[_ Old Earth _] Dinosaurs ?

[Doulos Iesou]

One more time, God did not plant false evidence, the scientist, any scientist, that seeks to refute the truth has not believed. There is, exactly, one requirement for God to begin a good work, Salvation, in man, belief. Just as there are two types Christian, Believers and Pretenders, there are two types Scientists, Creationists and Evolutionists. The Evolutionist has rejected or is in the process of rejecting God.

You mention Religious Belief, Christianity, the Christianity, whose membership role is not found on this Earth, has nothing to do with Religion. That is why better than 98% of the Church Membership is not saved, they have a Religion and have not the relationship that is the true Christianity. That is the reason they scoff at people like myself when we speak of our one on one instruction from the Holy Spirit. This problem is so prevalent that even one Pastor/Seminary Professor when asking where I got my instruction, told me not to give him that Holy Spirit manure (only he used the more vulgar word).

You have asked for a better model when you have already rejected it. Only about 10% of the evidence can be used to promote an Evolution Model while about 90% are evidence for a creed world. (see the vids listed here; http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=evidence for a young world)


You have failed to either read or you've failed to comprehend and to believe. Sin Loi but you know, old age.

Based on these statements, we're going to have agree to disagree. I won't talk to someone who thinks you reject God because you embrace Evolution.

 

[Knotical]

"Peer Reviewed"

This just means a bunch of people (sinful humans) have gotten together and accepted something that has yet to be absolutely proven as fact.

What apparently is being missed here is there is no room in Orthodox Christianity for the idea of evolution, as it is a human (sinful being, therefore, flawed from the very foundation) developed theory to come up with an alternative explanation for how things are in the biological/physical world, when the answer for that is already provided and laid out in the Bible.

The bible is not just the ultimate source for sound theology, but is also the only source worth mentioning for understanding the biological/physical world. Why, you ask? Because, it is God breathed, and therefore infallible and inerrant. Anyone who is unable to understand the tenets, and teachings in the bible merely has not asked God for that illumination.

 

[Edward]

This might surprise you, but this is true for everyone on this board. We're all convinced of our own beliefs, does that mean the discussion should end?

I personally do my best to have an open mind on these issues, but of course I come to the table with the set of knowledge I already have, so I naturally have an aversion to people presenting those kinds of arguments against evolution. Is it because I'm biased? No, I don't think so, it's because I simply know better than to accept the strawman arguments.


I don't know of any reputable sources that are Creationists, none of them are peer reviewed. And these judgment of these men in this context is based on the quality of their findings and evidence, which has been found wanting.


We actually have loads of evidence, and characterizing our posts as "long winded diatribes of details with scientific babble designed* to derail and confuse," is very disingenuous of you to say and frankly offensive.

We attempt to instruct and provide information and answer the objections that are posted here. You don't have to read them, and you can keep your opinion to yourself concerning the manner in which the information is conveyed as you just insulted all of us.


When there is a viable natural explanation for something, no miracle has to be asserted. Clearly God works through Natural Events, or do you think just goes around zapping things causing miracles. The planets aren't in their orbit because God wills them to move that way, rather he setup laws on how matter and gravity operate. This is just what I believe to be true.


All scientists practice methodological naturalism, which is a pragmatic approach to assume something has a natural explanation and thus should be observed and tested to see if we can figure it out. If we just assumed everything was done miraculously then science wouldn't exist.

Also the Big Bang Theory does not invalidate God in any way.


We've been sharing it with you all long, but you just blow it off as long winded scientific babble.

Convince us you're actually going to objectively listen respectfully to what we have to say and we will make the investment.

