But not as interesting as Rachel Ray!
Posted on 01/14/2007 5:31:07 PM PST by Tim Long
Gee- ya mean they get paid for a job? By golly- ya gots a point there- argument over- Cripes- Paid or not- facts are STILL facts- don't pull the bull crap tactic of trying to discredit facts by avoiding the facts and pointing out someones affiliation- IF you have counter facts to the facts presented- spell it out- then we can have a serious conversation- otherwise- all you're doing is sniping from the outside- taking pot shots at those who bring facts to the table.
'recent is a 'lie'? Gosh- yup- right full of lies that site- if this is your only 'proof' then you're really grasping at straws when presented with numerous facts.
Takin a nap- will be up later
You have without a doubt proven the substance of the first sentence of my post.
I have just done so. I do not find their argument concerning the inaccuracy of carbon 14 dating convincing.
All of their examples have long since been rebutted. In fact, its the same material we see on many of the creationist websites, which is accepted as truth due to a mix of wishful thinking, lack of scientific knowledge concerning the subject, and agreement with a priori religious beliefs.
and by the way- care to counter the fact that evolution is a biological impossibility? Or would you rather simply discount it all because the evidences are presented on Christian sites for the most part? (Depsite the fact that they do appear in peer reviewed journals as well)
sur3 they've been rebutted- anyone can take a theory that measured by incidents can't be observed and rebutt anything- why? simply because the knowns are not infact known- You failed to mention they have not been succesfully rebutted-
I am a Catholic who believes in elements of Theistic Evolution as well as Old-Earth creationism. Don't flame me for that, at least not here and now.
In Genesis 1:6-7, it says:
And God said, "Let there be a dome in the midst of the waters, and let it separate the waters from the waters." So God made the dome and separated the waters that were under the dome from the waters that were above the dome. And it was so.
We know that this is not a literal "dome" or we would have crashed through it when we launched satellites and space shuttles. It's metaphorical. Therefore, if the dome isn't literal, how would we know the "days" as mentioned in Genesis are literal? Care to explain your thoughts on that?
your 'science' relies as heavily on specualtion as does creation science- yet- somehow, because your 'science' leaves God out of the equasion- you think it's more 'fact'? sorry- but you NEED a heapiong amount of faith to trust in something that delves into unknowns- for instance the coinstants or -non constants- that can not be determined. dating steps outside the element of science and goes straight to the beleif system- science studies knowns and observables- If you are going to discount creation science, then you also have to discount secular science as beingh a 'priori of dogma' as well-
But not as interesting as Rachel Ray!
and just one more point- it is untrue that the matter has been ev4n close to being settled and succesfully rebutted- if that were true- the matter would be settled once and for all in the peer reviews and that is FAR from the truth- You can assert that if you like- but it's not true.
At this point, I'm going to let my posts, particularly post #237 stand until you can come up with better arguments.
Bye
-- facts are STILL facts- don't pull the bull crap tactic of trying to discredit facts by avoiding the facts and pointing out someones affiliation- --
I first pointed out a 'fact' but you chose to (even after a second request) to ignore my post.
--'recent is a 'lie'? Gosh- yup- right full of lies that site- if this is your only 'proof' then you're really grasping at straws when presented with numerous facts. --
I doubt they would have posted those several paragraphs only to conclude that it was 70 million years old. Better to say "recent" and let the duped reader believe it was less than 6000 years old. Which is what you believed, right?
--the fact that evolution is a biological impossibility?--
I have never seen that fact.
Creationism puts forth a dogmatic view that a much edited collection of books details to modern man exact history and science. I thought that Christ brought forth the new era with a new testament that swept aside the old books. If you adhere to the old books then you do not fully accept that Christ brought about a new era that did not base its faith and belief on strict adherance to the old testament.
Are there parts of the old testament that have elements of truth historically? Sure there are. There was a great flood for instance, but that along with many other events in the OT are also written in the sacred books of other religions and have differences which would be expected in stories brought down through thousands of years and thousands of authors. The OT was written and rewritten for peoples who were uneducated and very much limited to knowledge of their own piece of the world and for many their "world" was limited to maybe a 100 square miles.
I know about the various ideas of the origins of man and the earth and the universe. You believe what you like, but don't imply that those who may disagree with you are leftists, ignorant or uninformed, once again, that is the self-important view of that cult out there. I did not say that you were a terrorist, just that your statement carried the same smug self-centered view of others beliefs that muslims do.
How can one trust a 'scientist' that takes this pledge and is paid for his 'research'.
"The Bible is the written, word of God, and because we believe it to be inspired thruout [sic] all of its assertions are historically and scientifically true in all of the original autographs. To the student of nature, this means that the account of origins in Genesis is a factual presentation of historical truth."
When a theory can be shown to carry enough weight of evidence to make it fact then it becomes a scientific fact. Coprenicus had a theory that the earth and planets revolved around the sun and the church branded him a heretic. With the advances in astronomy, math and physics it was shown that he was right and the theory became fact. There are other theories that have been disproved, not by dogmatic biblical means but by physical proof. The theory of evolution has neither been fully proved nor disproved and remains a theory. It is a theory based on a large number of physical proofs, not faith. If you choose not to believe the physical evidence then that is up to you. If your faith sustains you in respect to evolution then that is wonderful for you. My faith separates Christ and God and their message from the OT which was swept aside by the word of Christ and does not rely on a testament most recently rewritten by an English King for political ends. The universe, evolution are all part of God's plan and he gave us the intelligence and free will to learn how to discern his hand in the patterns of the universe and man.
Yum.
And the turkey looks good too.
Pretty much. Although the rest of the time he is probably busy with the other universes he is creating.....
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.