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

Skip to comments.

Science and a Young Earth - Evolution Vs Creationism Christian Perspective on Science
Best Syndication ^ | July 31, 2006 | Babu Ranganathan

Posted on 07/31/2006 8:33:32 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

Haven't geologists proved from scientific dating methods that the Earth is 4.5 billion years old? Doesn't astronomy prove that the universe must, at least, be billions of years old since it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the Earth? Don't all qualified scientists, including geologists, believe in Darwinian evolution and a billions of years old Earth and universe? The simple answer is "no".

Both evolutionists and creationists have certain built-in assumptions in interpreting and using scientific data when it comes to the Earth's age. The issue many times comes down to which assumptions are more reasonable. Dating rocks is not a hard (no pun intended) science.

For example, many times one radiometric dating method will give a vast difference in age from another radiometric dating method used on dating the same rock! Radiometric dating methods have also been severely faulty when tested with the actual historical age of certain rock. For example, Hawaiian lava flows that were known to be no more than two centuries old were dated by the potassium-argon method to be up to three billion years old! (Science 141 [1963]: 634).

The reason for these huge discrepancies is that these methods are based on assumptions that no major changes have occurred in the Earth's atmosphere in the past which could have affected the initial amounts and even the rates of decay of the substances involved (Industrial Research 14 [1972]: 15). If, for example, a world-wide flood the Bible describes in Genesis had actually occurred then it would have, indeed, altered the initial conditions so as to make radiometric dating less than an exact science, to say the least. The Carbon -14 dating method has been known to have fifty percent accuracy, but it is only accurate up to thousands (not millions or billions) of years and can only be used on things that were once living.

Complicated as the subject of the Earth's age may be, a main reason for why evolutionists believe the earth is many millions of years old is because of their belief concerning how the fossil layers were deposited. What one believes about the deposition of the fossils in the Earth will, indeed, determine one's view of the earth's age.

Fossils of animals, for example, are formed when animals are buried quickly and under tremendous pressure, so that their bones, remains, and imprint are preserved in rock. If living things are not buried quickly and under enormous pressure their remains will decay rather than become preserved or fossilized. Most of the many billions of fossils in the Earth are found in rock that has been affected by water (Sedimentary Rock). Therefore, most of of the billions of fossils in the earth were formed as a result of the animals and plants being buried suddenly and quickly under tremendous water pressure.

Geologists who are evolutionists believe that local geographical floods over a period of many millions of years deposited these animals and plants and preserved their remains in the earth's crust. This is only one view.

Geologists who are creationists believe that a one world-wide cataclysmic flood, otherwise known as the Genesis Flood, buried most of these animals and preserved them as fossils in the Earth. Obviously, if it was one world-wide flood that deposited these animals and preserved them as fossils in the Earth it would not have taken very long. But, if the fossils were caused by local and limited geographical floods then it would, indeed, have required many millions of years before such local floods could have produced the billions of fossils and deposited them in various layers all over the Earth.

There are many problems, however, with the local flood theory as the cause behind the fossils. Even today local floods are not known to be able to generate the type of tremendous pressure and force necessary to fossilize creatures in rock. Among other arguments, it is difficult to explain how local floods could have carved out such majestic and geographical wonders as the Grand Canyon which is thousands of square miles and packed with billions of fossils and was clearly formed by the cataclysmic action and force of water. Yet, evolutionary geologists are content in believing that the Colorado River merely overflowing its banks, now and then, over millions of years was capable of performing such a feat!

The Bible in Genesis 7 says that much of the water that flooded the whole world came from under the ground. We know even today of vast reservoirs of water that are under the Earth. Obviously, if the Genesis account is true, there was much greater amount of water underground in the Earth's past. Genesis 7 says that this water burst through the surface of the Earth and, consequently, covered and changed the entire topography of the Earth.

Passages in the Old Testament Book of Psalms describe God as raising high mountains from the earth after the world-wide flood so that the water would recede into the ocean basins. The tremendous velocity and pressure from such receding water is what most likely caused the formation of the majestic Grand Canyon with its billions of fossils.

The fossils in the Earth are found to exist in various layers of the Earth's crust. Evolutionary geologists claim that each layer was formed and deposited by local flooding over many millions of years. However, in various parts of the Earth there are fossils of trees that protrude through several layers! This indicates that these layers were deposited and formed almost simultaneously and not over millions of years. Otherwise, the tops of these trees would have decayed a long time ago. The tops of these trees could not wait millions of years to become deposited and fossilized so there is no other explanation except that these layers were deposited in quick succession under cataclysmic forces and conditions.