Hmmm. Ok. Fair enough brother. Here's a man who was born into an atheistic home, was a hard core atheist all or most of his life, got educated as a scientist and received a PHD in (Physics I believe?). Then he noticed that there was actually little to no real evidence of evolution, so decided to use the modern technology to try to capture some real evidence to be able to prove evolution and debunk the creationists once and for all. As he got into it and began his re-research (LOL) and going back and forth between the bible and evolutionary theory and evidence and what the bible puts forth as the truth/theory etc., and being honest with himself eventually became convinced of the truth of the bible and became a Christian and gave his life to the Lord. Tada. He wrote a book debunking 14 "Facts" of evolution and summarizes some of them in the video, and talks about other stuff too. In other videos he explains how it is possible for the starlight which is millions of light years away to reach the earth in time for Adam & Eve to be able to see it.

Here's part 1 and I'll post part two also, then if you all want to see any of his other vids, you should go to youtube and do a search for his name and a bunch will come up, ok?

Then we can talk some more.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

"Peer Reviewed"

This just means a bunch of people (sinful humans) have gotten together and accepted something that has yet to be absolutely proven as fact.

You and I have extremely different ideas of what peer review is, and I imagine we would just go ins a circle as you constantly deny my claims without actually looking into things.

What apparently is being missed here is there is no room in Orthodox Christianity for the idea of evolution, as it is a human (sinful being, therefore, flawed from the very foundation) developed theory to come up with an alternative explanation for how things are in the biological/physical world, when the answer for that is already provided and laid out in the Bible.

1. I don't regard the Bible as a scientific text book.
2. Evolution is a non-essential, and one can be a Christian and believe it. This is a FACT, and the moderators have agreed on the matter and therefore do not force those who believe it to change their tag, nor is there any official statement regarding such on this site.

As a member of the staff, I expect you to have the common courtesy to disagree with me about evolution, but to maintain that this is a non-essential issue, although important, but not necessary to reject or embrace for salvation.

The bible is not just the ultimate source for sound theology, but is also the only source worth mentioning for understanding the biological/physical world. Why, you ask? Because, it is God breathed, and therefore infallible and inerrant. Anyone who is unable to understand the tenets, and teachings in the bible merely has not asked God for that illumination.

So for every scientific class be it geology, astronomy, physics, biology, or even when it concerns the medical field, you would take out all the previous knowledge accumulated by mankind and just give them a Bible?

You and I have extremely different views of Scripture, I believe Scripture is sufficient for certain specific purposes, you seem to think it is sufficient for everything.

 

[th1b.taylor]

Based on these statements, we're going to have agree to disagree. I won't talk to someone who thinks you reject God because you embrace Evolution.

That is, indeed, a convienate way of professing no intelligent answer and I'll admit to never having had that one used on me before. But God has spoken that He did it in six days and the very idea that evolution, a theory, is the reason speaks to God being a liar and, actually, I'm the member of this discussion that might be offended. I have not called you out, I just stated a founded truth if, and it is true that God created the Earth in six 24 hour days, as the Hebrew records, and not in 6 day/age groups then it is true that God is being refuted and, sir, that is a no, no.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Hmmm. Ok. Fair enough brother. Here's a man who was born into an atheistic home, was a hard core atheist all or most of his life, got educated as a scientist and received a PHD in (Physics I believe?). Then he noticed that there was actually little to no real evidence of evolution, so decided to use the modern technology to try to capture some real evidence to be able to prove evolution and debunk the creationists once and for all. As he got into it and began his re-research (LOL) and going back and forth between the bible and evolutionary theory and evidence and what the bible puts forth as the truth/theory etc., and being honest with himself eventually became convinced of the truth of the bible and became a Christian and gave his life to the Lord. Tada. He wrote a book debunking 14 "Facts" of evolution and summarizes some of them in the video, and talks about other stuff too. In other videos he explains how it is possible for the starlight which is millions of light years away to reach the earth in time for Adam & Eve to be able to see it.

I am at work and cannot watch 60 minutes worth of videos. Also, to be frank, even over the weekend I wouldn't want to spend the time to watch all of these videos and then break them down.

Please see 2.6 of the ToS:
2.6: Please keep posts down to a respectable length and provide source and/or links for your info.

