Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

$27 million anti-evolution museum to open soon
Lexington Herald-Leader ^ | March 26, 2007 | Andy Mead

Posted on 03/26/2007 12:18:38 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-272 next last
To: Cooking101

"So I say bring back the Inquisition"

I'm a nonbeliever, do I get to keep my head?


51 posted on 03/26/2007 1:38:08 PM PDT by VRing (Happiness is a perfect sling bruise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: EarthBound
Yes, Evolution can be a part of his design. Creationism can't. As an aside, what do you love about Chemistry?
52 posted on 03/26/2007 1:38:33 PM PDT by USMMA_83 (Tantra is my fetish ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: VRing

Nope...off with your head, and off to hell for you...make room for me there too bub...


53 posted on 03/26/2007 1:40:07 PM PDT by USMMA_83 (Tantra is my fetish ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 51 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
if any Freeper creationists (or shucks, evolutionists, if you can be nice...!)

Is laughing considered not nice?

54 posted on 03/26/2007 1:42:17 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

Evolution science = global warming science. Non theistic religion with a lot of techno babble.


55 posted on 03/26/2007 1:42:28 PM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: USMMA_83

Interactions b/tw atoms and how properties between combinations can vary so widely. ie: Sodium and Chlorine. Probably should say that quantum-physics is my favorite science.


56 posted on 03/26/2007 1:42:32 PM PDT by EarthBound (Ex Deo,gratia. Ex astris,scientia (Duncan Hunter in 2008! http://www.gohunter08.com))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: LukeL
Because the factors of which we can directly test can be applied to an old earth.

For example when observing ice cores near the poles when we look down 26 rings we see ash that matches the ash from Mt. St. Helen's. When we look down 1937 years we see ash from Pompeii. So if going down 2,000 rings matches with 2,000 years of recorded history, than it isn't a stretch to apply this to 100,000-200,000 years.


Yes, I know that they say it's that simple. It isn't. I challenge you: look up what I'm about to mention, in case you doubt it's correct. Antarctic cores are *not* done by counting layers. There *Are No Rings*. There is too little snow in Vostok and Dome C, where the cores have been taken, for there to be rings. It's part of the reason why they can claim such long time periods; if there were countable rings, the lengths of the cores needed would be preposterously long.

So, how do they model the proported age in Antarctic cores, if not for rings? You guessed it: radioisotopes with fudge factors! In this case, deuterium, which they try to align with deep sea cores, which themselves aren't counted by annual layers... well, you get where this is going. It's one assumption chained off of another off of another.

Now, the *Greenland* cores are done by rings -- only they make one serious error: they assume that the ice has been there for millions of years. Because of this, they claim that the rings at the bottom are literally paper thin. The argument is that the ice glaciates and calves from the bottom, so those layers would be more spread out. Makes sense, but *only* if you begin with that ancient assumption, putting the glaciers at equilibrium. If they're not at equilibrium, this argument falls out the door, and what you're actually looking at with paper-thin slices is individual snowfalls and day-to-day climate fluctuations. What they interpret as regular, periodic climate trends are the annual fluctuations.
57 posted on 03/26/2007 1:44:01 PM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

So you don't believe God created Adam but you believe the bible?


58 posted on 03/26/2007 1:45:03 PM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: LukeL

So you don't believe God created Adam but you believe the bible?


59 posted on 03/26/2007 1:45:47 PM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Cooking101

"Where is Torqemada when you need him?"

He used to be living in Afghanistan; now it's probably somewhere along the Pakistani border. I hear he's looking for help, you sound like his kind of guy.


60 posted on 03/26/2007 1:46:18 PM PDT by 49th (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
This museum sounds like a gas! I'm going to put it on my short list of must-see places.

I sure hope the public doesn't connect these ideas with the Right, tho. That would be embarrassing.

