G
Guest
Guest
:angel: I'll certainly do my best,thankyou!
-
-
Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?
Join For His Glory for a discussion on how
https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/
-
-
-
-
Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need
https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/
-
[_ Old Earth _] In schools
- Thread starter Featherbop
- Start date
G
Guest
Guest
ThinkerMan said:
:B-fly: if you get to post messages like this,then we all can,right?
What are you so afraid of?
G
Guest
Guest
Blue-Lightning said:
:B-fly: Yes,I will. Thank you for your interest!
T
ThinkerMan
Guest
Blueeyeliner, your misdirection will not work. All we are simply asking for on this forum is some spirited and lively debate.
Your nonsensical posts distract from meaningful discussion, and I believe they do a disservice to many that share your point of view.
My fear, to answer your question, is that you will only fuel the fire of ignorance. I have no other fears than that, and feel free to inquire about any question that you have on another thread.
You have made repeated references to your dear Lord Kelvin, and I am honestly quite interested in your retort to the Barbarian.
However, your misdirective posts like that above only moves this thread off-track.
So please, vote for option one and please make your argument.
G
Guest
Guest
Your nonsensical posts distract from meaningful discussion, and I believe they do a disservice to many that share your point of view.
My fear, to answer your question, is that you will only fuel the fire of ignorance. I have no other fears than that, and feel free to inquire about any question that you have on another thread.
You have made repeated references to your dear Lord Kelvin, and I am honestly quite interested in your retort to the Barbarian.
:B-fly: So then,you feel that your way of thinking is the right way,but of course you would. I have read many of your posts and you have the nerve to accuse me of the very thing that you are doing?
why not think for yourself in real life and do some research from both sides of this issue on your own? Is that too much to ask of you?
Lord Kelvin did not change his mind at all,and how could anyone ever believe he did? Thats incredibly shocking to say the least!!!
We can be fairly sure that Darwin recanted before he died because he had been a christian before and why would a christian tell a lie about him?
No doubt there would be attacks on Lord kelvin because he proved evolution is false.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4075.asp
christiananswers.net
http://www.changinglivesonline.org
http://www.absolutetruth.net
please try to refrain from insults if that is possible. thanks.
My fear, to answer your question, is that you will only fuel the fire of ignorance. I have no other fears than that, and feel free to inquire about any question that you have on another thread.
You have made repeated references to your dear Lord Kelvin, and I am honestly quite interested in your retort to the Barbarian.
:B-fly: So then,you feel that your way of thinking is the right way,but of course you would. I have read many of your posts and you have the nerve to accuse me of the very thing that you are doing?
why not think for yourself in real life and do some research from both sides of this issue on your own? Is that too much to ask of you?
Lord Kelvin did not change his mind at all,and how could anyone ever believe he did? Thats incredibly shocking to say the least!!!
We can be fairly sure that Darwin recanted before he died because he had been a christian before and why would a christian tell a lie about him?
No doubt there would be attacks on Lord kelvin because he proved evolution is false.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/4075.asp
christiananswers.net
http://www.changinglivesonline.org
http://www.absolutetruth.net
please try to refrain from insults if that is possible. thanks.
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,179
- 2,497
Would it help if I said I wasn't angry with blueeyeliner?
She's seeing a lot of stuff for the first time, and I'm inclined to be forgiving this time.
That being said, even hinting that some people are liars is asking for trouble. It shouldn't happen again.
BTW, even AIG puts the "Darwin recanted" story in it's "Arguments we think creationists should not use" category. It is indeed disturbing that people who claim to be Christian will lie, but that's how it is, sometimes. Darwin's wife, who was very unhappy with his theory, did not support the story that he recanted, and that should settle it.
She's seeing a lot of stuff for the first time, and I'm inclined to be forgiving this time.
That being said, even hinting that some people are liars is asking for trouble. It shouldn't happen again.
BTW, even AIG puts the "Darwin recanted" story in it's "Arguments we think creationists should not use" category. It is indeed disturbing that people who claim to be Christian will lie, but that's how it is, sometimes. Darwin's wife, who was very unhappy with his theory, did not support the story that he recanted, and that should settle it.
G
Guest
Guest
:D I am so glad that you are not angry,however we should forgive every time. I didn't call anyone a liar. I try not to do that,but I do feel that many people are misled.
I forgive you every time,not just this time. I am not taking anything personal here. I am not trying to be the most popular or well liked person here.It would be very scary and very bothersome to me if I were.
I'm not a crowd pleaser,and it's good to know that people disagree.That is what debate is about. it's so odd how so many people think they have to be liked by everyone,and how they fall apart when they are not.
I am not that kind of person. I don't want to be a kisser upper. If I disagree about something,I'll let it be known.
I do try to be kind,but kindness works both ways.
I forgive you every time,not just this time. I am not taking anything personal here. I am not trying to be the most popular or well liked person here.It would be very scary and very bothersome to me if I were.