Furthermoree, evolutionary geologists believe that the lowest layers contain only fossils of simple organisms while the higher layers contain only fossils of complex organisms. This, according to him/her, is evidence that complex organisms evolved from simpler ones over many millions of years. As a result of this view, the evolutionary geologist dates fossils according to the layer of rock in which they are found and, in turn, dates rocks according to the type of fossils they contain (circular reasoning!). Thus, the evolutionary geologist simply assumes that rocks which contain fossils of simple organisms must be very old (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved first) while the rocks containing fossils of complex organisms must be younger (because of his/her assumption that those organisms evolved more recently) even when there is no actual physical differences between the rocks themselves!

Besides the many assumptions involved, there are other problems with this view. First, there are no actual transitional stages to connect the so-called progression of simpler organisms in the fossil record to more complex ones. Second, this idea that the lower layers contain fossils of only simpler organisms exists only on paper, in evolutionary textbooks, and not in the real world. There are many areas in the world where fossils of complex organisms are found way beneath layers containing fossils of simpler organisms with no evidence of any shifting of these layers. Of course, if a world-wide flood did occur, then in many cases the lower layers would contain fossils of simpler organisms because these would naturally be the first to be deposited.

Many have insisted that our world and universe must be billions of years old because it would have required billions of years for light from the nearest stars to reach the Earth. This is assuming that the stars, galaxies, and universe were not created complete and fully mature from the beginning, with the light already reaching the Earth from the moment of creation. Creationists believe that because God created a mature universe from the beginning, it naturally has the appearance of being much older than it actually is. For example, when God created the first man and woman they were mature adults and complete from head to toe. If we had observed them five minutes after they were created we would have thought from their appearance that they had been on earth for many years, even though they were freshly created from the hand of God.

Highly respected sientist and physicist Dr. Thomas G. Barnes has shown that according to the rate of decay of the Earth's magnetic field the earth is only thousands of years old and not billions.

According to evolutionists, the Moon is nearly as old as the Earth and, from the rate of unimpeded meteors hitting the Moon's surface over billions of years, there should have been many feet of lunar dust on the Moon. But, when we landed on the Moon we discovered only a thin layer of dust. The Moon has no atmosphere to burn up such meteors as the earth does so such collection of dust was a major concern for scientists before the astronuts landed there.

There is much more to say on this subject, and there are many positive evidences for a young earth and universe not covered in this article. Excellent articles and books have been written by highly qualified scientists, including geologists, who are creationists showing scientific evidences for a young earth and universe. M.I.T. scientist Dr. Walt Brown provides considerable information on the topic at his site www.creationscience.com. Also, considerable information on the subject is provided by scientists of the Institute for Creation Research at www.icr.org.

The author, Babu G. Ranganathan, is an experienced Christian writer. He has his B.A. with academic concentrations in Bible and Biology. As a religion and science writer he has been recognized in the 24th edition of Marquis Who's Who In The East. The author has a website at: www.religionscience.com


TOPICS: Constitution/Conservatism; Culture/Society; Editorial; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: afoolandhismoney; bewarefrevolutionist; buymybooks; commonscold; creation; creationism; creationist; creationists; crevo; crevodebates; crevolist; enoughalready; evolution; evolutionist; foolishness; frevolutionist; geology; id; idiocy; idiot; intelligentdesign; mythology; pavlovian; pigignorant; scam; science; sendmemoney; spam; trash; videosforsale; wasteoftime; youngearth
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-343 next last
To: Coyoteman

'Night!


151 posted on 08/01/2006 6:57:25 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 149 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
I think I've had something like this posted by you in the past freedumb, and I ignored it then because it is generally just attacking me for not believing in what you are so educated in.

That is the most beautifully succinct definition of willful ignorance I have ever read. Thank you.

I have every right to speak on any subject I choose. Regardless of my ignorance or knowledge of it.

You certainly MAY, but it makes you look foolish. If we were discussing Math and you didn't know what i stood for or how to solve a quadratic equation or the difference between differential and integral calculus, you could CERTAINLY chime in and say something like "but I don't think there is any such thing as non-Eucledian Geometry." But you wouldn't be qualified to make such a statement.

