[_ Old Earth _] Wrong

[jasonc]

Well there's this stuff called dark matter / dark energy which is needed to put the universe in the condition it is in (since we know there is no god doing it) and though we cannot see it or detect it in any way... we imagine it to be true. Dark Matter / Dark Energy... it's what to believe in!

Ad sponsored by the You'd Better Get This department of the Homeland Politically Correct Society.

I don't buy the bbt, but the man who created the theory was a catholic and a devout at that. I believe he is in heaven unless I can see a statement otherwise.

 

[Edward]

I've had people ask me that for real. Hard to believe anyone in the United States could have gotten through school and still think that's what happened.

Monkeys are far to evolved in a different direction to have given rise to apes or humans. Today, that's mostly seen as a joke (and I do understand you were joking) or as deliberate disinformation by certain creationist websites.

Aww, and I thought I came up with those jokes on my own.

While science and technology are progressing, so is their ability to deliver scientific babble, which makes a reasonable response impossible for the average person because they're not biologists or whatever. Then the evolutionists claim victory in that they have explained it.

 

[Lewis]

 

[Free]

This is one reason why Christianity (by God's own choosing) is not a religion but rather a relationship. And this is where man (Churches) keep getting Christianity wrong by turning it into a religion. So... no religion is good. Not really. It leads to untruth and deception.

That is simply not true. Christianity is a religion with one of the tenets being that we can have a personal relationship with God. The Bible itself disagrees with your statement "no religion is good."

 

[Free]

Please keep to the points being made and do not attack the person.

Thanks.

 

[JohnD]

That is simply not true. Christianity is a religion with one of the tenets being that we can have a personal relationship with God. The Bible itself disagrees with your statement "no religion is good."

If you speak of classification then Christianity is a religion on par with any other religious belief.

If on the matter of truth versus non-truth Christianity stands alone (according to Jesus). And being a Christian is not affiliated with a religious system but rather a belief in the Truth Personified.

So what you said rather than what I said is simply not true, Free.

And religious practices (religions) is the very myth God was trying to dispel in Old Testament Judaism proving religion interferes with a direct relationship with the Creator.

 

[JohnD]

Please keep to the points being made and do not attack the person.

Thanks.

Um, I was merely responding to the hostile witness / opponent from Barbarian. And running to tell a moderator is typical of the indefensible position once the water they are in gets hot. I am sure in your ten thousand plus postings here you've experienced this. But I will take under advisement your caution.

Thanks.

 

[JohnD]

Reminds me of George Burns. LOL

 

[JohnD]

I don't buy the bbt, but the man who created the theory was a catholic and a devout at that. I believe he is in heaven unless I can see a statement otherwise.

Wouldn't be the first mistaken / misled Christian to make it into the eternal kingdom. In fact, given the woeful ignorance of the Bible in Christianity, we are blessed that there is not an entrance exam. And yes I believe there are Catholics despite Roman Catholicism who are true believers in Jesus. The one criteria for salvation. Of course this is also true about Protestants despite protestantism and Messianics despite Messianic Judaism.

Ephesians 2:8–10 (NASB95)
8For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God;
9not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.
10For we are His workmanship, created in Christ Jesus for good works, which God prepared beforehand so that we would walk in them.

John 3:16–18 (NASB95)
16“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him shall not perish, but have eternal life.
17“For God did not send the Son into the world to judge the world, but that the world might be saved through Him.
18“He who believes in Him is not judged; he who does not believe has been judged already, because he has not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God.

 

[jasonc]

the hard part with science is that well the biblical account is a matter of faith and cant be tested. how does one test god in a lab?I don't consider theories of origin to be science. neither the toe nor creationism are science.

 

[JohnD]

the hard part with science is that well the biblical account is a matter of faith and cant be tested. how does one test god in a lab?I don't consider theories of origin to be science. neither the toe nor creationism are science.

By the existence of the lab itself, that's how.

 

[JohnD]

Presume nothing. That's man's biggest mistake. Like the men who said to God they could create their own human being. God said "Impressive. Do show me how."

"Well, said one man, "you take several pounds of dirt..."

"Hold it just a minute!" God said. "Get your own dirt."