I'm not a crowd pleaser,and it's good to know that people disagree.That is what debate is about. it's so odd how so many people think they have to be liked by everyone,and how they fall apart when they are not.
I am not that kind of person. I don't want to be a kisser upper. If I disagree about something,I'll let it be known.
I do try to be kind,but kindness works both ways.
G
Guest
Guest
Darwin
:o so barbarian, you don't know that Darwin's family needed and wanted the money huh?
Darwin most likely did recant,and I'm a very firm believer in that.
Train up a child in the way he or she should go,and when they are old,they will not depart from it.
Darwin like many people who have been raised as a christian have strayed,only to return back to what they were taught as children.
I believe Darwin was saved,and I am very pleased by it,amen.
:o so barbarian, you don't know that Darwin's family needed and wanted the money huh?
Darwin most likely did recant,and I'm a very firm believer in that.
Train up a child in the way he or she should go,and when they are old,they will not depart from it.
Darwin like many people who have been raised as a christian have strayed,only to return back to what they were taught as children.
I believe Darwin was saved,and I am very pleased by it,amen.
G
Guest
Guest
The Barbarian said:
T
ThinkerMan
Guest
That is precisely what I am trying to do. You alluded to information I didn't know, particularly about Lord Kelvin. I am not dismissing your contention out-of-hand, I am merely seeking more information "on both sides" of the issue to make a more educated decision.
As I previously said, I am genuinely interested in what you have to say, so I can "think for myself in real life", and am still awaiting your supporting evidence.
Exactly. I have read what The Barbarian posted, and have read other accounts, regarding this event. You claim to have different information. If it is so shocking, please tell me WHERE I am wrong, not THAT I am wrong.
It is impossible for me to respond to this sentence without a sarcasm-laden response.
G
Guest
Guest
T
ThinkerMan
Guest
Thank you BEL, for supplying your supporting evidence. Now I can investigate your claim.
First, let's revist your original claim.....
Your link is interesting. However, you claimed that Kelvin did NOT concede. This story lacks any reference contrary to what Barbarian posted.
However, whether or not he conceeded is irrelevant. You support his prior hypothesis, whether or not he recanted later in life (see the similarity with your Darwin argument?).
Anyhow, this article only states that a full explanation for "missing heat" has not yet been reached.
Odd, in supporting this site, you support some evidence of radioactivity constant as a barameter of age. This site contends that such activity only accounts for roughly half of the heat. But don't many YEC's not trust the historical constant of radioactivity(paricularly when using it to date fossils or rocks)?
Even if the science demonstrated in the argument is correct, you are still left with an earth in the hundreds of millions, if not billions.
To be fair, I have not read anything else on this exact topic, but at first-blush it seems your reference does little to support young age, but rather takes a couple of pop-shots at the acknowledged "unknowns" that exist in science's current understanding of the earths heat.
I have tried to be fair in this analysis, BEL, and am not swayed by your argument. However, thank you for the discussion piece.
First, let's revist your original claim.....
blueeyeliner said:
Your link is interesting. However, you claimed that Kelvin did NOT concede. This story lacks any reference contrary to what Barbarian posted.
However, whether or not he conceeded is irrelevant. You support his prior hypothesis, whether or not he recanted later in life (see the similarity with your Darwin argument?).
Anyhow, this article only states that a full explanation for "missing heat" has not yet been reached.
Odd, in supporting this site, you support some evidence of radioactivity constant as a barameter of age. This site contends that such activity only accounts for roughly half of the heat. But don't many YEC's not trust the historical constant of radioactivity(paricularly when using it to date fossils or rocks)?
Even if the science demonstrated in the argument is correct, you are still left with an earth in the hundreds of millions, if not billions.
To be fair, I have not read anything else on this exact topic, but at first-blush it seems your reference does little to support young age, but rather takes a couple of pop-shots at the acknowledged "unknowns" that exist in science's current understanding of the earths heat.
I have tried to be fair in this analysis, BEL, and am not swayed by your argument. However, thank you for the discussion piece.
G
Guest
Guest
:D Thinker man,you do not have to be swayed by my way of thinking!
I just hope you'll investigate things more thouroughly for yourself.
I get alot of study out of this,and I hope others do too.
It's just a debate,it's nothing we should take personally if someone disagrees with us.
Thank you for at least looking into it.
I just hope you'll investigate things more thouroughly for yourself.
I get alot of study out of this,and I hope others do too.
It's just a debate,it's nothing we should take personally if someone disagrees with us.
Thank you for at least looking into it.
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,179
- 2,497
Probably not. Darwin himself was well-to-do, and his wife was the daughter of Josiah Wedgewood, of Wedgewood pottery fame. She had more money than Darwin earned in all his efforts of a lifetime.
Bottom line? No evidence for it. Darwin's wife was very troubled by his theory, and did not support it. Why would she lie about his beliefs?