To belittle me and call me childish because I point out the arrogance of many scientists is equally arrogant and childish.

I recommend that you learn the fundamentals -- just the basics -- of the subject at hand. I call you childish because your opinion is that of an uninformed child. Adults speak on subjects they understand. If they don't have the requisite knowledge they get it. Only a child pipes in from a position of complete ignorance.

If I offended you because I made this statement, so be it. I really couldn't care less about your feelings. I will stick to my opinion on the lack of objectivity in most of science today because I observe it constantly.

Observe what?

When I am told by someone like you that there is a mountain of evidence to prove something, and the evidence is acutally more cursory than conclusive I have to wonder at your actual motives. What you see as conclusive evidence has been and will continue to be seen by others as disputable.

Coyoteman has, in his patient kindness, given you the information about how these things interrelate. You have yet to present a single credible scientific dispute of the age of the earth, TToE, or any of your other bald assertions.

Not just creationists, which I am not, but those who use objectivity and are seeking the truth and not their version of it.

You are being a contrarian on purpose. Given evidence and scientific conclusions you act like a 13-yo and say "nya nya nya" and the knock over a chair.

You have been asked for specific scientific refutation of the aging process, TToE or any of your assertions.

Put up or shut up.

152 posted on 08/01/2006 7:10:17 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

Courtesy ping because I mentioned you. No need to respond or even read.

Sleep well


153 posted on 08/01/2006 7:11:57 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Hey feedumb, I'm not going to continue a flame war with you in this thread. You're obviously not getting my basic point anyway, seeing that you jumped in halfway in my coversation with another poster. Oh, you can go back and try to find out what my original issue was, but I doubt you'll find it seeing that you won't be looking for it. You will most likely find more fodder for your intellectual attacks though. Use them at your discretion. But I'm done with you here.


154 posted on 08/01/2006 7:26:24 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
Hey feedumb, I'm not going to continue a flame war with you in this thread.

It's not a flame war. It is me helping you.

My advice: Learn a subject before posting on it.

I mean this as the most sincere, friendly advice I can offer.

Good night.

155 posted on 08/01/2006 7:32:58 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 154 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

You sounded far from friendly, believe me. As for learning the subject, you again got lost in your inaccurate and off topic responses to my original post. So I will clue you in. My post only mentioned that, IMO, there is a lack of objectivity in the teaching of sciences today, especially on the secondary level. I do realize that objectivity is taught in many colleges and universities, and respect that. But it is a fact that it is still something that could be improved upon at all levels in all sciences. Now, if you still disagree with me, I would like to know why. About archeology, I don't think I'll be making anymore replies to that subject, especially to individuals who have vast and superior knowledge of the subject(.sarcasm off).

I don't think, in any of my replies here, that I ever disputed the fact that the systems are usefull. I only stated that they are unreliable in some cases. Especially in the case of dating the age of the earth.


156 posted on 08/01/2006 7:58:29 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
You sounded far from friendly, believe me. As for learning the subject, you again got lost in your inaccurate and off topic responses to my original post. So I will clue you in. My post only mentioned that, IMO, there is a lack of objectivity in the teaching of sciences today, especially on the secondary level.

Sometimes the height of being friendly is cuffing someone about the ears to help them learn. Tough Love is tough on all of us.

You have yet to provide demonstrable proof of anything less than objectivity in the sciences. You have to bring more than "'cause I think so."

I don't think, in any of my replies here, that I ever disputed the fact that the systems are usefull. I only stated that they are unreliable in some cases. Especially in the case of dating the age of the earth.

But you supply no proof. Just your intuition.

Let's all take a moment and think about what group of people who let their emotions and feelings guide their lives.

Hint: It starts with an "L."

'Night.

157 posted on 08/01/2006 8:10:45 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

So, now, because I believe there is a lack of objectivity in the sciences I'm a liberal. Wow, is this how you go about making discoveries in your field of expertise? Because if it is, I think I'm right, thanks.


158 posted on 08/01/2006 8:21:29 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 157 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
So, now, because I believe there is a lack of objectivity in the sciences I'm a liberal.

It appears that the point is that in claiming that in claiming that your "belief" that a claim is true makes it a valid point of contention despite having no evidence for your claim you are arguing like a liberal.
159 posted on 08/01/2006 8:24:42 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger; Aetius; Alamo-Girl; AndrewC; Asphalt; Aussie Dasher; Baraonda; BereanBrain; ...
"Genesis 7 says that this water burst through the surface of the Earth and, consequently, covered and changed the entire topography of the Earth."

