Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

In The Beginning God, Not Darwin, Created
Post Scripts ^ | 10/11/09 | One Vike

Posted on 10/11/2009 6:56:59 AM PDT by OneVike

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-221 next last
To: tacticalogic; OneVike

I’m telling you that it didn’t. That is not what the issue was.

No.

Are YOU presuming to read my mind now? Are you going to accuse me of lying?


51 posted on 10/11/2009 9:04:44 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

[[I’ll run where I please.]]

you do that spanky- We’ll just ignore your childish insults if you wish to continue


52 posted on 10/11/2009 9:05:27 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
And, just what is the point of doing so?

You said it yourself. It's tough to read.

If what is being said isn't worth the effort to write properly, it likely isn't worth reading either.

And have you noticed the handy spell check button to the left of the preview button?

53 posted on 10/11/2009 9:07:20 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic; CottShop; OneVike
Science is not a religion.

The scientific method is not religious.

Modern day science as it's practiced and promoted, has become religious.

54 posted on 10/11/2009 9:08:20 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

[[It’s what the science says. If it’s your contention that’s a religion, then we’ve got a theological disagreement.]]

Lol- arguing ‘theological differences’ to determien what is and is not science- precious! Sorry- but assumptions are NOT science- they are theological ideology- now, if we had dating methods that were scientifically verified beyond a shadow of a doubt beyond 5000 or so years, then and only then could you argue that it is science- since however we can only assume the past, it becomes a rteligious belief, not sciecne- but whatever- you’vew got your religious belief about past events- we’ve got ours- whatever


55 posted on 10/11/2009 9:09:15 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
This was to be a discussion about the belief of creationism vs evolution inside the Christian realm.

OK. There's more to the OEC/YEC debate than just biology, but if that's the only aspect of you want to talk about, I can live with that. I think questions about aspects of those doctrines beyond evolution are "inside the Christian realm".

56 posted on 10/11/2009 9:10:01 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

You’re certainly free not to read it, humblegunner.


57 posted on 10/11/2009 9:10:10 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
Here are just a few of the problems with the gap theory you believe in:

The gap theory is an unfortunate compromise position taken by those who either don't understand the implications of the theory or don't love Scripture enough to take the Bible on what it clearly says. The gap theory is unscientific, unscriptural, and absolutely unnecessary.

58 posted on 10/11/2009 9:11:37 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

[[If what is being said isn’t worth the effort to write properly, it likely isn’t worth reading either.]]

Yep- for the shallow who can’t get past clutter- nothign is ever worth the effort— content isn’t important apparently- delivery is more important than content- that’s what Ovbama banked on, and won on, and that’s why he’s able to single handedly dismantle our consitution right beneath our eyes- because shallow people are more star-struck by delivery than they are the actual content of his smooth presentation- Whatever-


59 posted on 10/11/2009 9:13:22 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
You also fail at capitalization and punctuation.

Spanky.

60 posted on 10/11/2009 9:17:05 AM PDT by humblegunner
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
Lol- arguing ‘theological differences’ to determien what is and is not science- precious!

You have a theological difference of opinion with the USGS.

61 posted on 10/11/2009 9:17:33 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 55 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
First off, there is no scripture that supports the gap theory, secondly, when children grow up thinking God is not the Creator and man is not the first to sin and thus death did not enter the world through Adam’s sin, you have made Go sand Christ a liar.

Who sinned against God first, Eve or Satan???

2Pe 3:5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

Is God telling us that the heavens were there first???

2Pe 3:6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

Noah's flood??? Did the world perish at Noah's flood??? Or did 'much' of the life vanish during Noah's flood??? Nothing to indicate that all the sea creatures and fish died off...Doesn't sound like Noah's flood to me...

2Pe 3:7 But the heavens and the earth, which are now, by the same word are kept in store, reserved unto fire against the day of judgment and perdition of ungodly men.

The heavens and earth which are now??? The heavens and earth are not the same ones that God made before Noah's flood??? The earth is the same isn't it??? It was just void of a lot of life after Noah's flood??? The heavens didn't get destroyed in Noah's flood...And the earth is the same one we had in Gen. 1:1...No way this could be Noah's flood...

I'd be interested in seeing your proof that the 'gap theory' is out of contention...

