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.
Then Newton was a part of the 50% that stood the test of time. Often the 50% that fails does no harm, it just does no one any good. Half truth is better then no truth. If you help half the people that is an accomplishment. Although in general one third get better, one third get worse and one third stay they same.Newton's Theory of Gravitation was published in 1697
You are only showing us the limits of your finite mind that can not comprehend how the infinite can act upon the finite.
Of course for Christians that have been touched by the God of infinity they know that this is indeed possible.
Sense you have never had this experience then you have no testimony to this effect.
Just because there is a decrease in cancer does not mean science works. You have to establish that somehow there is a connection between science and lower cancer rates.
Unless you want to claim that science is killing less people now then before. I may give you that. If the CEO of general foods uses science to produce food that promotes heart disease, diabetes and cancer then all of a sudden you do not want science to have the credit for that, you want to blame the CEO that is using science to put money in his pocket.
JINX!None of whom are active in the relevant fields of biology. A rocket propulsion scientist who dissents from evolution? Say it ain't so!
Have you not heard of this?
http://ncse.com/taking-action/project-steve
Just because there is a decrease in cancer does not mean science works.
Science is not trained to confirm or deny anything in the Bible. If you want too study the Bible then you need to study Theology or go to Bible school or at least study and read the WHOLE Bible. Mosses was talking about Genesis in the past when he says: "A thousand years in your sight are like a day that has just gone by" Peter was talking about: "the day of judgment and destruction of ungodly men." This is a future event. Either way dispensationalism (John Nelson Darby) shows us that a day is as 1000 years. Without this Genesis maybe difficult to understand. If people wanna be OEC that is fine, but the days are going to be a different length. So that is why one is a 'shadow and a type' of the other.The Bible can say pretty much anyone wants it to say to fit in with their own beliefs, Did Peter say that in Genesis a day is the equal to a thousand years?
"But do not forget this one thing, dear friends: With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day"
I don't see it.
I think science has pretty much confirmed that the account in Genesis is not literally accurate and true (whether it was 600 or 1300 years ago). Have you got any evidence to back up your assertions?
"Can cause"?
Wow -- just wow.
[sarcasm] Ya ... there's an outside chance that it might. [/sarcasm]
Firstly there is a difference between micro-evolution and macro-evolution. Micro we can see and has a lot of supporting evidence. Macro however has much less supporting evidence as it has never been repeated, and cannot be.
Mutations and evolution has never been shown to be creative enough to support the macro.
Theory's in science may well have a lot of supporting evidence for them and be basically fact, but the neo-Darwinian theory of macro-evolution is certainly not one of them.
Careful licking the butter on that popcorn can give cats coronary artery disease. Why is it when we have all the knowledge of the world at our fingertips people only want to look at photos of cats?Oh, this'll be good...
This is just nonsense, you cannot test macro-evolution under scientific conditions, the concept is simply absurd.
Sorry double negatives are difficult for my mind to work with. Science is a flip of the coin, you got a 50% chance of being right. The women that trusted their doctor when they took thalidomide did not think they were flipping that coin. They did not know that taking that pill would cause birth defects for their children. That is why the consumer needs to beware. We need to be careful when dealing with science and not assume they know what they are talking about. Whenever anyone wants to sells you something then you got to be careful that they are not going to do you more harm then good. kævɛɑːt ˈɛmptɔr is Latin for "Let the buyer beware"AV claims that science doesn't work and isn't reliable, so how can anyone claim that thalidomide causes cancer?
Have you not heard of this?
http://www.discovery.org/articleFiles/PDFs/100ScientistsAd.pdf
It is signed by hundreds of scientists, and no they aren't all theists.
How do you know butter can give cats heart disease?Careful licking the butter on that popcorn can give cats coronary artery disease. Why is it when we have all the knowledge of the world at our fingertips people only want to look at photos of cats?
Actually there are studies that show insertion is not always random, and that Retroviruses do have targeted sites.Background: Retroviruses insert randomly into host genomes.
Sorry double negatives are difficult for my mind to work with. Science is a flip of the coin, you got a 50% chance of being right. The women that trusted their doctor when they took thalidomide did not think they were flipping that coin.
We need to be careful when dealing with science and not assume they know what they are talking about.
Actually there are studies that show insertion is not always random, and that Retroviruses do have targeted sites.
Why do people today think that by Googling things makes them an expert? Google does not rank by truth you know. Try reading some text books.
And like I said, I differentiate between micro and macro evolution.
I read my own source, I'm wondering why you are failing to grasp such a simple concept but I will try one more time before giving up. There is a difference between macro and micro evolution, even if they are just different 'scales' of the apparently same phenomenon. But I do not accept the evidence of micro automatically extends as evidence of macro, I think macro needs its own evidence and on that front I'm not convinced by what scientists currently have, and neither are all evolutionary scientists. Now compare that to how many physicists doubt the theory of relativity..
Just because there is a decrease in cancer does not mean science works. You have to establish that somehow there is a connection between science and lower cancer rates. Unless you want to claim that science is killing less people now then before. I may give you that. If the CEO of general foods uses science to produce food that promotes heart disease, diabetes and cancer then all of a sudden you do not want science to have the credit for that, you want to blame the CEO that is using science to put money in his pocket.
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?