Even though this is a video and not text, I think the same thing applies. I say this not to "get you in trouble," but merely to take this discussion in a different direction so that this is a manageable discussion.

Can you provide two of his arguments in your own words that are presented in this video, you can also cite any sources that seem to be helpful, but please quote the relevant points in the forum if you can.

Thanks,
DI

 

[Doulos Iesou]

That is, indeed, a convienate way of professing no intelligent answer and I'll admit to never having had that one used on me before. But God has spoken that He did it in six days and the very idea that evolution, a theory, is the reason speaks to God being a liar and, actually, I'm the member of this discussion that might be offended. I have not called you out, I just stated a founded truth if, and it is true that God created the Earth in six 24 hour days, as the Hebrew records, and not in 6 day/age groups then it is true that God is being refuted and, sir, that is a no, no.

It's a convenient way to say the discussion between you and I are over based upon your offensive comments. Good bye.

 

[Edward]

I am at work and cannot watch 60 minutes worth of videos. Also, to be frank, even over the weekend I wouldn't want to spend the time to watch all of these videos and then break them down.

Please see 2.6 of the ToS:
2.6: Please keep posts down to a respectable length and provide source and/or links for your info.

Even though this is a video and not text, I think the same thing applies. I say this not to "get you in trouble," but merely to take this discussion in a different direction so that this is a manageable discussion.

Can you provide two of his arguments in your own words that are presented in this video, you can also cite any sources that seem to be helpful, but please quote the relevant points in the forum if you can.

Thanks,
DI

I'd rather not brother. You should hear this from the PHD's mouth and not mine. That way, I wouldn't take any of his comments out of context or anything like that. Awhile back I was asked if I am a PHD in physices or astrophysics or something like that, as if I am not a scientist and a real edumacated scientist which has actually been to school and so forth would be more valid than I. I agree with with this also, so here you guys are. Here's the PHD that was asked for, and he wasn't born or raised Christian, so has no bias or dogs in the fight or whatever, he's just speaking scientifically and honestly. If you need time to watch the vids later or over the weekend or wotnot...feel free brother, No pressure here. Take your time, and get back to me when you can.

Be blessed brother.

 

[Knotical]

You and I have extremely different ideas of what peer review is, and I imagine we would just go ins a circle as you constantly deny my claims without actually looking into things.


1. I don't regard the Bible as a scientific text book.
2. Evolution is a non-essential, and one can be a Christian and believe it. This is a FACT, and the moderators have agreed on the matter and therefore do not force those who believe it to change their tag, nor is there any official statement regarding such on this site.

As a member of the staff, I expect you to have the common courtesy to disagree with me about evolution, but to maintain that this is a non-essential issue, although important, but not necessary to reject or embrace for salvation.


So for every scientific class be it geology, astronomy, physics, biology, or even when it concerns the medical field, you would take out all the previous knowledge accumulated by mankind and just give them a Bible?

You and I have extremely different views of Scripture, I believe Scripture is sufficient for certain specific purposes, you seem to think it is sufficient for everything.

It comes down to this, if a finding does not support scripture, then it should be tossed out. Evolution actually is an essential issue as it speaks to the focus of the individual. Evolution, as I stated before, is an alternative human explanation for questions that have already been answered.

As Christians if we see a brother or sister being led astray by a secular world view it is our duty to at least attempt to steer them back in the right direction. That is what evolution is, a secular world view.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

I'd rather not brother. You should hear this from the PHD's mouth and not mine. That way, I wouldn't take any of his comments out of context or anything like that. Awhile back I was asked if I am a PHD in physices or astrophysics or something like that, as if I am not a scientist and a real edumacated scientist which has actually been to school and so forth would be more valid than I. I agree with with this also, so here you guys are. Here's the PHD that was asked for, and he wasn't born or raised Christian, so has no bias or dogs in the fight or whatever, he's just speaking scientifically and honestly. If you need time to watch the vids later or over the weekend or wotnot...feel free brother, No pressure here. Take your time, and get back to me when you can.