I wholehearted agree that the death of the inhabitants of our world came from the fall of Adam...And it's very clear to me that evolution is a myth...And I have no doubts whatsoever that Adam and Eve, the animals, birds, stars and the heavens we see were created just over 6 thousand years ago...

But there are so many things that don't fit into that 6 thousand year period...

So I'd appreciate you prooving that nothing existed prior to 6 thousand years ago...

62 posted on 10/11/2009 9:20:24 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: metmom
The scientific method is not religious.

Modern day science as it's practiced and promoted, has become religious.

It is your contention that all scientists practice a religion called "science"?

63 posted on 10/11/2009 9:28:20 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: humblegunner

[[You also fail at capitalization and punctuation.]]

You’ve added so much to htis topic=- thanks for your contributions- they’ve been spellbinding- well done- I think that it’s clear that if all you’ce got to offer to the topics are complaints about spelling, that it’s not my posts that ‘aren’t worth reading’ but yours.


64 posted on 10/11/2009 9:29:07 AM PDT by CottShop (Scientific belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 60 | View Replies]

To: Iscool
Imagine all you must deny to accept the idea that God used evolution instead of Christ, as in the idea of theistic evolution, OEC, or the Gap theory? The general idea of evolution is quite different then what the Bible says about creation week in the book of Genesis. Consider what you claim about Jesus saying is so. Then If Christ is wrong then how can He be God?
The Bible Evolution theory Exact opposite?
1) Earth before sun. 1) Sun before earth. Yes
2) Oceans before land. 2) Land before oceans. Yes
3) Light before sun. 3) Sun before light. Yes
4) Land plants first. 4) Marine life first. Yes
5) Fruit tree before fish. 5) Fish before fruit tree. Yes
6) Fish before insects. 6) Insects before fish. Yes
7) Plants before sun. 7) Sun before plants. Yes
8) Marine animals before land animals. 8) Land animals before marine animals. Yes
9) Bird before reptiles. 9) Reptiles before birds. Yes
10) Man brought death in the world. 10) Death brought man into the world. Yes
11) God created man. 11) Man created God (out of need). Yes
12) Atmosphere between 2 layers of water. 12) Atmosphere above water. Yes
13) All life was created by God. 13) All life just happened, and evolved. Yes
14) There is a Creator. 14) There is no Creator. Yes

There is no middle ground in exact opposites. Because you cannot accept one without totally denying the other. Because like I said in my article, when you choose evolution you also deny the trinity shown below:

Please answer my assertions before bringing more to the table, because you have yet to disprove anything I wrote.

65 posted on 10/11/2009 9:33:03 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 62 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
It is your contention that all scientists practice a religion called "science"?

"All?" No. Clearly not all. The science of "climate change" has all the hallmarks of a religion, though.

And, so does the conception of evolution, that seeks to explain the origins of life on this planet.

66 posted on 10/11/2009 9:34:13 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

Thank you for the ping. But since your senseless rantings are on the religion formum I will allow you to post in peace.


67 posted on 10/11/2009 9:36:51 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
It takes more of a leap of faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in God. So that make evolution a religion, because there is yet to be any provable evidence it is true. And since scientists are at the forefront of teaching evolution and they use science to do it with. That make many of today's studied sciences a form of.

68 posted on 10/11/2009 9:46:32 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 63 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"All?" No. Clearly not all. The science of "climate change" has all the hallmarks of a religion, though.

And, so does the conception of evolution, that seeks to explain the origins of life on this planet.

The hype of "climate change" has the hallmarks of a cult. The science has gotten corrupted by politics and money, but that doesn't make it a religion.

Evolution seems to be a diffent question than origins, and the age of the Earth a different question than biology.

The crux seems to be whether, within the realm of Christianity, it's blasphemy to consider them separately, or to speak of them in contradiction to the literal account of creation in Genesis.

Beyond that, the question seems to be whether science becomes a religion if it commits that blasphemy.

69 posted on 10/11/2009 9:47:23 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater

What?


70 posted on 10/11/2009 9:47:33 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 67 | View Replies]

To: CottShop
e ALL know I’m a lazt tyypist- this is common knowledge- so your johnny come lately ‘observations’ are a tad outdated- but thanks for playing- now run along

Understood and accepted. I promise to never point out your typing skills if you promise to never - for the millionth time - make some lame joke about my screename reflecting upon my intellect. Truce?
71 posted on 10/11/2009 9:52:35 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
It takes more of a leap of faith to believe in evolution then it does to believe in God.

