post, probably another thread, that all you have to do is go to the hospital matrnity ward, the vet's or even the plant nursery and you will see the results of creation in action everyday.
that proves creation but you cannot show me one transitioonal species to prove evolution all you can give are excuses.
So perhaps you could hold back on making claims about what the bible says until you have studied what it says? just a thought.as i have said i have to do a complete study on all the verse that refer to creation to provide you with any answers.
Science does not deal in proofs, it deals in evidence and the evidence supports evolution. Its source is scientists, just the same as the source we have for a round earth, heliocentrism, gravitation, the double helix of DNA and vast arrays of other scientific knowledge. And none of it depends on the scientists being Christians. None of it depend on the scientist realising God created it all. As for the timeframe, the young earth interpretation was shown to be wrong by Christan geologists long before Darwin arrived on the scene. And this was confirmed as more and more scientific discipline began to calculate the age of the earth an the universe.that takes time BUT how do i know evolution is wrong? consider the source. consider its construct. consider the time frame. consider none of it is proven except by declatory statements and conjecture and pressupposition. consider that God is not invloved.
The irony. You accuse me of 'hiding' and 'using non-believer tricks' and I am the one making personal attacks.Archie: that is another non-believer's favorite tricks--hide under the 'you do not understand' argument. please, i thought you could do better than this.
Assyrian: Generally TEs only use that with people who don't understand the science but think they do. You probably get it a lot though.
Archie: personal attacks will be ignored.
Of course I don't expect you to actually admit you were wrong when you claimed you were able to test and observe creation. Not your style. I just point it outi wouldn't jump the gun just yet.
The science has show us the age off the earth, the bible tells us God created it all. What is the problem? Is it a 'christinaized' version of astronomy that says God created the solar system? It it a 'christinaized' version of biology that say God formed the double helix? Honestly your arguments make no sense. And what has believing in the devil got to do with anything? You are the one who cannot figure out who crushed is head.only in a 'christinaized' version of the theory. if you think that evolution is from God, then you must not believe in a devil either and that he is active like scriptures says.
You are the one who claims you know when passages are literal. You whole argument against evolution is based on your claim to an infallible knowledge of this. Back it up. You asked for a verse that says they were a metaphor, that is a bit hypocritical when you know there are no verses that say they are literal.show me the passage and credible sources wich state it is ametaphor. i do not take your word for anything anymore.
No.you do not see what is wrong with that statement?I would expect a secular scientist to be able to tell me about the natural world.
The psalm continues: 3 There is no speech nor language, where their voice is not heard.if you do it the secular way--yes.On the other hand, understanding the universe around us is learning about God's handiwork. Psalm 19:1 The heavens declare the glory of God, and the sky above proclaims his handiwork. 2 Day to day pours out speech, and night to night reveals knowledge. You think that studying this is wrong?
I have provided the full text of the letter which clearly makes a very different claim to the AiG extract. It flatly contradicts their whole point. You could not find any way to justify their twisting of Barr's letter, so you hid behind a claim everybody is deceitful.part 2--assyrian:
didn't admit anything of the sort. i just said everyone is guilty of it, which means you should drop the accusations, since you can't even provide one link to back up your statements. they at least do.
So tell me where was a figurative interpretation of the day of creation condemned as heresy in the early church? People denied the deity of Christ and it was labelled heresy. People denied Christ came in a physical body and it was labelled heresy. Why wasn't a figurative interpretation of the Genesis days labelled heresy when it came up?if you read the books on heresies i alluded to, you would see that the exact same heresies that were present then are present today. not much has changed. even the idea of worshipping on sunday was already banded about in the 1st century. you have no argument here.
It does if they can disagree with each other. But as I said before your argument leaves you with no independent witnesses to the bible or resurrection. Besides the fundamental principle in scientific research is a biblical one. Test everything. Hold on to what is good.they follow the same rules and principles--that does not make them independent.
Such as? And how does you non scientist check out his discovery with doing some science?happens all the time.
The oldest suspension bridge in the world Union Bridge over the River Tweed. it was built in 1820. Inca rope bridges have to be replaced every year because the ropes sag. The longest suspension bridge is the Akashi-Kaikyo Bridge in Japan which is 3909m with a central span of 1998m. It is a six lane motorway. The longest rope bridge is across the Apurimac Canyon north of Cuzco. It is 67m long and I would not drive anything bigger than a llama across.go to the jungles of south america--you will find many built with out aid of science and which last longer than scientific ones.
No it was a mechanical astrolabe. Describing it as a 'computer' at least in any modern sense is a bit of hype. Put it this way, the only RAM it had was were it was marked with the zodiac sign Aries.yes. they also built a computer.
Evidence?yes.
