YEC's, you don't listen!

[W Jay Schroeder]

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.

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]

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.

Ok, this is what you do with that. First you find the Hebrew word in Strongs, then you study every verse that origional word is used in. Starting with Moses, then the rest of the History books then you go to the poetry and the prophecy books to see how they use those Hebrew words.

"formless and empty, darkness was over the deep" are key words that we use for reconstructionist theolgy.

 

[The Lady Kate]

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.

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.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Look, I am still a YEC not listening.

We're still looking, and we are still embarrassed.

Still praising God for creating the world in six literal days as he told us He did.

When did He say it was literal?

 

[JohnR7]

Am I arrogant because I don't rely on Scripture to tell me how to make an omlette?

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]

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 think perhaps it's best if I pretend to understand this, and we keep the thread moving...

I thank God that I can buy food from Amish people that try to follow their Bible.

I thank God that I got to the supermarket before the snowstorm hit. After a foot of snow, it no longer seems important where the eggs came from, just so long that I have them.

 

[JohnR7]

I thank God that I got to the supermarket before the snowstorm hit.

Actually, I found that out today. I though my truck would go though anything, but it does have trouble with 8 - 10 inches of snow. I think a lot of people are snowed in tonight, that maybe why the board is so busy.

 

[Icebrc]

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.

well said.

 

[Alencon]

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.

Really? Hey, that's great news. Then there's really no need to argue about it is there? Maybe you'd like to explain that to the creationist crowd and everyone else that seems to think evolution means the end of Christianity?

Would you like to borrow my PASGT while you're doing that? It's almost new; only used in one war.

 

[And-U-Say]

Archeology is not science. Ok, whatever you say.

Now THAT'S brash. I think you are really going to be alone out there on this claim.

 

[Alencon]

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.

Why would someone discussing the theory of evolution need to know anything about the bible?

Evolution simply lays out a theory related to the diversity of life on the planet based upon evidence, observations and some experimentation. It's totally independent of what the bible says isn't it?

 

[EchelonForm]

I am very dissapointed in this in both side of this thread, its just become a war of words between a bunch of people who unfortunately think they know what they are talking about.

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.

 

[Randall McNally]

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.

How about first we show you what evidence, proof, fact and theory mean and how they relate to science?

 

[EchelonForm]

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.

 

[raphael_aa]

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.

The concepts of 'proof' in mathematicsand science are quite different. I would also suggest that arrogance and rudeness don't really make for good debate.

 

[Janus]

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.

Wow. Just... wow.

I've got a single question for you: What the HECK are you doing in a science-related forum?

 

[EchelonForm]

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.

 

[raphael_aa]

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.

As someone with a degree in mathematics and having taught both physics and mathemtics for more than 20 years I think I may have an inkling about what proof is.

Proof in mathematics is one thing. Science works by observing the natural world. Loosely, the observations are 'facts'. Science then proposes a theory that explains the observations, a mechanism, a relationship. Theories are never 'proven' they may only be falsified. That is, theories make predictions about what we would expect to see. If the theory fails to do this, it is either ammended or a new theory takes its place. The idea of an acient earth in an ancient cosmos with life developing through evolution is one of the best attested scientific theories ever, cross confirmed through multiple disciplines. If you can falsify it, go ahead.

 

[Janus]

And to aswer your question there is nothing even close to science or any kind of understanding for that matter related to this forum.

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.

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.

Sure I do. And you're right, in a way; the theory of evolution hasn't been proven. Neither has germ theory, which asserts that diseases are (for the most part) caused by micro-organisms. The same goes for quantum mechanics, general relativity, the laws of thermodynamics, and every single scientific explanation, every theory, every hypothesis, and every law that has ever been thought of.

Proof is indeed the exclusive realm of mathematics and logic. There's no way to be 100% certain about anything in our physical universe. As shown by germ theory (and countless others), however, we can be 99.999999999999% sure, which for all practical intents and purposes is the same as 100% certainty. In that sense, germ theory, and the theory of evolution's core (i.e. its mechanisms and direct conclusions, like common descent), are proven fact.

To be frank, the three posts I've read from you so far show such a complete lack of understanding of what science is and how it works that I've no interest in explaining things to you that you could learn in a few hours by using Google, or even this forum's search button.

 

[EchelonForm]

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.

Thank you so, so very much because you just illustrated my point, I never said this, I never even came close to it, more clearly I meant that, all the stuff you people(Chrstian or not) are spewing back and forth isn't even close to scientific thinking or even showing a thread of understanding, you apparently haven't even read my post.

the laws of thermodynamics

Although I don't know for a fact, and really don't care, but I am almost certain that they have been proven, I think thats why they're called laws. Someone else maybe it was you, thought that I didn't know Laws, Theories, or Hyp., either.
There is a way to know things 100% alot of things can be proven and have, its not always direct but there are ways, we have many laws they are facts they are proven.

Also, mathematics and logic are the foundations of all scientific thinking, science cannot exist without them and yet you have the audacity to say I have no undestanding of what science is. You are so clearly making a mockery of yourself. To be frank.....