 

[jasonc]

By the existence of the lab itself, that's how.

that is an assumption. you are using an axiom to assume that we got here by intelligence.ok that is fine but show me without the bible that it was the God of the bible? you cant. because other faiths have dieites and they make the same claim. science cant prove that its beyond the realm of science. you can only test what we can see , touch etc. we cant test what happene eons ago but from forsenic like methods make an educated guess at best and those are often based on biased positions of naturalism and forms of creationism.

 

[Milk-Drops]

The late Dr. A.E. Wilder-Smith holder of three earned PhD's and a reformed atheist turned Christian states many interesting points about the impossibility of one species evolving into another. In his writings and recordings he gets into the DNA RNA depths of the arguments. Fascinating stuff.

Dr. Wilder Smith's degrees were focused in chemistry and pharmacology, and not in the relevant fields of biology or genetics. He was a great chemist, but his views on genetics are quite dated and irrelevant now due to new findings in both biology and genetics since his remarks. He also tend to take a more thermodynamic argument towards evolution, but this argument assumes we are talking about modern cells and not originating or proto cells.

I would only add that micro-evolution does take place within a species. Within a species. Macro-evolution (transpeciation, one species transmuting into another) is a myth.

Macro Evolution is not transmutation. Macro Evolution is where a linage is tracked back to where it diverged from the last known ancestors genetically. The only difference between macro and micro is time scale and lineage.

It goes against the very sequencing of the DNA RNA that makes up all things.

Your definition of Macro evolution would be a problem. Good thing Biology does not use that definition.

So the absolute bottom line is those who teach and preach evolution are not teaching and preaching science as they claim but their religion instead.

Two things.
* The only people I've ever heard or read using your definition of Macro Evolution have been people trying to discredit Biology and supporters of the modern theory of Evolution. My main focus ( until I switched to computer science) was biology with a main focus in phylogeny. I have had several professors, and none of them ever used your definition of Macro Evolution. The term Macro Evolution is actually an archaic term anyway since macro and micro only differ on time scale but follow the same rules of genetics.

* Where did you get this information that Macro Evolution equals to species transmutation?

Religion is what people choose to believe whether true or not / factual or not despite any attempts or evidences to prove otherwise.

Then its a good thing that the theory of Evoltuion follows the scientific method and isn't a faith based theory, but one that is shaped and improved based on evidence.

This is one reason why Christianity (by God's own choosing) is not a religion but rather a relationship. And this is where man (Churches) keep getting Christianity wrong by turning it into a religion. So... no religion is good. Not really. It leads to untruth and deception.

Thank you for listening.

So you redefined the term religion to not mean Christianity and re-branded the religion of Christianity as a relationship so you could make a special pleading argument.

I don't care that you are a Christian, that is your personal belief and its up to you if you hold it or not, but don't play games and shady car salesmen tactics with definitions so you don't have to back up anything you have to say or accuse people of saying things that they haven't.

 

[JohnD]

As a non Christian your arguments are your religion to serve whatever god you believe in (including the god of atheism). I care not to argue with one who will never see the glass as half full no matter what. Good day. Good life.

 

[JohnD]

that is an assumption. you are using an axiom to assume that we got here by intelligence.ok that is fine but show me without the bible that it was the God of the bible? you cant. because other faiths have dieites and they make the same claim. science cant prove that its beyond the realm of science. you can only test what we can see , touch etc. we cant test what happene eons ago but from forsenic like methods make an educated guess at best and those are often based on biased positions of naturalism and forms of creationism.

Nope.

How did it all get here from nothing?

 

[jasonc]

Nope.

How did it all get here from nothing?

again its a faith statement. you are using circular logic. prove it outside the bible. show me where the stars alone say LOUDLY there is a GOD named YHWH. they don't speak like that. I suggest you bone up on apologetics.

a jew can argue the same thing. I have seen them do that. there are jewish apologists whom debate athiests and so forth.so how can he wrong then. a diety or intelligence can be argued but exactly which one is a matter of faith.

 

[JohnD]

no, you are implying I have faith. I have an eyewitness account in Genesis 1 and 2 dictated to the scribe Moses.

 

[JohnD]

You ever put the Bible to the test?

 

[JohnD]

Many many many have tried to disprove the Bible. And all failed.