Small problem; basic geo-physics dictate that what came up had to be super-heated steam and a large amount of crushed aggregate, not "water" as such, and misunderstanding this point causes a total misunderstanding of what the flood really was. The "fountains of the great deep" are the source of most if not all of the round aggregate on Earth.

160 posted on 08/01/2006 8:25:35 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
So, now, because I believe there is a lack of objectivity in the sciences I'm a liberal. Wow, is this how you go about making discoveries in your field of expertise? Because if it is, I think I'm right, thanks.

No, because when you use feeling instead of thinking you trend towards the liberal side of the road.

Conservatives think and draw conclusions from facts. Liberals feel and believe and draw conclusions from that.

So which is it? The road of logic or the road of feeling?

161 posted on 08/01/2006 8:26:15 PM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 158 | View Replies]

To: balrog666; DaveLoneRanger
"How many times has that crap been debunked here on FR just in the last year?"

None!

Many loud noises, such as yourself, have screamed nonsense at us all, but no valid evidence that could refute the facts presented even exists. All you propagandists ever do is post links to propaganda and irrelevant opinion, and try to say it's 'science' just because you say it is.

162 posted on 08/01/2006 8:31:50 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

Yes, I understand the argument Dimensio. My evidence is the science classes that I have attended throughout my education, and that of many other students who could attest to the lack of objectivity of their science education. Although it's not quite as compelling as the evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution, it still exists.


163 posted on 08/01/2006 8:32:43 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 159 | View Replies]

To: freedumb2003

Where did I ever discuss my feelings freedumb? I don't recall ever interjecting my emotions or feelings into the argument. That is completely your perspective.


164 posted on 08/01/2006 8:34:18 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 161 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
"Although it's not quite as compelling as the evidence that supports the Theory of Evolution, it still exists"

What 'evidence' might that be? - All that has ever put forth in support of evolution is opinion, and opinion about opinion. All the hard evidence visible on Earth is the massive evidence of the flood that the propagandist call the 'geologic column.' Only an absolute fool could see that as evidence of anything but a total worldwide flood.

165 posted on 08/01/2006 8:42:13 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

You need to talk to freedumb, not me, thanks.


166 posted on 08/01/2006 8:43:14 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 165 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
"You need to talk to freedumb"

Talking to a paid puppet is a total waste of time ;o)

167 posted on 08/01/2006 8:46:29 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
My evidence is the science classes that I have attended throughout my education, and that of many other students who could attest to the lack of objectivity of their science education.

Then your "evidence" is anecdotal, and impossible to evaluate. Such claims have no objective validity.
168 posted on 08/01/2006 9:02:00 PM PDT by Dimensio (http://angryflower.com/bobsqu.gif <-- required reading before you use your next apostrophe!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 163 | View Replies]

To: Dimensio

That's pretty funny, thanks. I think I'll just cease to argue the point since we aparently disagree on it.


169 posted on 08/01/2006 9:13:15 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 168 | View Replies]

To: js1138

You are so touchy, almost like you're looking for a squabble! I asked what you give the passage in reference to, and to what meaning you apply the passage. Relax ... and no, I'm not nor would I call My Savior a liar. Would you like to expain what seems so clear to you?


170 posted on 08/01/2006 9:13:30 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
The two are separate fields of endeavor, and should not either be confused or commingled.

It is impossible to separate them. If God is the Creator of all that is, any valid theory of the history of life would be impossible without weighing in on His abilities and attributes. The field we are discussing is really history.

171 posted on 08/01/2006 9:13:36 PM PDT by The Ghost of FReepers Past (Woe unto them that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light..... Isaiah 5:20)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Yeah, well, I wish I figured that out four of five posts earlier. Now I've got the right hand attacking me in the form of Dimensio.


172 posted on 08/01/2006 9:14:36 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 167 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; balrog666; DaveLoneRanger
["How many times has that crap been debunked here on FR just in the last year?"]

None!

editor-surveyor then rambles on:

Many loud noises, such as yourself, have screamed nonsense at us all, but no valid evidence that could refute the facts presented even exists. All you propagandists ever do is post links to propaganda and irrelevant opinion, and try to say it's 'science' just because you say it is.