Be blessed brother.

As I just stated, I will not be spending my free time analyzing 60 minutes worth of video and then breaking it down in this forum for the following reasons.

1. The ToS states that posts must be within a reasonable length, 60 minutes of content is far too long for interaction on a forum this large.
2. You still haven't demonstrated that this would be worth the investment given your remarks, i.e. "scientific babble designed to confuse".
3. You are more than capable to summarize at least two of his arguments and post them in your own words.

I also highly doubt that this man is unbiased having done just a little bit of research on him before, and simply because I think all people have biases, especially Creationists who are devoted to what they think is God's truth. This is my opinion and you are welcome to disagree.

Fact of the matter is, unless there is some manageable material to deal with, this is as far as our conversation goes.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

It comes down to this, if a finding does not support scripture, then it should be tossed out. Evolution actually is an essential issue as it speaks to the focus of the individual. Evolution, as I stated before, is an alternative human explanation for questions that have already been answered.

As Christians if we see a brother or sister being led astray by a secular world view it is our duty to at least attempt to steer them back in the right direction. That is what evolution is, a secular world view.

Evolution is a non-essential issue.... and when we use this term we mean non-essential for salvation. It is not a damnable heresy that if one believes they are not a Christian. You are of the opinion that it conflicts with Scripture, and I and others here disagree.

I note that you think I'm being "led astray," and you have fulfilled that responsibility by notifying of such. Now I will continue on believing it because I cannot deny what I believe to be true, just as you will continue believing what you believe.

We have different epistemological approaches to truth so talking about the evidence isn't really a valuable exercise so at this point I say we end our discussion with agreeing to disagree. You can have your own personal beliefs about my status as a Christian, or evolutionist's status as Christian, but that is not to be shared here per the ToS.

 

[Edward]

As I just stated, I will not be spending my free time analyzing 60 minutes worth of video and then breaking it down in this forum for the following reasons.

1. The ToS states that posts must be within a reasonable length, 60 minutes of content is far too long for interaction on a forum this large.
2. You still haven't demonstrated that this would be worth the investment given your remarks, i.e. "scientific babble designed to confuse".
3. You are more than capable to summarize at least two of his arguments and post them in your own words.

I also highly doubt that this man is unbiased having done just a little bit of research on him before, and simply because I think all people have biases, especially Creationists who are devoted to what they think is God's truth. This is my opinion and you are welcome to disagree.

Fact of the matter is, unless there is some manageable material to deal with, this is as far as our conversation goes.

Well brother, in a practical manner of speaking, then you just blew your validity. If you can't even take the time to examine the evidence presented in the debate in which you are participating, then you essentially forfeit. You're trying to debate but wont look at the other sides evidence? Nice. I suppose we're done then.

 

[jay55]

Been scanning this thread and find it interesting. My background is in science and I am always open to learning new things via science. I do, however, get a good chuckle from those who seem to think they have all the answers via science and/or have figured out that our beginnings and our world is different than what God has told us. God hasn't told us every last detail (we wouldnt likely understand it anyways) but what he has told us is the truth. Sometimes we need to just acknowledge that we won't necessarily gain answers to everything that God has done and created.

I am reminded of Ecclesiastes 8:17 (God's word coming through arguably the wisest man that ever lived) - "I saw all of it as the activity of God. Frankly, a human being cannot understand what happens on earth, because however hard a man works to discover it, he will not find out. Despite what he thinks he knows, he will not be able to figure it out."

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Well brother, in a practical manner of speaking, then you just blew your validity. If you can't even take the time to examine the evidence presented in the debate in which you are participating, then you essentially forfeit. You're trying to debate but wont look at the other sides evidence? Nice. I suppose we're done then.

You're asking me to take multiple hours to assess information from one post, right after you said:

you continue to parrot theory as facts, and go off into long winded diatribes of details with scientific babble design to derail and confuse.

