your refering to God saying he created the world out of the formless and empty, darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Verse 2. Or do you believe he fixed a chaotic universe.JohnR7 said:No it's not, one ended and the other began, what is so difficult about that? That is why they call it a reconstructionist theory. You will find the seeds of the old in the new, that is what they call remnant theology.
I keep repeating this over and over again. One of these days it is going to sink in and someone is going to understand what I am talking about.
W Jay Schroeder said:your refering to God saying he created the world out of the formless and empty, darkness was over the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters. Verse 2. Or do you believe he fixed a chaotic universe.
JohnR7 said:From what I have seen in the discussion between creationists and evolutionists is that the creationists come to the table with about a 8th grade level of understanding of science. The evoluionists usually come to the table with about a 3 grade level of understanding of the Bible. So if anyone come to the discussion falling short, it would be the evos. If anyone is arrogant, it is the evos in their attitude toward the written word of God.
IDGIE said:Look, I am still a YEC not listening.
Still praising God for creating the world in six literal days as he told us He did.
The Lady Kate said:Am I arrogant because I don't rely on Scripture to tell me how to make an omlette?
JohnR7 said:It is up to you if you want to follow the Bible or not. If your idea of an egg is something that comes out of 5-6 chickens per cage and a 100,000 or more chickens per building, then your concept of an omlette is different than mine.
I thank God that I can buy food from Amish people that try to follow their Bible.
The Lady Kate said:I thank God that I got to the supermarket before the snowstorm hit.
The Lady Kate said:Except that in matters of evolution, the discussion is one of the various sciences: Biology, geology, cosmology.
The Bible is no more an authority on these issues than it is a cookbook. Am I arrogant because I don't rely on Scripture to tell me how to make an omlette?
The arrogance here is in my fellow Christians for trying to turn a guide for morality, spirituality, and salvation into something it is not, and insisting their own infallibility in the matter.
JohnR7 said:There is no contradiction between evolution and a literal understanding of the Bible. In fact evolution most likely comes closer to a literal reading of the Bible than some of the creationists theorys and opinions.
JohnR7 said:From what I have seen in the discussion between creationists and evolutionists is that the creationists come to the table with about a 8th grade level of understanding of science. The evoluionists usually come to the table with about a 3 grade level of understanding of the Bible. So if anyone come to the discussion falling short, it would be the evos. If anyone is arrogant, it is the evos in their attitude toward the written word of God.
How about first we show you what evidence, proof, fact and theory mean and how they relate to science?EchelonForm said:It boils down to, nobody's proven evolution or God, and if someone thinks there's evidence for either, it doesn't matter, evidence doesn't matter. When trying to proof something, evidence is pointless, evidence is for the ignorant insecure, you can find valid evidence for anything, it proves nothing, the origins of the universe and life is not on trial in the US court system.
I personally find evolution to be a poor theory, specifically from a mathematical stand point, I'm not going to go into my reasons because apparently I'm stupid and my sources are without 'merit'. The fact that modern science seems to be putting such a foundation on evolution and teaching it as fact is fraudulant and unscientific, Evolution is not a fact its a theory, and may not even have reached that point yet, if anybody 'believes' in it I applaud your faith you are indeed champions, and you are also bigger hypocrites than any of these Christians, you may have read the Bible and understand it, but your the ones trying peddle your own unproven beleives with biased sources, yes biased, mainstream science is biased. Anything off the cuff thinking is shunned because science is as much a slave the the almighty dollar as religion is, its all about journal publication, tenyear, book sales, and TV, there is no forum. I don't understand why a lot of people don't think this, anything mainstream usually is very biased. Why should science be any different?
If anyone thinks that evolution is fact show me the proof. I'd really like to see it.
EchelonForm said:Well I study math and I know what proving is, I also know that evidence doesn't prove anything, its a method of persuasion, you obviously read some sort of text book most likely the first paragraph and thats great I have to, I also know what I'm talking about, if you don't, understand what I mean don't be critcal of what you don't understand.
EchelonForm said:When trying to proof something, evidence is pointless, evidence is for the ignorant insecure, you can find valid evidence for anything, it proves nothing, the origins of the universe and life is not on trial in the US court system.
EchelonForm said:I think I'm in more awe than you. And to aswer your question there is nothing even close to science or any kind of understanding for that matter related to this forum.
Again, you can support anything you want with whatever credentials you want, with whatever ever evidence you want.....you'll never prove anything what you will have is a lovely thesis, no proof. Do you know what a proof is? Apparently not.
EchelonForm said:And to aswer your question there is nothing even close to science or any kind of understanding for that matter related to this forum.
Again, you can support anything you want with whatever credentials you want, with whatever ever evidence you want.....you'll never prove anything what you will have is a lovely thesis, no proof. Do you know what a proof is? Apparently not.
Well, you're hardly the first creationist to assert that evolution isn't science. I'm sure you'll get immense enjoyment out of bevets', Carico's, and napajohn's posts.
the laws of thermodynamics
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?