You are confusing history with science. Knowing how the precise techniques the Egyptians used to built the pyramids is a very different question from being able to build things more precisely that they could. Modern science can take individual atoms and arrange them in a line.there is also a load of stuff that modern science does not understand--how did the egyptians build the pyramids without cranse and still be so exact?
Why it is a competition? The ancient Egyptians could do neither?how to cure the common cold, cancer, almheizers and so on. which do you think would be more beneficial--science sending a satillite into orbit or discoverying a cure for a disease?
You are the one claiming they were as scientifically advanced as we are. Are you saying they did not explore space because they just weren't interested? LOL.why should the ancients worry about space when they had a high mortality rate? your argument is baseless and redundent.
Goodness, what a strange thought process.no, if anything, they and i get it from your remarks, and superiority complex. as i mentioned before, the ancient greeks built a computer which demonstrates they (and other ancients) had the same intelligence given to them by God as modern man has.
to state otherwise would be insulting to God and saying God lied when He gave all people talents and gifts.
So you claim. Now answer the question. What has translation got to do with it?if you have to ask, then you know very little about he rules of translation. having done some in my time, one cannot just do what they want.And what has translation got to do with it?
When I pointed out that not one of the verses you pasted said anything about creationism, you ranted on so you do not believe in synonyms either i see. do they ruin your theory by equalling the word 'created'??i did a scriptural search for follow not a word search and i didn't use it to example it as a synonym for 'creation' please try to represent what i write correctly.
Assyrian: Except not one of the verses said anything about creationism. That seems a regular feature of the verse lists you post and your public service cut and pastes
Archie: the former: there is a verse but somehow you miraculously decided it was metaphorical. (i will refrain from asking for your credentials as a translator or an expert in english language)
the latter: so you do not believe in synonyms either i see. do they ruin your theory by equalling the word 'created'??
We are told to honour God. Plastering a discussion with verse lists that have nothing to do with the quesion and claiming them as support is not honouring God or his word.unless you can show the exact biblical teaching on this then you are just wrong. there was nothing disrespectful that i did. i pointed out the many verses where both God and Jesus explicitly stated to follow them. not one verse states to follow any alternative. if you follow an alternative then you are not following God.
plain and simple.
Where did I dismiss your verses lists as allegorical? What I said was:nor can you dismiss them as allegorical and metaphorical and make the claims and accusations you are making. God certainly did not say metaphorically to follow Him anyone who reads it as such, is looking for an excuse to ignore God's word and follow their own desires.
Assyrian: Oh dear, I saw a list of bible quotes and I thought, great, some scripture we can get our teeth into. But no, just a bunch of irrelevant texts that say nothing about whether God was speaking metaphorically or not. Well you say we should follow Jesus, but Jesus never preached six day creationism. Why do you?
Because they say something we agree about. We all seek to follow Christ. You were trying to show us that following God means reading his words literally instead of metaphorically. How is a verse list on 'follow' supposed to be relevant in this debate?if you seek to follow God, how are His verses irrelevent to this debate? are you saying that God's word is irrelevent and only science is germane??
was the one who provided the text of Barr's letter you gave a cut and paste from.
The first quote is a strawman, I certainly don't know any TE in this forum who views Darwin that way. He was a Unitarian rather than a biblical Christian and he struggled with his faith because of the death of his daughter Annie.
Like several scientists before him, Darwin believed all the life on earth evolved (developed gradually) over millions of years from a few common ancestors.
http://www.lucidcafe.com/lucidcafe/library/96feb/darwin.html[/QUOT
does this sound like a man who believes in God? or followed His words?
your faith is misplaced.
Now deal with the fact that your whole claim is irrelevant in the first place.
not at all. that is not giving credit to God but a generic being incapable of having power to create what he wanted but is subject the option he thought would work.
a Being
quite clear that he did not know God nor attributed his thinking to God or gave Him credit. deists do not believe in God either.
if you look at what the Bible says: 'in the beginning God...' you will see that there is no generic reference but a very specific title so one has no doubt, when reading the passage WHO did it all.
evolution is not of God.
i will answer your to other posts later, if i am still allowed to post here.
No science is not infallible, no one ever claimed it was infallible. No one ever claimed it is on a par with God.
we feel that science is revealing of God in an equal nature to the Bible,
You mean you don't understand what the prophecy about the seed crushing the serpent's head meant? And you lecture us on the meaning of Genesis
Yet he uses the same word to describe his rest as are used to describe weary labourers
The off topic word search for 'follow'
So I can only have a sensible discussion with you if I accept your unsupported view about evolution first?
So what? It does not say there were six days
Check out Lev 23:32 the Sabbath runs from evening to evening.
I know what he wrote in Psalm 90.
That the witnesses to the resurrection are not independent because they are all Christians?
Are you saying the atheists are right when they claim the bible does not provide independent witnesses, because the writers all believe in God?