Not only did you criticize us of having posts that were lengthy in a tedious way, but you claim I have lost my validity because I won't watch 60 minutes worth of Creationist pseudo science?

I value my free time, especially on the weekends and would rather spend it in the mountains than on here basically going circles over something we are never going to agree on.

I gave a reasonable offer, which would require you to simply provide TWO arguments that he offered, which would show you are at least committed to this discussion and would be manageable to deal with. You refused to do this, and yet when you refuse to present arguments in your own words that supposedly doesn't blow your validity?

Hmm.... okay...

I've taken loads of time to study this topic, and I have heard plenty of pseudoscientific presentations from Creationists talking about fields of science they don't specialize in.

If you want to take this as a victory for yourself then feel free, I couldn't care less.

I can post up loads of videos and ask you to address them, and then proclaim victory when you don't address them. You asking me to address 60 minutes worth of materials is not only unreasonable, but it is against 2.6 of the ToS.

If you want to present the evidence in a manageable fashion then we can have this debate, if you're going to copy and past videos then good day I will not waste my time.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Been scanning this thread and find it interesting. My background is in science and I am always open to learning new things via science. I do, however, get a good chuckle from those who seem to think they have all the answers via science and/or have figured out that our beginnings and our world is different than what God has told us. God hasn't told us every last detail (we wouldnt likely understand it anyways) but what he has told us is the truth. Sometimes we need to just acknowledge that we won't necessarily gain answers to everything that God has done and created.

I am reminded of Ecclesiastes 8:17 (God's word coming through arguably the wisest man that ever lived) - "I saw all of it as the activity of God. Frankly, a human being cannot understand what happens on earth, because however hard a man works to discover it, he will not find out. Despite what he thinks he knows, he will not be able to figure it out."

No one here has all the answers, this is a misrepresentation and no one has claimed such. There is much that we as humans have learned about the creation of our universe and how the diversity of life developed, and these ideas are constantly improving as more and more information is discovered, but that's not to say we don't have mysteries to figure out.

Thanks for sharing your opinion, and laughing at the opinions of others, that was an important part to share.

 

[jay55]

You are most welcome.

 

[Free]

Here is a book everyone should read:

"For years, the evangelical church and its members have debated whether the Bible should be interpreted literally or symbolically in regards to the age of the earth. In their groundbreaking new book, In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood, authors Johnny V. Miller and John M. Soden say that all these arguments have missed the point. Rather, what Christians really need to know is how to interpret the Bible in its original context.
Exposing the fallacies of trying to make the biblical text fit a specific scientific presupposition, Miller and Soden offer a new approach to interpreting Genesis 1 that explores the creation account based on how the original audience would have understood its teaching. First, the authors present a clear explanation of the past and present issues in interpreting the first chapter of the Bible. Second, Miller and Soden break down the creation account according to its historical and cultural context by comparing and distinguishing both the Egyptian and Mesopotamian settings. Finally, they explore common objections to help readers understand the significance that the creation account has for theology today.

Christians need not look any further than Genesis 1 to find clues to its meaning. Both irenic and bathed in Scripture, In the Beginning . . . We Misunderstood will equip every believer to navigate the creation wars, armed with biblically sound explanations."


From one of the reader reviews:

"The authors' target audience is students and lay Christians who have an interest in the creation account of Genesis 1:1-2:4 and who believe that the Bible trumps science every time. It begins with the personal journeys of the two authors from Young Earth Creationism to a belief that the Bible was never intended to be a literal, chronological description of the creation.

Unlike many previous books on this subject by scientifically-trained authors who deal with the interrelationship of science and the Bible, these authors, both with advanced degrees in theology, deal almost exclusively with the biblical text, rather than with science. They make their case from Scripture, not from science, and the difference shows.