That people believe in theistic evolution is evidence that those are not mutually exclusive.

The argument seems to be over belief in the doctrine of YEC.

72 posted on 10/11/2009 9:54:29 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 68 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The hype of "climate change" has the hallmarks of a cult. The science has gotten corrupted by politics and money, but that doesn't make it a religion.

Oh, now. "Climate change" has sin. "Climate change" has redemption. "Climate change" even has an apocalypse.

Evolution seems to be a diffent question than origins, and the age of the Earth a different question than biology.

Tell that to the Primordial Soup-Nazis, who promulgate the notion that all life originated in pond scum, zapped to life by lightning or some such.

As far as the concept of "deep time," necessitated by the truly astounding lengths of time posited, for life to have arisen from nothing and self-organized into the sentient beings posting on this FR Religion Forum today, it was originally conceptualized by an atheist, James Hutton. As it would have to have been. Christians in the late 18th century accepted a catastrophic, global flood and a six-day Creation.

73 posted on 10/11/2009 9:57:11 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: OneVike; tacticalogic
So unless you want to partake in the debate between YEC and OEC, which by the way is a Christian in house debate, then go find another thread to disrupt.

OneVike - May I offer my two cents on your thread? Disclosure: I accept the theory of evolution as fact. But that isn't my point at all.

I applaud this thread and encourage what you are trying to do here. For years I've been interested in the factions of creationists - both in the real world and on Free Republic. The top creationist thread starter here posts articles touting "Intelligent Design" on a daily basis and yet, he himself is a YEC. Many times I've asked him how he can support ID, which clearly states such things as "God is not part of this paradigm," and the "top" IDer, Michael Behe, accepts modification through common descent and an old earth among other things. He admitted under oath that ID is equal to astrology in terms of scientific merit.

We have geocentrists here. We have OECs and YECs. All point to the bible as their guide in such things - but none have the temerity to debate among themselves. They prefer to just write how stupid evolution is.

I think the internal debate (YEC vs OEC, geo vs heliocentrists, Flood vs. Not really a worldwide flood, etc) is great. It doesn't happen enough... and I wish this thread would really delve into it.
74 posted on 10/11/2009 10:00:19 AM PDT by whattajoke (Let's keep Conservatism real.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 34 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic

Yes, and my point works both ways as to why someone would believe in God yet not have enough faith to believe He did what He claims to do, yet they have more faith in science that has been proved to be flawed. Why would any one who says God is God think him less smart then scientists who do not believe in Hem.

So I say again those who believe in evolution have more faith, just misdirected, kind of like those who believe in Islam, or Buddhism. If you want to stick around and debate the logic of this thread then I must assume you come from religious argument or you would not still be debating whether or not the logic I put forth in the article is true.


75 posted on 10/11/2009 10:03:14 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 72 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry; tacticalogic

What RC said...

When it becomes an ideology that replaces religion in people’s life, those who adhere to it do.


76 posted on 10/11/2009 10:08:54 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: metmom
So why are you here?

I was pinged by the author of the thread. You too?

77 posted on 10/11/2009 10:10:29 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; OneVike
I think the internal debate (YEC vs OEC, geo vs heliocentrists, Flood vs. Not really a worldwide flood, etc) is great. It doesn't happen enough... and I wish this thread would really delve into it.

Why?

78 posted on 10/11/2009 10:11:54 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
I remind everyone of one important fact: It has to be created before it can evolve.
79 posted on 10/11/2009 10:12:28 AM PDT by reg45 (Be calm everyone. The idiot children are in charge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ColdWater; OneVike

Did I ask you?

Or did I really ask you and you’re just confused?


80 posted on 10/11/2009 10:13:18 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
Yes, and my point works both ways as to why someone would believe in God yet not have enough faith to believe He did what He claims to do, yet they have more faith in science that has been proved to be flawed. Why would any one who says God is God think him less smart then scientists who do not believe in Hem.

Then your basic argument is that no creation doctrine other than YEC should be acceptable within the realm of Christian theology. Is that correct?

81 posted on 10/11/2009 10:14:31 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

All your arguments rely on Biblical quotes. Amen.


82 posted on 10/11/2009 10:17:17 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: metmom
Did I ask you?

