Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
What do you believe regarding creation and evolution?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Karl - Liberal Backslider" data-source="post: 996390" data-attributes="member: 9458"><p>You're missing the point.</p><p> </p><p>It is if He makes the universe in such a way as it appears to be very old, when it is in fact young. We live in such a universe. </p><p>Nonsense. Why would you say that? I am trying to establish how God went about His work. Nothing to do with failing to comprehend God's abilities - indeed the opposite. </p><p>And what strange version of the theory of evolution do you know of that suggests salt did evolve? None known to science, that's for sure. </p><p>Yes. And science is about finding out how He did so. </p><p>No. Careful observation, experiment and study of the real universe tells us it is so. Do you have an alternative model of fundamental constants that explains how the light really only took a few years? Remember, distant objects have been visible from earliest times. Light from the Andromeda nebula hasn't had 6,000 years to get here; it only had 2,000 years because it was observed by Babylonian astronomers millenia ago.</p><p></p><p>Actually, since it's 2 million light years away, it's had at least that long to get here. This is one of the clearest evidences going for the antiquity of the universe.</p><p> </p><p>But why do it in such a way as to make it look like the universe is very ancient if it isn't? </p><p>Or our <em>interpretation</em> of God's word is at fault. Like in mediaeval times when we insisted it said that the earth was the centre of the universe. </p><p>So science is no use. We're too stupid to know anything. [Sings]Bye, bye, computer....[/Sings] </p><p>Who said it would be difficult? Not me! I'm amazed that the writer of Genesis had so little faith in God's power that he thought God needed six days. </p><p>He could. But the overwhelming evidence is that He didn't. The God that is too small is the one that <em>has</em> to have created supernaturally to be considered the creator at all - i.e. the Creationists' God. </p><p>Science changes as its models more and more closely correlate with reality. Anyone would think the changes in models were random. Incidently - do you think Newton's laws are still "valid"? </p><p>Good job that evolution doesn't do that, then, isn't it?</p><p></p><p></p><p> </p><p>Question is - will it change given that it's based on misconceptions about what evolution is actually about, as demonstrated above? You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Karl - Liberal Backslider, post: 996390, member: 9458"] You're missing the point. It is if He makes the universe in such a way as it appears to be very old, when it is in fact young. We live in such a universe. Nonsense. Why would you say that? I am trying to establish how God went about His work. Nothing to do with failing to comprehend God's abilities - indeed the opposite. And what strange version of the theory of evolution do you know of that suggests salt did evolve? None known to science, that's for sure. Yes. And science is about finding out how He did so. No. Careful observation, experiment and study of the real universe tells us it is so. Do you have an alternative model of fundamental constants that explains how the light really only took a few years? Remember, distant objects have been visible from earliest times. Light from the Andromeda nebula hasn't had 6,000 years to get here; it only had 2,000 years because it was observed by Babylonian astronomers millenia ago. Actually, since it's 2 million light years away, it's had at least that long to get here. This is one of the clearest evidences going for the antiquity of the universe. But why do it in such a way as to make it look like the universe is very ancient if it isn't? Or our [i]interpretation[/i] of God's word is at fault. Like in mediaeval times when we insisted it said that the earth was the centre of the universe. So science is no use. We're too stupid to know anything. [Sings]Bye, bye, computer....[/Sings] Who said it would be difficult? Not me! I'm amazed that the writer of Genesis had so little faith in God's power that he thought God needed six days. He could. But the overwhelming evidence is that He didn't. The God that is too small is the one that [i]has[/i] to have created supernaturally to be considered the creator at all - i.e. the Creationists' God. Science changes as its models more and more closely correlate with reality. Anyone would think the changes in models were random. Incidently - do you think Newton's laws are still "valid"? Good job that evolution doesn't do that, then, isn't it? Question is - will it change given that it's based on misconceptions about what evolution is actually about, as demonstrated above? You're entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
What do you believe regarding creation and evolution?
Top
Bottom