61 posted on 03/26/2007 1:47:03 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz; All

I love this one

sigh....
62 posted on 03/26/2007 1:49:14 PM PDT by SubGeniusX ("Bob" Sold it! I Bought it! That Settles it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: USMMA_83
Yes, Evolution can be a part of his design. Creationism can't.
It's sad to see someone who thinks that he knows more than God. This is, in a nutshell, the folly of hubris.
63 posted on 03/26/2007 1:49:22 PM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: USMMA_83

"Nope...off with your head"

It's always fun to see how many posts we can get to before someone suggests killing atheists. What a hoot!


64 posted on 03/26/2007 1:50:39 PM PDT by VRing (Happiness is a perfect sling bruise.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: HaveHadEnough

Technically, the Earth is the centre of the universe, but so is everywhere else!
Since the Universe is infinite in size, every point in it is exactly the same distance from the edges, making every point in the universe simultaneously the centre!


65 posted on 03/26/2007 1:51:27 PM PDT by 49th (This space for rent.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

"... the museum will embarrass the state because of the "pseudoscientific-nutty things" it espouses"
_________________________

And I'm embarrassed by the Man-from-Monkey nutty stuff evos espouse! Talk about "half a brain"!


66 posted on 03/26/2007 1:52:38 PM PDT by cowdog77 (" Are there any brave men left in Washington, or are they all cowards.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX

Wow. He does not even need a saddle or reins.

What is up with that lizard?



67 posted on 03/26/2007 1:53:50 PM PDT by trumandogz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

I see no problem with opening a religious museum with private funds.

I find it sad that they have such a limited view of God - creation is much grander and more complex than they seem to want their children to know - but it is their right.

We've just found a black hole at the center of the Milky Way and dozens of small black holes around it. We have found that nearly every galaxy surrounds a black hole and that galaxy is a nearly constant multiple of the mass of the black hole - that is magnificent, awe inspiring -it begins to speak not to just the creation of the Milky way but the method of creation. And its something that Abraham simply did not have the understanding to appreciate. He did the best he could but he was a man of his time.


68 posted on 03/26/2007 1:55:21 PM PDT by gondramB (It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 49th
The universe may be infinite, but it may be finite yet unbounded.

If every point in the universe can be considered the center, then no point has priority, and there is no reason to beleive that physical laws are different in our little neck of the woods than anywhere else (which is how he would have it).
69 posted on 03/26/2007 1:55:34 PM PDT by HaveHadEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: trumandogz
Wow. He does not even need a saddle or reins.
well He is Jesus after all.

What is up with that lizard?
I think it's a bady crocodile...and I have no idea
70 posted on 03/26/2007 1:56:44 PM PDT by SubGeniusX ("Bob" Sold it! I Bought it! That Settles it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: HaveHadEnough
> Tyrannosaurus rex was a strict vegetarian...

Yes, lettuce leaves were much tougher back then, requiring carnivorous-type teeth.

Ken Ham claims that it's coconuts and melons.

Really.

71 posted on 03/26/2007 1:58:42 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: 49th

>>Technically, the Earth is the centre of the universe, but so is everywhere else!
Since the Universe is infinite in size, every point in it is exactly the same distance from the edges, making every point in the universe simultaneously the centre!<<

The perspective viewed from the earth is equally valid with any other perspective. But that doesn't make it the center. We can see from the distribution of stars and galaxies and the speed with which they are moving that the earth is not in the center of our galaxy and our galaxy is not in the center of the universe.


72 posted on 03/26/2007 1:58:52 PM PDT by gondramB (It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: VRing

Why only Athiests, let's add Buddists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, to the condemed list as well.


73 posted on 03/26/2007 2:03:37 PM PDT by USMMA_83 (Tantra is my fetish ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 64 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1
Look at carbon dating, for example: there's an arbitarary fudge factor to account for the "changing rate of carbon entering the atmosphere from space". How do they get this? They get it from artifacts that they're trying to date!