I didn't say that you did. Just pointing out that a lots of people were pinged. Maybe that was the case for the other.

83 posted on 10/11/2009 10:18:39 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 80 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
"Climate change" has sin. "Climate change" has redemption. "Climate change" even has an apocalypse.

It also has priests, a messiah, and a holy scripture.

84 posted on 10/11/2009 10:19:22 AM PDT by reg45 (Be calm everyone. The idiot children are in charge!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
As far as the concept of "deep time," necessitated by the truly astounding lengths of time posited, for life to have arisen from nothing and self-organized into the sentient beings posting on this FR Religion Forum today, it was originally conceptualized by an atheist, James Hutton. As it would have to have been. Christians in the late 18th century accepted a catastrophic, global flood and a six-day Creation.

Hutton was the first to posit an age in the billion year range. Kelvin and other posited ages well beyond the 7000 year mark and in contradiction to the 6-day account of Genesis well before that.

The premise of the article is that YEC doctrine is an all or nothing proposition. If you depart from it at all, you depart from Christianity completely. The blasphemy did not originate with Hutton.

85 posted on 10/11/2009 10:22:31 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke

And that is why I wrote the article to draw those who wish to discuss it. So far I have yet to get many takers, a few, but not what i was hoping for.

This is an argument that needs to take place, however I feel it may have been a practice in futility seeings how those who are pure evolutionists and not Christian would rather come by and discuss other matters while the Christians are too worried about offending eachother to get into a serious debate about the particulars of my points.

Notice how I attacked the problem purely from a Scriptural basis, not scientific, because being an in-house debate it needs to be debated upon the merits of the Scriptures.

This is not a criticism of my fellow Christians, but it does show how we as Christians find it difficult to come to the table and properly discuss matters of such importance. Remember, even Western and Eastern Christendom permanently divided, never to have councils to hash out problems again. Christians sometimes are most stubborn when it comes to discussing differences withing the realm of our own faith.

I find this as important as the discussion of the merits and of the Trinity, others do not. In the long run it is our children who will suffer because we as Christians have compromised with the Devil.

As for the ID crowd, some agree with me and others disagree with me. I do find their investigative work to be very helpful, but I do with all honest scientific study. I have no problem with the ID label, as long as they claim the the only intelligent Designer is God. There are those debates that i will be standing with those who do not look to God as the designer, but that would only be in a debate that is discussing the merits of the studies and science, not theology.

Just as I can stand with a godless evolutionist when the debate is about Liberal Democrats and the laws they wish to pass. Sometimes the enemy of my enemy is a friend of mine. We must know when and where to pick our battles.

Today, my battle is with those who profess a belief in Christianity, but give deference to Darwin’s theory of evolution instead of God through Christ by the power of the Holy Spirit for Creation.


86 posted on 10/11/2009 10:23:38 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 74 | View Replies]

To: metmom
When it becomes an ideology that replaces religion in people’s life, those who adhere to it do.

And it is your assertion that it has done that - that they practice a religion called "science"?

87 posted on 10/11/2009 10:25:13 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 76 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
Then your basic argument is that no creation doctrine other than YEC should be acceptable within the realm of Christian theology. Is that correct?

On a word,,,,,,,,,YES
88 posted on 10/11/2009 10:28:15 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
Imagine all you must deny to accept the idea that God used evolution instead of Christ, as in the idea of theistic evolution, OEC, or the Gap theory?

I already told you I didn't buy into the evolution theory...And what's that got to do with the Gap Theory???

Please answer my assertions before bringing more to the table, because you have yet to disprove anything I wrote.

Don't know what you are talking about...YOU are the one who said YOU would disprove the Gap Theory...

89 posted on 10/11/2009 10:42:29 AM PDT by Iscool (I don't understand all that I know...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: tacticalogic
The premise of the article is that YEC doctrine is an all or nothing proposition. If you depart from it at all, you depart from Christianity completely. The blasphemy did not originate with Hutton.

The topic and this discussion pertains to the words actually written in the Bible, their import throughout that Bible (not just in Genesis), and the faith in God that is demonstrated by taking His Word at face value, as Jesus, Moses, Peter and others quite clearly did, and the pitfalls of accomodating the Word of God to the words of man.

