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.
I am just telling you want the Bible says. If you want to accept or reject the Bible is your choice to make.
A simple reason Creationism should be taught in schools along with the Big Bang theory is simply that it is one of the many views on the beginning of the world. Personally I believe in Creationism as the truth, but that does not sway my feelings. Before I ever got saved, before I knew anything about the Bible, I thought that it should be taught simply to give a more rounded view. Our jobs as educators is to get the student thinking for themselves, only providing them with one view is not doing that, it is persuading them to think and believe what ever the leading scientific theory is at that time. To get students to think for themselves we must give them varying points and views and allow them to decide what they believe from there.
Creationism should be taught in history class as history.Creationism should not be allowed to circumvent the gauntlet of peer-review and the scientific method in general, and be taught as science.
If you can get ID through peer-review, then I'm all for it, but until then it has no business in a science classroom.
Creationism should be taught in history class as history.
In a word, WRONG!No, science does not include claims that have no support. The only people separating mechanisms into the natural and supernatural are creationists, not scientists. For all intents and purposes, the supernatural is nothing more than an invented realm that allows you to excuse yourself from supplying evidence.
Let's take an event. Any event will do, but let's feed 5,000 people with a couple of loaves of bread and some fish. Then after feeding them, we'll gather up more in remnants than we started with. Was that observed? Yes, by over 5,000 people. Was it testable? Yes, we knew what the start value and the ending value was. Was it falsifiable? There were plenty of witnesses who could have spoken up and said that it did not happen if it did not. It is, then, a recorded fact. Now the 5,000 people pass away, but we still have the record. Father tells son of what he had witnessed and all affirm the greatness of God.
Now centuries pass. Man can no more duplicate this event now than he could then. Jesus is not here to once again perform His well witnessed miracle. Now you claim that there is no evidence that it ever happened because you don't believe the written record and did not see it for yourself. In your mind, that proves it didn't happen; that it's religious mythology. By that same reasoning, nothing that you've ever read happened either. If you didn't perform the experiment yourself then you have no reason to trust the writing of those who did. Your doubt, then, is the extent of your acceptance of science. Only what you can see and what you have experienced is scientific in your mind. Only what is published in a science journal full of words you can't pronounce is relevant.
You don't expect us to take you seiously, do you?
Where are the witnesses that saw Darwin at the Galápago Islands? I didn't see him there, and therefore neither did anyone else. All we have is a book. Darwin is no more real than Icabod Crane or George Washington. All are myths and fairy tales because you didn't witness it and you place no value in the written record.
It's called physics, Einstein. Everything that exists in the physical world had a beginning. The universe did not and could not spring out of nothingness. Amazing what one can convince himself of if one is desperate to believe that there is no Creator. Most scientists know that science is the study of the physical world around us and is limited to those things which are observable and testable. It can neither preclude or include something which exists in a state which cannot be tested. If you don't understand the limitations of science then you don't understand anything about science. Science CANNOT DISPROVE the existence of God, and the assumption that He cannot exist is completely unscientific.Not at all. There is nothing in the definition of natural that would preclude a natural beginning to our universe.
The real medicine will be the tree of life: "[FONT=Corbel, Verdana, sans-serif]The leaves of the tree were for the healing of the nations."[/FONT]Alright, next time you get sick, you should use some of that 20,000 years old medicine. It will work very well!
I never said the world was 12,982 years old. I said that was when the age or era we now live in began. This is the Holocene extinction to end the last age and this is when the Neolithic Revolution began. Heb 5:12 "[FONT=arial, sans-serif]Instead of [/FONT]eating[FONT=arial, sans-serif] solid food, you still have to drink [/FONT]milk" Your doing a lot of shadow boxing. You make up stuff and argue against it. This all has NOTHING to do with me because you are not even in the same ball park when it comes to understanding what I believe.BTW, don't you keep saying the world is 12,900 years old?
If you say any event then your going to be in trouble, because most of the events in the Bible have physical evidence. The infidels have to work long and hard to try and find an event that does not have physical evidence. What about the temple in Jerusalem for example. There is evidence for just about everything the Bible says about the temple. The origional temple Solmon built 3,000 years ago. The second temple around 2500 years ago, that became known as Herolds Temple because he made improvements. Even there is evidence for the story of when Babylon conquered Jerusalem. When they were searching through the rubble they found some arrowheads that fit that story perfectly. So there is a lot of physical evidence to back up what we read in our Bible. For well over 200 years science has done a diligent study on all the evidence that we can find.Let's take an event. Any event will do.