They get it because they can calibrate the dating based on several other known methods of dating. In any case, the margin of error that has been found still puts the dating of many things long before the earliest Christian creation dates.

There's also dendrochronology, which means you've got half a million old logs, and because this one has a dent in this one side and this other one does too, we're going to say that those dents were from the same year, and "voila!"

A standard tactic of the anti-science crowd is to put out a warped, gross simplification of the science to the believers so they can then go tell their friends how science is a fraud.

74 posted on 03/26/2007 2:03:40 PM PDT by antiRepublicrat
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
I am a Christian who thinks that God took as long as He wanted and used any method He cared to to put us here as the pinnicle of what He created. While I don't believe in Big E Evolution (that is blind science and random selection brought order out of chaos), I don't subscribe to the Seven-24-Hour-Days version either.

That said, and while I personally won't pay to go, I love the fact that this will force the dyed-ion-the-wool Godless Scientists to actually debate the loosely held together "facts" that they base their conclusions on. Evolution is one theory used to explain a set of facts about changes to the Earth and universe that we were not there to see happen, and so which cannot be proven with certainty. Another theory is that God had a direct hand in the way we came about, and as only the Trinity was there to see it, that cannot be "proven", either. If this prompts discussions that make scientists uncomfortable, I am all for it. Let Loose the Dogs of Grace!

75 posted on 03/26/2007 2:05:52 PM PDT by 50sDad (Cultural Diversity means never having to say "I don't fit in.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: USMMA_83
Why only Athiests, let's add Buddists, Hindus, Muslims, Jews, to the condemed list as well.

What? No Catholics?

76 posted on 03/26/2007 2:08:10 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: 50sDad
You think scientists only exist in America, and are Christian. There are plenty of Jewish / Hindu / Buddhist scientists who don't care one hoot about creationism. Ever ask yourself the question why Jews don't have a problem with evolution?
77 posted on 03/26/2007 2:08:37 PM PDT by USMMA_83 (Tantra is my fetish ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
...and that instead of a star going through many colored stages as it exhausts its' hydrogen fuel over millions of years, God just created ten different types of stars, all of them less than 6000 years old? By logical extension, then, if I see a 1928 Model-T caked with rust go down the street, followed by 1958 Thunderbird covertable, and a 2006 Dodge Caravan, then I should conclude that all three cars were manufactured in the late 70's in various states of repair?
78 posted on 03/26/2007 2:11:29 PM PDT by 50sDad (Cultural Diversity means never having to say "I don't fit in.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Alright, you twisted my arm...Catholics are in too...


79 posted on 03/26/2007 2:11:38 PM PDT by USMMA_83 (Tantra is my fetish ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: USMMA_83
Ever ask yourself the question why Jews don't have a problem with evolution?

Probably because most of them went to medical school. ("My son, the doctor.")

80 posted on 03/26/2007 2:12:18 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Sleeping Beauty

Listen, get up with the times....the Hindus are doctors now...the Jews are lawyers...times have changed.


81 posted on 03/26/2007 2:13:39 PM PDT by USMMA_83 (Tantra is my fetish ;))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
But Eugenie Scott, a former University of Kentucky anthropologist who is director of the California-based National Center for Science Education, said the information provided in the museum "is not even close to standard science."

Duh!

...the museum "is not even close to the Party line."

...the museum "is not even close to the ACCEPTED TEXTUS."

...the museum "is not even close to what Evolutionists hope is true."

...the museum "is not even close to being funded from Government taxpayers pockets."

82 posted on 03/26/2007 2:13:41 PM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dread78645
Ken Ham claims that it's coconuts and melons.

The poor man.
83 posted on 03/26/2007 2:16:52 PM PDT by HaveHadEnough
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 71 | View Replies]

To: Non-Sequitur
It means that the furthest star we see can be no more than 4000 to 6000 light years away. Otherwise the light would not have reached us yet.