If Jesus taught bible interpretations
don't add evolution to God's word. It doesn't mention it just like it doesn't mention a round earth, heliocentrism, gravitation, of the double helix of DNA. But they are all part of the heaven and earth the bible does say God created
My watch is digital and the last computer to be made of clockwork was by Babbage. You were talking about clockwork computers weren't you? You do know we have progressed a bit since Babbage's Difference Engine
You try to use Ecclesiates to support some weird view about ancient technology and when I point out the obvious flaws in your interpretation you tell me to take it up with Solomon
How does this 'prove' creation
not at all. i would just be looking for details, not change creation.So perhaps you could hold back on making claims about what the bible says until you have studied what it says
Science does not deal in proofs, it deals in evidence and the evidence supports evolution. Its source is scientists
And none of it depends on the scientists being Christians
None of it depend on the scientist realising God created it all.
As for the timeframe, the young earth interpretation was shown to be wrong by Christan geologists long before Darwin arrived on the scene. And this was confirmed as more and more scientific discipline began to calculate the age of the earth an the universe.
The science has show us the age off the earth
And what has believing in the devil got to do with anything
i believe i quoted the verses before 'they are being decieved and are deceiving' (paraphrase i believe it was in th ebooks of timothy)Where does the bible say the natural man cannot understand the natural world
How is it wrong to learn about God's handiwork in 'a secular way' when God appoints the sky to proclaim his handiwork throughout the world before he gave them the bible?
I have provided the full text of the letter which clearly makes a very different claim to the AiG extract. It flatly contradicts their whole point. You could not find any way to justify their twisting of Barr's letter, so you hid behind a claim everybody is deceitful.
Why wasn't a figurative interpretation of the Genesis days labelled heresy when it came up?
so stronger materials were used, you can still do that without science.The oldest suspension bridge in the world Union Bridge over the River Tweed. i
Modern science can take individual atoms and arrange them in a line.
You are confusing history with scienc
i wouldn't be too sure of that. they had plastic surgery back then. you would be surprised at all they could do.Why it is a competition? The ancient Egyptians could do neither
You are the one claiming they were as scientifically advanced as we are
We are told to honour God. Plastering a discussion with verse lists that have nothing to do with the quesion and claiming them as support is not honouring God or his word.
Because they say something we agree about. We all seek to follow Christ
How is a verse list on 'follow' supposed to be relevant in this debate?
What false accusation?excuse me, i don't recall saying i cut and pasted, false accusations are ot christian.
I provided the full text of Barr's letter and gave you a link to it http://www.christianforums.com/showpost.php?p=35939272&postcount=195My comment wasn't a claim, it is a well known fact plus you failed to provide a link to support your statement. you rarely do, as many theistic evolutionists do, post any link to support your arguments. in scholarly circles you would be discarded and dismissed as non-credible and as not knowing what you are talking about.
Sorry Archie there is really very little point in carry on this conversation when you just make stuff like this up.
What false accusation?
I provided the full text of Barr's letter and gave you a link to it
maybe the following will bring home what i have been saying and bring this back to the topic. taken from the book, Origins: 14 Billion Years of Cosmic Evolution by neil DeGrasse Tyson & Donald Goldsmith,
pg.129-30-- "Since astrophysicists have no way to see back to the universe's first 0.0000000000000000000000000001 of a second, the do the next best thing, and use scientific logic to connect this early epoch to times they can observe..."
(yet what they observe is the present and not the past and do not base their conclusions on fact but scientific logic--no truth there)
pg.183-- "In our attempts to uncover the history of the cosmos, we have continually discovered that the segments most deeply shrouded in mystery are those that deal with origins."
(certainly looks like creation is out of reach of science)
pg. 183-4-- "This in turn implies that we must rely, to an uneasily largeextent, on our theories of how matter ought to behave, with relatively few points at which we can check these theories against observational data."
(not resorting to facts, but theories)
pg. 184-- "When we turn to the origin of planets, the mystery deepen. We lack not only observations of the crucial, initial stages of planetary formation but also successful theories of how the planets began to form."
(again, creation is shown to be out of reach of science)
pg. 184-- "Astrophysicists may now have more data, but they have no better answers than before. Indeed, the discovery of exosolar planets many of which move in orbits far different from those of the sun's planets, has in many ways confused the issue,leaving the story of the planet formation no closer to closure."
(science again proven to be limited and not able toanswer any questions)
pg. 185-- "and the second that 'the most secure prediction about planet formation is that it can't happen' " (science says it can't happen yet the Bible says it did, proved by the fact that we and they are here)
pg. 189-- "becasue astronomers have noway to prove that the instabilities needed for the model to work actually did occur.
(another example of the limitedness of science and that creation is outside of its scope)
pg. 235-- "the origin of life on earth remains locked inmurky uncertainty. Our ignorance about life's beginnings stems in large part from the fact that whatever events made inanimate matter come alive occurred billions of years ago and left no traces behind"
(quite convenient way to get out of saying they can't prove evolution true.)
pg. 235-- "Their conclusion reies on a reasonable supposition about primitive organisms."
(not fact, not evidence, not truth but 'reasonable suppositions...not enough to stake one's soul on)
pg. 240-1-- "wqe do not know whether life already existed 4 billion years ago, having survived the early impact storm or whether life arose on earth only after relative tranquility began."
(in other words science fails again to pinpoint/find an alternative to gen. 1)
pg. 241-- In either case, the crucial question of how life actually began on earth, either once or many times over, has no good answer though speculation on the subject has acquired a long and intriguing history."
(science can't provide the answer and can only resort to speculation and not fact. speculation is not truth, fact or evidence. in short creation is outside the scope of science)
pg. 245-- "The key question still remains: How does a collection of molecules, evenone primed for life to appear, ever generate itself."
(they are looking in the wrong places, they need to look to Gen.1)
pg. 249-- "What a hopeful, even prescient fairy tale this may prove to be. Life, far from being rare and precious, may be almost as common as planets themselves. All that remains is for us to go find it"
(science again shows it has no answers,no facts, no proof. all they have to do is turn to Gen. 1 and believe and they will get their answers---God created in the beginning, in 6 days)
this could go on but i think this presents a fine case for what i have talked about, secular science cannot find the answers and needs to be shunned by all those who say they believe in God.
it also shows that creation is well out of the scope/reach of science.
An excellent point EC. Without tolerance between Christians - and other believers - we might as well drift right back to the inquisitions.Reading this discussion, it looks to me like archaeologist can't tolerate the views of other Christians. Tolerance is a big part of being an authentic Christian. God speaks through those truly touched by the holy spirit. There have been many people falsely speaking for Christ through the ages and we must be ever vigilant for them today.
I am certainly getting pretty tired of you unique cocktail of unsupported claims, scripture verses that don't come near to what you say, and personal attack.i don't make stuff up, thatwould be lying and i am not allowed to lie. i thinkyou are looking for an excuse to opt out of a conversation which challenges your viewpoint.
Did I ever say you did anything else? I have said all along that you simply copied what you were given and that it was AiG who edited the letter.you said i cut and pasted. ididn't dothat, i tookthe whole quote thatwas offered tome. in fact i justcame across the exact same quote in the book, Creation and Change.
Technically you probably used the copy and paste buttons, but the phrase cut and paste refers to both.how can i cut and paste when i posted the exact same amount of words that i have?
No. We were talking about Barr and you said: it is a well known fact plus you failed to provide a link to support your statement. Clearly I did provide a link to support it. Clearly your accusation is wrong.wow. one link to support one thing you said out of all the other statements you made.
A lot of things are difficult for science to say with certainly because there is so little data available to study it. That does not mean we cannot be certain about other areas where there is plenty of data, the last 10 billion years of the age of the universe even if measuring the the first few billion has problems, the age of our solar system, certainly of the rocks that make up the planets and meteorites. The moment of the big bang will probably be forever out of our reach which means creation is outside science's scope. What happened after is not. It all depend on how much data can be found.in academia one has to be ready to provide sources and evidence to back up what they are saying, unless it is totally originial but you never indicated that either so it is hard to tell.
but those issues canbe dropped as they are side issues leading away from the topic of this thread.
i would like to hear your responses to the quotes i posted many, many pages back, from a secular scientist, which proves my point and the topic of this thread.
do you have any rebuttal for these remarks, {and not that they were takenout of context as thatis an excuse for not coming up with a defense of your position.} posted below:
I am certainly getting pretty tired of you unique cocktail of unsupported claims, scripture verses that don't come near to what you say, and personal attack.
know you are not allowed lie. If you believe making stuff up is lying why do you make stuff up?
No. We were talking about Barr and you said: it is a well known fact plus you failed to provide a link to support your statement. Clearly I did provide a link to support it. Clearly your accusation is wrong
A lot of things are difficult for science to say with certainly because there is so little data available to study it.
That does not mean we cannot be certain about other areas where there is plenty of data, the last 10 billion years of the age of the universe even if measuring the the first few billion has problems, the age of our solar system, certainly of the rocks that make up the planets and meteorites.
The moment of the big bang will probably be forever out of our reach which means creation is outside science's scope. What happened after is not. It all depend on how much data can be found.
i have used scripture, theological texts, scholarly quotes so this is an unwarranted charge.
...
....
why accept secular science over God's word? they can't prove anything they claim (that has been said over and over by your own side.) if they can't prove their claims why listen to them? that is just wrong. no judge would listen to a lawyer who can't prove his case so why are christians listening to secular science?
....
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?