The theory of evilution seems to be contradictory.

[Dr GS Hurd]

The 14 billion years is pure speculation and it goes up and down according to whom you are speaking to.

No, it is hardly speculation. The WMAP science team has determined, to a high degree of accuracy and precision, not only the age of the universe, but also the density of atoms; the density of all other non-atomic matter; the epoch when the first stars started to shine; the "lumpiness" of the universe, and how that "lumpiness" depends on scale size.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

What contradictions? Before you waste your time I have a degree in theology and read the bible in its original language.

Heheh. Which original language was that? How is your Ugaritic, or Akkadian?

 

[crjmurray]

Heheh. Which original language was that? How is your Ugaritic, or Akkadian?

Oh it wasn't written in modern Greek and Hebrew? Oops.....

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Oh it wasn't written in modern Greek and Hebrew? Oops.....

I do not want to go too far off the "evilution" topic. You might enjoy reading;

Bodine, Walter R., (Ed.)
1992 "Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew" Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns

Pardee, Dennis
2002 "Writings from the Ancient World Vol. 10: Ritual and Cult at Ugarit" Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Parker, Simon B. (Editor)
1997 "Ugarit Narrative Poetry Translated by Mark S. Smith, Simon B. Parker, Edward L Greenstein, Theodore J. Lewis, David Marcus, Vol. 9" Writings from the Ancient World. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Sparks, Kenton L.
2005 “Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible” Peabody PA: Hendrickson Publishers

 

[crjmurray]

I do not want to go too far off the "evilution" topic. You might enjoy reading;

Bodine, Walter R., (Ed.)
1992 "Linguistics and Biblical Hebrew" Winona Lake: Eisenbrauns

Pardee, Dennis
2002 "Writings from the Ancient World Vol. 10: Ritual and Cult at Ugarit" Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Parker, Simon B. (Editor)
1997 "Ugarit Narrative Poetry Translated by Mark S. Smith, Simon B. Parker, Edward L Greenstein, Theodore J. Lewis, David Marcus, Vol. 9" Writings from the Ancient World. Atlanta: Society of Biblical Literature

Sparks, Kenton L.
2005 “Ancient Texts for the Study of the Hebrew Bible” Peabody PA: Hendrickson Publishers

Gracias

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

Evolution has yet to be proven by evidence.

Evolutionary theory, like any scientific theory stands against factual challenges. That is as all the "proof" any theory needs. And like all good theory, evolution makes predictions that are then challenged by direct observation.

Did God not Create this physical world? We know that He did.

You might think that you "know" something, but opinions are not facts.

Were you and I there when He did so? No, at least I wasn't, I wasn't even born yet.

We see the event of evolution in laboratory and natural settings. There are hundreds of published papers every single week on application, and testing of evolutionary theory. So, for example, we needn't have been alive a million years ago to observe North American elephants, or camels. We can (and do) repeatedly observe their remains. We can (and do) know they appear in specific settings, with specific associations. These repeated observations are more than adequate to confirm geology, and biology.

Can you find or give evidence that God did not Creat the physical realm with full apparent age, so that if you examine the physical realm "it has natural age", just like if we went to Eve the day after she was Created, and asked her how old she is, she would say "one day old" but by physically examining her we could see in the natural she appears 18 or ? years old by appearance.

Is this possible?

The "appearance of age" or, "omphalos" argument is contradicted by the Bible, and fails on its own logically.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

If it is proven, then prove it. . . . .
.

I cite genetic evidence that shows humans and other primates share a common ancestral species.

http://www.evolutionarymodel.com/ervs.htm

 

[Deidre32]

I was a non-believer for a time, a Christian most of my life, and now thinking again of returning to it. I'm a believer again, at the very least. That said, why is it necessary to disprove evolution if you're a Christian?

 

[Shemjaza]

I was a non-believer for a time, a Christian most of my life, and now thinking again of returning to it. I'm a believer again, at the very least. That said, why is it necessary to disprove evolution if you're a Christian?

I'm pretty sure that evolution accepting Christians outnumber atheists of all sorts in the USA. So it always seems weird for some Christians to constantly try to argue against science by making a philosophical battle with a straw man of atheism.

 

[Deidre32]

I'm pretty sure that evolution accepting Christians outnumber atheists of all sorts in the USA. So it always seems weird for some Christians to constantly try to argue against science by making a philosophical battle with a straw man of atheism.

lol ah, i see. Okay, then. Carry on.

 

[crjmurray]

I was a non-believer for a time, a Christian most of my life, and now thinking again of returning to it. I'm a believer again, at the very least. That said, why is it necessary to disprove evolution if you're a Christian?

It's probably not necessary but just to be safe consult your local magic eight ball.

 

[Deidre32]

It's probably not necessary but just to be safe consult your local magic eight ball.

?

 

[crjmurray]

?

No, no its not necessary

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

...I'm going to continue digging to see if there's more out there more recent than 2004/5, but for now will cease using MYH16 as an argument.

It may not have had a direct influence on cranial capacity (though it wouldn't have hurt), but it does suggest that powerful jaw muscles were no longer a significant selective advantage, indicating that the effective calorific value of the diet had increased. This would imply a calorific surplus that could support advantageous but resource intensive applications, such as increasing behavioural flexibility, complexity, & problem solving capability by brain enhancements (the modern brain consumes roughly 20% of the total calories used). So it seems consistent with the other evidence.