Do you realize that since this means the Universe is infinetly smaller than we thought (and oddly contradicting the "world without end" arguement of a universe that goes on forever), it means either that light moves at a fraction of the speed we thought, or that we might actually be able to travel to the stars in a few months because things are infinetly closer together than we thought, or that that for reasons of His own, God is using science to lie to us about the basic nature of His creation.

Disclaimer: all of the above is shear exagerated nonsense designed to prove a point.

84 posted on 03/26/2007 2:18:05 PM PDT by 50sDad (Cultural Diversity means never having to say "I don't fit in.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Paradox
I generally have great respect for the type of people that Creationists tend to be. No need to be an a$$hat around such fine folk.

BBbbuuttttt... <trembling lip mode> they VOTE!!!!

85 posted on 03/26/2007 2:18:57 PM PDT by Elsie
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
What's really dispiriting is to talk to a die-hard creationist about life on other planets.

When it gets down to brass tacks, he will admit he doesn't hold with the idea.

To a creationist, the near-infinity of planets, stars, and galaxies out there are sterile spheres, existing for no other purpose than to provide pretty twinkling lights in Earth's sky.

86 posted on 03/26/2007 2:19:30 PM PDT by RexTheRunt (No way to delay that trouble comin' every day.....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: 50sDad

Theistic evolution has a lot of problems biblically. There are many versions of theistic evolution so I don't know which version you believe. Some people believe the earth is old and yet God created Adam 6000 years ago. Some believe that God never created Adam and Eve at all. This last one really frustrates me coming from professed Christians. It requires that we all but throw out Genesis 1 and 2.


87 posted on 03/26/2007 2:20:14 PM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: Muttering Mike
I have a very Creationist friend who is driving people away from Jesus Christ.

I take the long view: God can put man here any way he wanted, and if He wanted to speak in parable to the ancient Hebrews about how man got here, that is His business. Genesis speaks clearly as to the nature of Satan, about the self-pride that will lead man to the same downfall as Satan brought about himself. I can believe wholeheartedly in the existence and Salvation of Jesus Christ without having to be iron-shackle tied to Creationism. That’s just who I am. I think God took a million years creating man in his spiritual and intellectual image (not necessarily his physical one, unless you are talking about foreshadowing Christ in his human form.)

My friend puts all her eggs in one Creationist basket. Her sole flashpoint, her only hot button, is that God created the Universe in seven days. Maybe he did. But here is why I think she is wrong to bring it up, and it has to do with “meat offered before idols.”

I have other friends who are scientists and intellectuals. They believe that 2+2=4, that water boils at 100 degrees Celsius, and that if you strike a match in a pure oxygen environment, you are going to have an explosive reaction. They don’t believe in things you can’t touch, feel, or measure. The primary goal of any Christian, I believe, should be to impart the truth about Christ’s free gift of Salvation to others, that is, that the God who made all thinks has a personal knowledge of them, loves them, and wants them to accept His love and forgiveness. It represents, I believe, the “hole in the heart” that we all have; in the absence of this relationship with God, we try to fill that hole with food, drink, drugs, sex, power, or any earthly thing, and fail.

Now, if my Creationist friend goes to my scientific friend and her sole message is “God made the universe in six days” then my scientific friend will decide: “Christians are Luddite moonbats who deny mathematics, biology, geology, and probably gravity. They must be nuts, and this “Jesus thing” must be crazy as well.” Net gain, one for the devil.

If a friend who was a Christian would approach them instead with the message that “Jesus was the physical embodiment of the God who made everything, and He walked in our shoes just like us, so he knows every pain and joy we know. To pay for all our shortcomings, he died as a blood sacrifice, rose again defeating death, and rules today in heaven. God wants to have a relationship with you, and by accepting Christ as payment for your sins, you can begin that walk today.” The second statement may make a difference. The first one will drive them outside the fold.