Their main point can be summed up in one of the questions that they ask and answer near the end of the book: "How can I trust the Bible if it does not mean what it says?" which they rephrase as "Can I trust the Bible if it does not mean what I thought it meant from my context when I initially read it, before I understood what it would have meant to the original readers?" They then proceed to help us to understand the original intent and meaning of Genesis 1 by placing us in the position of the original readers as much as possible.

The book centers on very readable descriptions of the creation accounts of the ancient Egyptians, Mesopotamians, and Canaanite, and how they are both similar to and different from the Genesis 1 account (68 out of 177 pages of text), complete with summary tables and some photos. The emphasis is on understanding what Moses' original audience understood about the gods and creation and what God wanted the original audience to understand. The book is similar to John H. Walton's "The Lost World of Genesis 1," but without the functional vs. material creation issue.

The book does not deal directly with the age of the earth or exactly how God created the universe. The authors state that "while we do accept the possibility that the earth is very old (the age of the earth is a legitimate scientific field of study) and that the creation of humanity is relatively recent, we are not advocating any particular scientific conclusion. We believe that God may have intervened often in the history of creation to produce exactly the forms of plant and animal life that he wanted on the earth, leading up to the climax of creation, human beings, and we believe that he specifically intervened in the creation of human beings (Adam and Eve)." Thus the issues of the Big Bang and biological evolution are not addressed in this book.

Their stated goal is to move "the center of the discussion regarding Genesis 1 away from what one believes about science to what the Scriptures say and mean." I believe that they have succeeded admirably in achieving that goal. This is a book you can give to your Young Earth Creationist friends, particularly to young Christians."

http://www.amazon.com/Beginning-We-...-1&keywords=in+the+beginning+we+misunderstood

One can listen to an interview with one of the authors here (starting around the 1:52:15 mark): http://www.str.org/podcasts/weekly-audio/one-moment-from-eternity#.VF1CFvnF-50

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Well brother, in a practical manner of speaking, then you just blew your validity. If you can't even take the time to examine the evidence presented in the debate in which you are participating, then you essentially forfeit. You're trying to debate but wont look at the other sides evidence? Nice. I suppose we're done then.

Actually... I am listening to this as I do the dishes and will respond when I can. Not going to let you just "claim victory on this one," and think these videos have any kind of credibility. Being about 10 minutes in I have already found so many issues.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

Hmmm. Ok. Fair enough brother. Here's a man who was born into an atheistic home, was a hard core atheist all or most of his life, got educated as a scientist and received a PHD in (Physics I believe?). Then he noticed that there was actually little to no real evidence of evolution, so decided to use the modern technology to try to capture some real evidence to be able to prove evolution and debunk the creationists once and for all. As he got into it and began his re-research (LOL) and going back and forth between the bible and evolutionary theory and evidence and what the bible puts forth as the truth/theory etc., and being honest with himself eventually became convinced of the truth of the bible and became a Christian and gave his life to the Lord. Tada. He wrote a book debunking 14 "Facts" of evolution and summarizes some of them in the video, and talks about other stuff too. In other videos he explains how it is possible for the starlight which is millions of light years away to reach the earth in time for Adam & Eve to be able to see it.

Here's part 1 and I'll post part two also, then if you all want to see any of his other vids, you should go to youtube and do a search for his name and a bunch will come up, ok?

Then we can talk some more.

So I listened to both of these videos as I had a lot of cleaning to do after I came home from work.. and wow, these were interesting I guess.

He starts off with this "factoid" about how 90% of the dating methods support a Young Earth, while 10% an Old Earth. Of course, you never find out what exactly is on this giant list, and he only names about 9 different arguments.

All along the way this guy is using strawmen arguments or providing insufficient or simply wrong information. He doesn't factor in as modern Cosmologists do, the existence of Dark Matter into how the rotation of galaxies work. The Earth's magnetic field in his objection is based upon an extremely dated idea of how the earth is generally composed, resulting in a wrong hypothesis. He makes up information about the accumulation of mud and it's rate at which it is removed. There was also a little blurb about how there is no fossil evidence for intermediary fossils for the formation of feathers. Here below is a video that should shed some light for you in a very basic and easy to understand format.