 

[Loudmouth]

Yes, that is right. I have been told the age of the earth as being anything from 200 million to 14 billion years old and everything in between by atheists but of course atheists as is usual are in denial and try to cover up the implausibility of what they claim by stating that one atheist does not speak for another so I guess as an atheist you believe whatever you want to believe and that is truth because I say so and if another atheist comes along and says something different then that is the truth because he says so and if another atheist comes along and says.....The shifting sands of atheism is there for all to see, but why worry. The truth is not high on their agenda as they trade on myths and fairy stories so anything goes as long as they don't have to prove what they say is the truth.

Their security seems to be to say anything that massages a damaged ego in the hope that no one will discover the fallacy of their dreams, obfuscation and complete and utter bunkum. (Forgive me if that language is a bit strong).

All we can do is keep pointing to the scientific evidence that you still refuse to address. Astrophile wrote a great post that you seem to be avoiding.

According to Wikipedia https:/en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_universe , 'NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP)' estimated the age of the universe to be (13.772±0.059)×10E9 years (13.772 billion years, with an uncertainty of 59 million years).'
'The age of the universe based on the best fit to Planck 2013 data alone is 13.813±0.058 billion years'.
'By combining the Planck data with previous missions, the best combined estimate of the age of the universe is (13.798±0.037)×10E9 years old.'
'The ... space probes WMAP, launched in 2001, and Planck, launched in 2009, produced data that determines the Hubble constant and the age of the universe independent of galaxy distances, removing the largest source of error.'
Also, the age of about 13.7 billion years from WMAP has stood since 2004, and Sandage, in 1958, gave an age of 13 billion years, with a possible uncertainty of a factor of two -
http://adsabs.harvard.edu/abs/1958ApJ...127..513S

Astrophile​

 

[HitchSlap]

//snip//
Observation proves that mankind needs an external force to oversee mankind in order for mankind to survive. Evolutionary theory leads to extinction in 99% of species, in man's case that figure should be 100%. Man was never designed to survive in the natural world by any standard of natural fitness, mankind is rather, a greatly handicapped and special species. Man had been gifted with everything in order to survive as a species, before the race to survive actually began.

Makes the idea of a "creator" that much more silly, doesn't it?

 

[As I was saying]

Your use of the word "theology" is incorrect (not to mention obviously trolling).

Science and theology is very different, science deal with physical reality, theology deals with metaphysics.

My use of the word theology is correct as I have a degree in theology.

I have never said that science and theology are the same.

 

[Dr GS Hurd]

My use of the word theology is correct as I have a degree in theology.

Nothing about having a degree, or what you have posted indicates you are competent in theology, or biblical studies.

 

[klutedavid]

Makes the idea of a "creator" that much more silly, doesn't it?

If you listen to evolutionists Hitchslap, they will make a monkey out of you.

 

[As I was saying]

Because the scientific consensus is 4.5/4.6 billion years, not 200 million. And that's been the case for several decades now. So wherever you pulled the 200 million from (your hat?), it wasn't a scientific source. No, it is simply deducible based on the stuff you write down. For example, suppose I told you that "my source" tells me that Jesus met the pink undetectable 7-headed leprechaun that lives in my garage... You would be able to deduce that whatever my source was, it won't be the bible, correct? For the reason that you know perfectly well that the bible doesn't mention any undetectable 7-headed leprechaun(pink or otherwise). That's the same logic that is being applied here. Whatever your source was for "200 million" - it wasn't a scientific source. Because we know that the scientific source will state it is 4.5 billion instead. Yep. And the fact is that scientific sources will say it is 4.5 billion, not 200 million. And that is how we know that whatever your source was - it wasn't a scientific source. Just like you would know that whatever MY source was for the 7-headed leprechaun - it wasn't the bible (no matter if I claim it is). Nope, as I have just demonstrated to you. You don't require "supposition, guesswork, gambling, blind faith and foolishness" to deduce that my source for the 7-headed leprechaun is not the bible - regardless of my claims, right?

Dr. Ian Hutchinson, who is a member of the American Scietific Affiliation, and professor of nuclear engineering at MIT and fellow of the American Physical Society and of the Institute of Physics and whose work is primarily magnetic confinement of plasma and head of the Alcator Project, the largest university based fusion research team in the nation believes that faith informs science by encouraging integrity and professional discipline, and by the knowledge that the laws governing the physical world were established by God and can be discovered through science.

He has no doubt that modern science is Christian in nature as it germinated in the work of pioneers like Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Boyle, Pascal, Newton, Faraday and Maxwell all of whom were committed followers of the Christian Faith.

The Enlightenment which brought about atheism, was nothing more than an attempt to sweep aside the religious and christian aspect of science so that it could be replaced by man's own efforts to become god's themselves. And look where it has got us. The bible is so true when it says that the fool has said in his heart there is no God.

Today we have the modern atheist trying to put religion and christianity to bed, never to rise. It attacks anything that upsets its beliefs and rather than stand on their own two feet, they resort to the courts to do their dirty work for them.

Rather than let the religion of atheism speak for itself, they are like the muslims who are not happy unless they are conducting jihad against those they don't like. Rather than get involved in works of charity, they would rather stop those who are involved in works of charity like Samaritan's Purse, bringing a bit of sunshine to poor kids because it is a christian organisation and of course we know that we can't have christian organisations bringing charitable relief to others in case the others become christians.