Now my wife is a “Six-Day” sort of person, but she doesn’t make it a mallet to beat people up with. I am a “God can perform a long miracle that makes up with existing geological facts” kind of person. If I am wrong, it in no way threatens my Salvation., If I am wrong, then five minutes after I am dead, Christ will straiten me out, if it matters at all then. But I don’t want Christ to say, “Here’s a list of scientific people that you pushed outside of Christendom because you had to have one issue your way.”

My thoughts: You want to be a Six-Day Christian? Fine. But remember to lead with God’s Grace, because if you make it your only issue, a bunch of fish with big brains are going to slip through God’s net.

88 posted on 03/26/2007 2:21:15 PM PDT by 50sDad (Cultural Diversity means never having to say "I don't fit in.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: DungeonMaster
So you don't believe God created Adam but you believe the bible?

I believe Jesus said, "I am the door" but I don't believe He had hinges.

89 posted on 03/26/2007 2:23:55 PM PDT by 50sDad (Cultural Diversity means never having to say "I don't fit in.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
I plan to be there, and like I say, if enough people are interested, maybe we could put together a creationist Freepers group!

No thanks - we have comedy clubs in Seattle. This museum is probably pretty darned funny, but I'll save the price of an airline ticket.

90 posted on 03/26/2007 2:25:26 PM PDT by blowfish
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: 50sDad
I believe Jesus said, "I am the door" but I don't believe He had hinges.

So yer ashamed to simply say yes, I believe the bible but not that God created Adam? Methodist churches are full of people that believe the bible and have no problem with having a female pastor. The set of people that call themselves "Christians" is a very large and varied set.

91 posted on 03/26/2007 2:26:11 PM PDT by DungeonMaster (Render therefore to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: 50sDad
So you don't believe God created Adam but you believe the bible?

I believe Jesus said, "I am the door" but I don't believe He had hinges.

Nice, good-hearted, response.

92 posted on 03/26/2007 2:30:21 PM PDT by Sleeping Beauty
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 89 | View Replies]

To: dread78645

Bring Back the LIONS!!!


93 posted on 03/26/2007 2:31:32 PM PDT by SubGeniusX ("Bob" Sold it! I Bought it! That Settles it!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1

>>Why'd you change?<<

For myself, the more I studied science, the more things seemed to come together, patterns emerging from the chaos. The way you can study chemistry and rock weathering while somebody else studies radioactive decay and others study sediment layers and still others study stars and it points to a unified whole with consistency but with enough questions to intrigue us forever. We are only now making reasonable guesses as to the age of the man, the earth and the universe. It took 5400 years from the time Egyptians began their recorded history to discover atoms and in the next hundred we found what they are made from, how to split them, how to combine them and how to read the ages.

The beauty that we can't live without Iodine but Iodine is only formed in supernovas and there are only four supernovas in our galaxy. To think that the iodine had to travel for millions of years so that I can have it as an additive in my salt an thus live is just staggering.

The way Pi is found in the tiniest particles and every circle and black holes we can only detect because they block out light sent from stars 5 billion years ago - it made me ready to hear God.


94 posted on 03/26/2007 2:39:00 PM PDT by gondramB (It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 32 | View Replies]

To: SubGeniusX
Bring Back the LIONS!!!

Lion: "No thanks --I'm a strict vegetarian,"


95 posted on 03/26/2007 2:40:20 PM PDT by dread78645 (Evolution. A doomed theory since 1859.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 93 | View Replies]

To: RexTheRunt

>>What's really dispiriting is to talk to a die-hard creationist about life on other planets.

When it gets down to brass tacks, he will admit he doesn't hold with the idea.

To a creationist, the near-infinity of planets, stars, and galaxies out there are sterile spheres, existing for no other purpose than to provide pretty twinkling lights in Earth's sky.<<

That one I don't understand. Why would God be limited in that way? Does it make a child less special that his father loves all his children?


