You'd have a point, if God's almost total do-over was His fault.
It wasn't though.
It was a massive pruning job to rid a tree of the vines that were killing it.
Um ... no.Let's not forget that in this analogy, God created the vines, he put them on the tree and knew from the start that he'd have to get rid of them. Seems to me that if he didn't want to do that, he should have been more careful when setting everything up.
No light bulbs in your closet, are there?Oh, and he had no idea that the Fall was coming? That caught him completely by surprise, did it?
No light bulbs in your closet, are there?
What do your Christian traditionists think, since you seem to accept what they tell you lock, stock, and barrel?
Do yourself a favor, will you?
Ask these ... ahem ... people what God the Father's name is and let me know what they tell you, will you?
Wow ... I can't answer how God got blindsided by His own creation.Those Christian traditionalists can't answer the question, because there is no answer that actually makes sense. That's one of the reasons I'm an atheist.
It seems you can't answer it either.
I don't know if you work in a lab or not, but if you do, and you found out one of your co-workers was a YEC, would you be surprised?You must have missed the present tense.
I don't know if you work in a lab or not, but if you do, and you found out one of your co-workers was a YEC, would you be surprised?
What's going to happen if you do meet someone who can satisfy your curiosity and explain it to you to your satisfaction?
What- evsMy 'perhaps' was in response to this bit of your post:
'All the time' may include a time where humans can't make any claims on 'existence', (ie: the concept has no meaning anymore), so it can't be demonstrated as being 'wrong' (or ruled out) 'all the time'.
There wouldn't be anyone observing the passing of time there either, come to think of it, therefore 'time; would have no meaning there either. The best we can say in the present is: 'Perhaps' .. (it may still be possible .. but who would know that also I guess?) Meaninglessness ..
You admit that you haven't read much of the actual science, and you also say you've never seen a full outline of the theory.
Maybe if you went and read the actual science, you'd find what you've been missing.
All you're doing right is saying, "I haven't had a very good look, but I know it must be wrong because I haven't found what I think should be there."
People are terrifically good at compartmentalizing. Theres probably some great yec scientists from the earlier days of modern science.
I don't trust politically correct science either. Yes, I agree, that is a bias. But I don't see the need to do all the science to prove to myself that the theory of evolution is unreliable. Not only is it for the most part uninteresting to me, but those who support it here don't consistently make sense in what they say about it. Just for an example: They like to speak of preponderance of evidence, as if the thousands of [maybe] examples document the same thing over and over, almost as if one example (eg, a missing link found between two forms) by itself is representative of the entire pyramid.
Evolution will wax stronger and stronger, culminating in the Tribulation period, when Jesus comes back and pwns it Himself.I will update that if anyone can ever produce an exception, that exception requiring the discovery of facts disproving deep time and evolution.
Interesting word choice.You don't have to do any science at all to state that you find evolution to be less than credible. But your opinion will have less weight.
Facts and reason stand no chance against attitude.You don't have to do any science at all to state that you find evolution to be less than credible. But your opinion will have less weight. Especially if you describe it as being 'politically correct'. That in itself is a political statement about a subject that has no interest in being 'correct' other than trying to determine the facts of the matter.
Perhaps you might understand the big picture better if you actually think of it as a picture (and not as a pyramid). All the evidence that has been found is a small piece in a gigantic jigsaw puzzle. Zoom in on any one piece and you might find it doesn't address evolution directly, but it fits neatly with the other small pieces adjacent. Which themselves don't give you a good idea of of how they fit into scheme of things.
They're like pixels. You can't make out anything up close. But as you pull back, you can see that they all form a bigger picture that's easier to comprehend. Pull back all the way and you can't make out the individual pieces. But the picture is now crystal clear. There is absolutely no doubt what it shows.
And if, by some misreading of of a measurement or a misinterpretation of a small piece of evidence, a tiny piece tucked away in the corner of the picture doesn't actually fit, then we can throw that out. You won't even notice that it's not there. And it won't change the picture. It still looks exactly the same.
Here's a very low res example of a picture. It's immediately apparent what it shows. Take out one or even half a dozen tiny photos and it still shows the same thing. Now multiply those 1800 or so small photos by many millions and that picture will be crystal clear.
And even less chance, if said facts and reasonings contradict the Bible.Facts and reason stand no chance against attitude.
What bothered be originally, and still does, is how you post the snarky Titanic picture to get in a dig against scientists (and their technology).....Wow ... I can't answer how God got blindsided by His own creation.
Shame on me!...
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?