Look at it this way. If a married man is having an affair the wife often will look long and hard for evidence. When she finds that evidence then he will do what he can to try and convince her that evidence is NOT valid. I see the same thing here. You got a bunch of infidels trying to get away with something and they are trying to deny the evidence.
If you say any event then your going to be in trouble, because most of the events in the Bible have physical evidence. The infidels have to work long and hard to try and find an event that does not have physical evidence. What about the temple in Jerusalem for example. There is evidence for just about everything the Bible says about the temple.
Let's take an event. Any event will do, but let's feed 5,000 people with a couple of loaves of bread and some fish. Then after feeding them, we'll gather up more in remnants than we started with. Was that observed? Yes, by over 5,000 people.
Was it testable? Yes, we knew what the start value and the ending value was.
Was it falsifiable? There were plenty of witnesses who could have spoken up and said that it did not happen if it did not. It is, then, a recorded fact.
Now centuries pass. Man can no more duplicate this event now than he could then. Jesus is not here to once again perform His well witnessed miracle.
If you didn't perform the experiment yourself then you have no reason to trust the writing of those who did.
You don't expect us to take you seiously, do you?
Where are the witnesses that saw Darwin at the Galápago Islands? I didn't see him there, and therefore neither did anyone else. All we have is a book. Darwin is no more real than Icabod Crane or George Washington. All are myths and fairy tales because you didn't witness it and you place no value in the written record.
It's called physics, Einstein. Everything that exists in the physical world had a beginning. The universe did not and could not spring out of nothingness. Amazing what one can convince himself of if one is desperate to believe that there is no Creator.
Most scientists know that science is the study of the physical world around us and is limited to those things which are observable and testable. It can neither preclude or include something which exists in a state which cannot be tested. If you don't understand the limitations of science then you don't understand anything about science. Science CANNOT DISPROVE the existence of God, and the assumption that He cannot exist is completely unscientific.
You do not think that the people we read about in the Bible were real people? You can take a tour of the Harry Potter studio and see that they made a movie there. You can take a tour of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and see that there was a temple there at one time. So just what point is it that you are trying to make here? Also I do not understand why you would put so much energy into trying to prove that the Bible is not the absolute truth.Yes, just as there is evidence for the London spoken of in the Harry Potter books. Therefore, Harry Potter is real.
You do not think that the people we read about in the Bible were real people? You can take a tour of the Harry Potter studio and see that they made a movie there. You can take a tour of the Temple Mount in Jerusalem and see that there was a temple there at one time. So just what point is it that you are trying to make here? Also I do not understand why you would put so much energy into trying to prove that the Bible is not the absolute truth.
Question: "What does it mean to kick against the pricks?"
Answer: “It is hard for you to kick against the pricks” was a Greek proverb, but it was also familiar to the Jews and anyone who made a living in agriculture. An ox goad was a stick with a pointed piece of iron on its tip used to prod the oxen when plowing. The farmer would prick the animal to steer it in the right direction. Sometimes the animal would rebel by kicking out at the prick, and this would result in the prick being driven even further into its flesh. In essence, the more an ox rebelled, the more it suffered. Thus, Jesus’ words to Saul on the road to Damascus: “It is hard for you to kick against the pricks.”
Of course, this comes from a "Bible-affirming evangelical Christian" who doesn't believe what is written in the Bible[/color].
Only the Bible doesn't describe abiogenesis, does It?If the Bible describes abiogenesis, I'm not going to deny it simply to agree with your church's favorite traditions.
Wikipedia said:Abiogenesis or biopoiesis is the study of how biological life could arise from inorganic matter through natural processes.
What about Eve? did she come from non-biological material as well?I do believe what is written in the bible (including the abiogenesis described in Genesis 2:7: man (biological life) from dust of the ground (non-biological material.)
Only the Bible doesn't describe abiogenesis, does It?
Does that include yourself as well?I'm always amazed that creationists have such a small god --- not the God of the Bible who is omniscient and omnipotent.
Wikipedia said:Theistic evolution or evolutionary creation is...
Does that include yourself as well?
I notice in your profile that, under ORGIN OF THE LIFE VIEW, you have: TRUTH BASED ON SCRIPTURE, not ABIOGENESIS; which of course, is your prerogative.
If by that, you mean you believe in theistic evolution, let me point out then, that you are a creationist as well:
So I'm asking you: Are you including yourself as well?
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?