96 posted on 03/26/2007 2:40:51 PM PDT by gondramB (It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: antiRepublicrat
They get it because they can calibrate the dating based on several other known methods of dating. They calibrate it, for the most part, based on dendrochronology, which I discussed immediately after I posted that. In any case, the margin of error that has been found still puts the dating of many things long before the earliest Christian creation dates. You do realize that there's carbon-14 in petroleum, right -- these deep-earth, "ancient" reserves which should have *zero*? It's pretty obvious that the basic principles behind carbon dating are flawed because radioisotope decay used to be faster. Saying "okay, our theory is wrong, it still doesn't back your beliefs up" is illogical. If it's wrong, it needs to be fixed before it can make any claims about what is and what isn't true. A standard tactic of the anti-science crowd is to put out a warped, gross simplification of the science to the believers so they can then go tell their friends how science is a fraud. Go ahead, then. Explain how what I stated about dendrochronology is inaccurate. That is literally how it's done. They look for damage between rings in logs and try and line it up, saying that there must have been a natural disaster at a certain time. If two logs in a target area are in the same "layer" and they both have dented growth rings, they declare them a match. They chain together hundreds of different mix-and-matched trees this way to establish their chronology. A single mismatch destroys the entire supposed chronology -- and it's all based on the notion that the layers were laid down slowly anyways, which is an erroneous assumption.
97 posted on 03/26/2007 2:44:46 PM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

If anyone is interested in the subject of the story, rather than flame wars, or waging intellectual debate with cartoons, here is the link: http://www.answersingenesis.org/museum/

Take the walk-through.


98 posted on 03/26/2007 2:45:43 PM PDT by Squidpup ("Fight the Good Fight")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: gondramB
For myself, the more I studied science, the more things seemed to come together, patterns emerging from the chaos.

And you didn't see the patterns in the chaos as the hand of God?

and it points to a unified whole with consistency but with enough questions to intrigue us forever.

If by consistency, you mean ages, that's not correct. The different sciences didn't even get their stories consistent until this century -- they all had different ages that they were absolutely convinced the world and the universe were. You know, based on "all of the evidence", which later "turned out to be wrong".

The beauty that we can't live without Iodine but Iodine is only formed in supernovas

Really? You were a creationist, and yet you couldn't come up with a better explanation for how iodine would end up on Earth than "it spent millions of years flying toward me"? It didn't occur to you that "God made the heavens and the Earth"?

I feel even more confused about why you believe the way you do now. You just seem so ready to have abandoned your belief in God the Creator, and I don't get why.
99 posted on 03/26/2007 2:50:59 PM PDT by OldGuard1
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: OldGuard1

>>And you didn't see the patterns in the chaos as the hand of God?<<

I do it that way.

>>If by consistency, you mean ages, that's not correct. The different sciences didn't even get their stories consistent until this century -- they all had different ages that they were absolutely convinced the world and the universe were. You know, based on "all of the evidence", which later "turned out to be wrong".<<

Yep, that's what I meant. The details differ but clearly geography features are millions of years old and the planets and stars are billions of years old.



>>Really? You were a creationist, and yet you couldn't come up with a better explanation for how iodine would end up on Earth than "it spent millions of years flying toward me"? It didn't occur to you that "God made the heavens and the Earth"?<<

No. I was somebody raised in a Christian church but who didn't really believe until I had a personal experience with God. And yes, I am an atomic physicist - not a brilliant one but good enough to understand prton and neutron drip lines and to see Iodine is made in supernovas.

>>I feel even more confused about why you believe the way you do now. You just seem so ready to have abandoned your belief in God the Creator, and I don't get why.<<

I have the feeling that's because my post was unclear and poorly phrased. I'm sorry about that. Since God spoke to me and told me three things, I have never had a moment's doubt. I really need to be more clear about that. :)


100 posted on 03/26/2007 3:01:58 PM PDT by gondramB (It wasn't raining when Noah built the ark.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 99 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200 ... 251-272 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson