Here is science at its best
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpMjakNhZTc
|
|
|
|
|||
|
|
|
|
|||
Here is science at its best
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpMjakNhZTc
"Communism only works in Heaven, where they don't need it, and in Hell, where they already have it" Ronald Reagan
The quote below from a former university teacher/evolutionist pretty much sums up how evolutionists are trapped in that world. His short bio is here: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...s/g_parker.asp
The quote is taken from this article: http://www.answersingenesis.org/home...-beginning.asp (which is the first chapter of his book: Creation: Facts of Life)
Here is the home page for Answers in Genesis: http://www.answersingenesis.org/For me, “evolution” was much more than just a scientific theory. It was a total world-and-life view, an alternate religion, a substitute for God. It gave me a feeling of my place in the universe, and a sense of my relationship to others, to society, and to the world of nature that had ultimately given me life. I knew who the “good guys” were, and where I was going. (emphasis added)
Have a good weekend folks...
.
In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth (Gen 1:1 NKJV)... 1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made through Him, and without Him nothing was made that was made. 4 In Him was life, and the life was the light of men. (John 1:1-4NKJV)
No evolution, no monkey ancestors, no big bang!
Answers magazine is the Bible-affirming, creation-based magazine from Answers in Genesis.Originally Posted by Keith Farmer
The above says it all, a publication with an agenda.
Where do we go without great leaders for the defense of our liberties? Who will defend our right to live our lives _as we chose_ without others taking that from us? The answer is, as it should be, no one. We are the defense of our rights and should always remember that. Libertarian blogger
I admit I didn't read the entire article, but your posted quote of his illustrates a big disconnect in my way of seeing this, and many others. I DON'T view creation and evolution as mutually exclusive. I would never use a scientific explanation as a substitute for God. As we gain more understanding of our natural world, some things will move from the mystical/religious explanation to the scientific realm. This has been a gradual accumulation of knowledge since man has been around, yet some always resist new knowledge. Eventually they admit that Helios doesn't drive a chariot across the sky everyday, and Poseidon doesn't summon forth storms to spite ships, the world is round....and so on.
We are at a point where the fields of population biology, comparative anatomy, genetics, molecular biology are unravelling the mystery of how we got here. (at least since earth was formed)
It may seem to some that I'm substituting science for God, but quite the contrary. Even when the day comes (if we survive long enough) to understand EVERYTHING all the way back to the big bang, it still begs the question, "who touched off the powder"?
The answer to that will always be GOD. So nobody should feel threatened that science is out to prove there is no God. Most scientists are believers, and have no interest in proving there is no God. Just that maybe there are answers to questions that can help humankind.
I'm on trauma call starting a 72 hour shift....so be careful out there! I don't wanna have to work this w/e!!
thats my way of saying, Have a great, safe, weekend....and happy Father's Day to all you Dads! (including me, x7)
God Bless PFC Jamie Harkness. The US Army's newest PFC, but still our neighbor's little girl!
I don't think there is any question that there is a bigger power than man or earth.
That bigger power is probably more energy than spiritual.
Where do we go without great leaders for the defense of our liberties? Who will defend our right to live our lives _as we chose_ without others taking that from us? The answer is, as it should be, no one. We are the defense of our rights and should always remember that. Libertarian blogger
No, I'm not liberal, nor a mental patient. Just a simple guy who enjoys dogs in my time away from work.
Thanks for taking it as ribbing
Just havin a little light hearted moment. I too have problems with many religions and their conclusions. So just as I am not a republican but a concervative I am also a bible bender but I don't have a religious bone in my body.
Religion and God have very little in common all though many religious people are Godly. Now there is a riddle for ya.
There is never a need to condem people but on the other hand people do need to be held accountable for their words actions.
Pete
With all respect Keith, I spent about two hours going through the links you posted and exploring the mindless meanderings of the Morris charlatans, father and son. I spent another hour looking further into their backgrounds and reading additional materials from among their long but not even vaguely illustrious list of publications. My only regret is that I can never get that time back.
There is no science to creationism; it is a matter of faith. There is no reason why there should be a science to matters of faith. There is nothing wrong with simply stating that you believe in creationism as a matter of faith. However, creationists seem obsessed with trying to prove that science as we know it is basically a matter of self delusion. That seems a little too 15th century for my taste. I'm still waiting to see what discoveries are made by creationist "scientists" that in any way advance knowledge in a manner that withstands rigorous peer review. Until then, I will choose not to waste more time on the Morris myths. The "theories" of evolution, by the way, have withstood scientific assessments over more than a century and have proven to be very robust is helping to explain the way the world works. Those theories will continue to be refined and gaps will continue to be fleshed out for decades to come. That is the nature of science. Creationism, by contrast, has sought to survive by turning Descartes on his head and simply asserting "I believe, therefore it is."
I have read the references that Keith and Pete have posted and I still see the same problems that I wrote about in my first post on this issue.
Like I said previously the Creationist argument against Evolution is to selectively attack the hypothesis of some of the more controversial and of yet unproven positions scientists have taken and to make it sound because of these Evolution is impossible. They conveniently and studiously ignore all the data that supports Evolution.
The other problem I see is that the sites supporting Creationism all have an agenda and have no connection to the scientific community. There are no articles that at least I can find that are in a scientific magazine, and which by the way would need to show some empirical data or experiments that support there position. What they do have is rhetoric that heavily based on faith.
This is just one of many passages from this site that is based on faith and not fact
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...ecent-creationGod’s Word speaks to us on historical events just as authoritatively as it speaks to us on how we should behave and think about God. Thus, a problem arises if we first allow arguments saying the world is old and then try to make the Word of God fit.
Each of us must choose which we will vest with ultimate authority: God’s Word or incomplete human knowledge.
I have read the references that Keith and Pete have posted and I still see the same problems that I wrote about in my first post on this issue.
Like I said previously the Creationist argument against Evolution is to selectively attack the hypothesis of some of the more controversial and of yet unproven positions scientists have taken and to make it sound because of these Evolution is impossible. They conveniently and studiously ignore all the data that supports Evolution.
The other problem I see is that the sites supporting Creationism all have an agenda and have no connection to the scientific community. There are no articles that at least I can find that are in a scientific magazine, and which by the way would need to show some empirical data or experiments that support there position. What they do have is rhetoric that heavily based on faith.
This is just one of many passages from this site that is based on faith and not fact
Oh well you cant please everyone all the time .. Sorry about my theories
I'll go back to believing I got pooped out of some ameba's ass and grew ears and eyes.
Yep that makes sence to me
Pete
Ah Pete, even the best trainer doesn't simply take your young dog, wave a wand, and give you back a champion the next day. The training process takes a lot of innate talent molded through thousands of birds of training where each iteration helps to strengthen the final result. Who is to say God's approach isn't similar? Working from the smallest bits of matter, shaping them into the simplest lifeforms and building new life forms from those bits. The subtlety, genius and perfection lies in how it all goes together and the inherent economy with which the building blocks of one species are so clearly linked to the building blocks for another. The timing, as you noted in your own comments, may simply be a matter of perspective, or of poetry. Is a Genesis day measured by Earth time or God time? We already know that the length of a day varies from planet to planet with larger planets having longer days. Whose "planet" is bigger than God's?
Besides, no one came from an amoeba's ass, or even a monkey's. However, I am certain that some among us continue to emerge from the rear ends of horses.....
You know, of course, that I am not a theist. However, I have never seen any inherent contradiction between scientific views on how the universe and life developed and religious views of creation. The problems only arise when literalists assume that they can extrapolate from their own understanding of the written word to an understanding of the true miracles of God's ways. In my mind, those who follow rigorous approaches to understand the origins of matter and life are simply trying to read all the pages of the "books" that God gave us. Those who try to impose their own agendas on that exploration are effectively trying to censor God.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