Darwin was a Christian when he published his book. His co-founder, Wallace, also was a Christian, and remained so all his life. It is unclear whether or not Darwin was a Christian when he died. He once said that he leaned toward agnosticism, but that was after a family tragedy and he might have survived that test of faith. But his Christianity was never shaken by his theory.
Barbarian
Member
- Jun 5, 2003
- 33,179
- 2,497
You might be interested to know that Woodmorappe, the author of that AIG article, believes that only a relative few organisms actually were taken on the Ark, and that new species, genera, and families of organisms evolved from those few. I discussed this with Woody myself some time back, and he confirmed this to me in email.
Are you sure you want to cite him as an authority?
Are you sure you want to cite him as an authority?
S
SyntaxVorlon
Guest
He's claiming that in a scant few thousand years nearly all the diversity of life could have been evolved? That is what we call ludicrous.
G
Guest
Guest
In The beginning GOD
:D Nothing is impossible to God,though to man it is impossible.
I do not believe anything evolved because of the simple fact we don't actually see anything or even any animal that has evolved. A goat is still a goat just as it was when the bible was written and before.
There is nothing to prove that animals or people evolve at all,or it would happen so that we could all see it and know about it.
We know that sparrows don't evolve,or any other created being.
The bible said the earth was round 1600 years before man figured it out.(Isaiah 40:22)
The bible said the earth was suspended in space 3600 years before man discovered it. (Job 26:7)
The bible said that blood sustains life 3300 years before man would agree (Lev.17:11)
The bible said stars produce sound 4000 years before man found out (Job 38:7)
The bible said the earth rotates on an axis 3550 years before scientists discovered the same. (Job 38:12,Luke 17:31,34)
The bible said the stars could not be numbered 3000 years before astronomers figured it out ( Genesis 22:17)
The bible said that man was made from the same materials as the earth 3200 years before man found out. ( Genesis 2:8,3:19,Ps. 103:14)
So when in doubt between the honesty of man or God,choose God because God will be proven right every time. Just because man hasn't figured it all out yet,doesn't mean they won't find out someday,and God will be proven right yet again.
The creator knows how he made his creation better than anyone else ever could.
It's a very good idea to just go ahead and take the bible literally except where it's obvious that you should not. God is right every time literally.
People never reject the bible because of their science,they reject the bible because of their sin.
To admit that the bible is right and should be taken literally is to admit that we are obligated to follow what it says--- but many would still foolishly hold to the opinions of men rather than the WORD of The TRUE God!!!
The bible tells us that in the last days this is what we can expect to happen. :Fade-color
:D Nothing is impossible to God,though to man it is impossible.
I do not believe anything evolved because of the simple fact we don't actually see anything or even any animal that has evolved. A goat is still a goat just as it was when the bible was written and before.
There is nothing to prove that animals or people evolve at all,or it would happen so that we could all see it and know about it.
We know that sparrows don't evolve,or any other created being.
The bible said the earth was round 1600 years before man figured it out.(Isaiah 40:22)
The bible said the earth was suspended in space 3600 years before man discovered it. (Job 26:7)
The bible said that blood sustains life 3300 years before man would agree (Lev.17:11)
The bible said stars produce sound 4000 years before man found out (Job 38:7)
The bible said the earth rotates on an axis 3550 years before scientists discovered the same. (Job 38:12,Luke 17:31,34)
The bible said the stars could not be numbered 3000 years before astronomers figured it out ( Genesis 22:17)
The bible said that man was made from the same materials as the earth 3200 years before man found out. ( Genesis 2:8,3:19,Ps. 103:14)
So when in doubt between the honesty of man or God,choose God because God will be proven right every time. Just because man hasn't figured it all out yet,doesn't mean they won't find out someday,and God will be proven right yet again.
The creator knows how he made his creation better than anyone else ever could.
It's a very good idea to just go ahead and take the bible literally except where it's obvious that you should not. God is right every time literally.
People never reject the bible because of their science,they reject the bible because of their sin.
To admit that the bible is right and should be taken literally is to admit that we are obligated to follow what it says--- but many would still foolishly hold to the opinions of men rather than the WORD of The TRUE God!!!
The bible tells us that in the last days this is what we can expect to happen. :Fade-color
T
ThinkerMan
Guest
Blue, can you tell me the obvious places you should not take it literally? I am very interested in this comment.
This verse says the stars "sing", not produce sound. Also, what sound are you refering to that stars make?
G
Guest
Guest
ThinkerMan said:
This verse says the stars "sing", not produce sound. Also, what sound are you refering to that stars make?[/quote:33862]
:B-fly: Please do not try to twist what I wrote Thinkerman.
I did not say we should not take the bible seriously at all! I could not ever say that at all,and you of all people should know that by now!!!
I am saying that sometimes as in the book of Revelation,the bible symbolic words,and symbolic meaning,but yes it should be taken seriously by all means.The bible tells us when it is being symbolic,no mystery there. God helps us understand his word.
The stars make sounds I have been told,and that is what I mean. Simply that stars do make sound.