I could hardly stand it when he got on Carbon 14 and started saying that this couldn't be used to date the age of the earth.... which of course it never has or was stated such! This is perhaps the most common error committed by Creationists and this "PhD" didn't even understand that. Or the part where he said that Neanderthals are humans, when we have actually since mapped out the genes for a Neanderthal and proven that they are not human. Or that DNA doesn't last long enough for us to find DNA in fossils older than 6,000 years, but we actually have proven that DNA could hypothetically be as old at 6.8 billion years, but likely would have it's bonds all broken by 1.5. Clearly long enough to obtain 37,000 year old DNA from a Neanderthal remains as the half life of DNA is 521 years.

Basically, Humphreys' arguments are essentially this:
1. Present a problem using false or outdated information.
2. Tout that "evolutionists" (weird he uses evolutionists as a descriptive term even when referring to other sciences) don't have an answer or their answer is weak, and when citing a weak answer, always poorly represents it or simply dismisses it.
3. Proclaim that this must therefore prove Young Earth Creationism.

If one sees that formula, they understand in a nut shell what this man is basically doing. Constantly reminding you of course of, "wow this evidence is overwhelming, you have to believe it," which is a handy tool for brainwashing and manipulating.

All in all, I am disappointed that I listened to these, or even that I took the time to write out this limited response, it upsets me to hear such lies believed.

 

[Edward]

Actually... I am listening to this as I do the dishes and will respond when I can. Not going to let you just "claim victory on this one," and think these videos have any kind of credibility. Being about 10 minutes in I have already found so many issues.

Forgive me brother that prolly wasn't right, lol. First off, one can't simply claim victory in a discussion where we're trying to figure out the truth. This isn't a volleyball game or chess match where if one team doesn't show up they lose, lol So there's no forfeit or anything. I was simply trying to encourage you to actually watch the videos and answer in a roundabout way.

I have posted the essentials of what this man and others have said and get shot down quick and called wrong and usually it is a derail where some details of something evolutionary but not necessarily addressing the actual points that I made in my post. It's also about that point in the conversation that I get called out for not being a scientist, physicist, astrologist of wotnot as if that presumably proves that I could not know the truth (unless I agreed with them lol).

So here he is... and read back through the posts brother, and you'll see that the man was shot down and the ones shooting him down (including you) hadn't even heard the first word out of the mans mouth yet! Now there's some serious scientific debate there brother. Worthy of any mans respect, lol. How do you have a discussion with someone like that? You don't. Fact of the matter is that, while I may not be a physicist, I have read and listened to both sides of this issue for a long time. I read good good and comprehend good. I have no bias, I search for the truth and I don't care where it comes from. Truth is truth. Some of it I like, some I don't. But the truth is the truth and if I do have any bias now, it would be towards the Word of God, because God has revealed Himself to me to be real and truthful over time. So I have learned this bias over time and put very very much stock into accepting the Word God as truth, and to not put much if any stock into what most men of the world say because the bible says not to.

It says we are to rightly divide truth and error, so in these discussions, I will consider very seriously alternate views, and for the moment, set aside pre-suppositions long enough to see if what is being presented has merit and could be plausible...but I wont let people play games with me, and have me running in circles reading and writing while they sit back and chuckle, not even seriously considering what I write and tell me to, oh I don't want to make time to listen to a real scientist, will you do it for me...:wink

Either we're going to have a real conversation or we're not. You can't just say, oh I heard something bad about this guy once so I wont listen to him at all now. Do you realize how that sounded? I don't want to offend you man, but...that was kinda lame. SO take some time and listen to it, and we can talk. Or you can not talk. I dunno. This stuff is interesting, come on brother, give it a little effort and have some faith in God to reveal to us the truth, and perhaps some edification can happen for one or both of us.

Blessings to you brother.