The only label of interest here is Christian, or not. If you want to go on about Yeckers and Oeccers and Geocentrists, Oh My! then that is your particular fixation. It's also your prerogative. But, beg your pardon if the boxes you want to put us in to study us, are not of primary concern.

Hutton's geological ages provided the foundation of modern evolution as far as linear time. It has been built upon and expanded, and continues to be built upon and expanded, now into the trillions of years. Kelvin had and has no such notoriety in this particular regard. Hutton does.

90 posted on 10/11/2009 10:42:36 AM PDT by RegulatorCountry
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 85 | View Replies]

To: All; metmom; ColdWater; bray; humblegunner; whattajoke; ClearCase_guy; Larry Lucido; Matchett-PI; ..

Now, I must put my notes together for my Sunday afternoon message with the Ladies of Windchime.

I wish more had delved into the debate, but alas as I have already said, we Christians find it difficult to get into deep theological discussions about internal problems.

If there are any comments to me I will address them when I get back from my Sermon later this afternoon.

God bless you all,

OV


91 posted on 10/11/2009 10:46:42 AM PDT by OneVike (Just a Christian waiting to go home)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 88 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
As for the ID crowd, some agree with me and others disagree with me. I do find their investigative work to be very helpful, but I do with all honest scientific study. I have no problem with the ID label, as long as they claim the the only intelligent Designer is God.

IDers believe in evolution.

92 posted on 10/11/2009 10:48:49 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 86 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
The only label of interest here is Christian, or not. If you want to go on about Yeckers and Oeccers and Geocentrists, Oh My! then that is your particular fixation. It's also your prerogative. But, beg your pardon if the boxes you want to put us in to study us, are not of primary concern.

Those "boxes" were the basis of the article.

93 posted on 10/11/2009 10:54:49 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: whattajoke; metmom; GodGunsGuts; Fichori; tpanther; valkyry1; Mr. Silverback; OneVike

You, my friend have become what you wish to be... a god.

I now bestow upon you the right and honorary (if not moderately, yet significantly insignificant) title;

“GOD AND MASTER OF THE RELIGION FORUM”!

Of course I have as much authority to bestow that title upon you as you have thrusting your ego-driven supposition of all-knowing wisdom on other FR members.

Nevertheless, may you hold your title well and as usual...

whatajoke.

GG


94 posted on 10/11/2009 10:56:18 AM PDT by Gordon Greene (www.fracturedrepublic.com - Evo's place much faith in something for which there is no proof. Crazy!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
Hutton's geological ages provided the foundation of modern evolution as far as linear time. It has been built upon and expanded, and continues to be built upon and expanded, now into the trillions of years. Kelvin had and has no such notoriety in this particular regard. Hutton does.

Hutton and Kelvin based their estimates of the age of the Earth on different sets of evidence. Current estimates of the age of the Earth are based on radiometric decay measurements, which is yet another set evidence that doesn't depend on Hutton's work at all.

95 posted on 10/11/2009 11:00:10 AM PDT by tacticalogic ("Oh bother!" said Pooh, as he chambered his last round.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
proved to be flawed. Why would any one who says God is God think him less smart then scientists who do not believe in Hem.

I am not sure, but it sure looks like you are calling Christain evolutionists atheists.

96 posted on 10/11/2009 11:00:41 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 75 | View Replies]

To: OneVike
I wish more had delved into the debate, but alas as I have already said, we Christians find it difficult to get into deep theological discussions about internal problems.

Particularly when you accuse those that do not believe in your 'religion' of blasphemy and condemned to eternal hell.

97 posted on 10/11/2009 11:03:04 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 91 | View Replies]

To: RegulatorCountry
The only label of interest here is Christian, or not.

And the author of this thread has declared that anyone that does not believe in the literal six days of creation is not a Christian.

98 posted on 10/11/2009 11:04:54 AM PDT by ColdWater
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 90 | View Replies]

To: Gordon Greene

Religious viewpoint?

To the back of the bus with you.


99 posted on 10/11/2009 11:09:09 AM PDT by metmom (Welfare was never meant to be a career choice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 94 | View Replies]

To: OneVike

how about defining “old earth creationism” before bashing it


100 posted on 10/11/2009 11:23:10 AM PDT by HiTech RedNeck (ACORN: Absolute Criminal Organization of Reprobate Nuisances)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-100101-150151-200201-221 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
Religion
Topics · Post Article

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