Remember, folks, this is coming from the same guy whose idea of "real science" is:

If you were any kind of Biblical scholar, you would know that no true Biblical scholar would reccommend that anyone allow themselves to be found on an operating table. The Lord gave us solutions to our health issues, none of which includes surgery, and cautioned us not to turn to the ways of men. [In this post]
And:
The truth is that deaths from apendicitus have always been rare, and the surgery cannot be credited with saving a life. 'Operable cancer' is nonsense. Cancer surgery is a big money maker for the surgeon, but is is a bad choice for the patient. Cancer is best cured by natural means, and those means should be guided by prayer, not the PDR. Western medicine is unable to cure anything. [In this post]
So, you know, consider the source.
173 posted on 08/01/2006 9:21:59 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 162 | View Replies]

To: js1138
In fact, I think I'll give yo a little help with the passage you posted (presumably to prove that Jesus said exactly how to be saved and that what he said contradicts the teaching elsewhere in the scriptures of the New Testament).

The passage you cited is an instance where Jesus was contrasting for us the big difference between righteousness through works and righteousness thorugh the Grace of God in Christ soon to be crucified. The young man claimed to have kept the commandments since his youth, and Jesus loved him for his naivete and sincere desire to find out what he must do ... hinting that his heart sensed he had not in fact kept every commandment. Then Jesus tried to gently point out where he was mistaken in his 'keeping all the commandments since his youth' ... the god 'before' this young man was his riches, so he had been violating one commandment at least, to 'have no other gods before me'. In telling the young man to part with his small god --his riches-- Jesus revealed to the young man the difficulty he faced through seeking righteousness in the law (Paul gives a lengthy exegesis on this in Romans). we know this to be the essence of the passage you quoted because the passages which follow give more on this difficulty.

Now, is that how you meant to use the passage for the one (and all of us reading along) you posted it to?

174 posted on 08/01/2006 9:29:38 PM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468; freedumb2003
Yeah, well, I wish I figured that out four of five posts earlier.

Now read post #173 and find out what kind of person you're making the mistake of relying on and agreeing with...

freedumb2003 is not a "paid puppet", that's just ES's delusion (one of many).

And while your exchange did get a bit heated (on both sides), he did have cause for many of the comments you took offense to. Many of your arguments and examples *were* based on either a high degree of ignorance on the topic you were attempting to find fault with, and/or wildly fallacious and false creationist canards about science. So you shouldn't be too surprised when someone rolls their eyes at you or gets impatient.

For example, you wrote, " but I have done enough of my own reading to believe that dating systems used today are not effective at all for ages past 50k or 60k". This is completely false. There are is a huge range of various independent dating methods, covering different age ranges. Only Carbon-14 dating tops out at 50-60k, but that's only one method of many, and that's why other dating methods are used for samples which are older. It's quite simply false to say that dating methods are "not effective at all" with older ages. They certainly are. You then used this bogus bit of "knowledge" to build a long chain of faulty reasoning, despite the fact that anyone who reads the paper or has had the meagerest high school science class knows that there are long-range dating methods. So don't be surprised when you get some "oh, come ON..." reactions.

175 posted on 08/01/2006 9:36:26 PM PDT by Ichneumon (Ignorance is curable, but the afflicted has to want to be cured.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon; editor-surveyor

Whoa E.S., any reason why you think Christians should stay off the operating table? Keep in mind my father's a physician....


176 posted on 08/01/2006 9:40:19 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger ("Good guys" aren't always "nice guys".)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

All I can say is I'm thankful our religious extremists spend their time pushing crap like this instead of trying to come up with new and clever ways to kill people.


177 posted on 08/01/2006 10:09:15 PM PDT by WackySam ("There's room for all God's creatures- right next to the taters")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Ichneumon

I will make it a point to do some more research into the subject. In the very least to have more knowledge to make a more informed decision. Thank you for your constructive response.


178 posted on 08/01/2006 10:18:54 PM PDT by phoenix0468 (http://www.mylocalforum.com -- Go Speak Your Mind.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Quark2005

Idiocy not deserving further discourse.


179 posted on 08/01/2006 10:20:11 PM PDT by Elsiejay (.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies]

To: skip_intro
"He took a Science article written in 1963 and pulled a factoid out of it."

Ok, fine, it's not the author of the article who tested the rock, it's the scientist he was referring to. But I keep telling you that multiple lava flows have been tested by multiple scientists with similar results. You said he posted false information. So what was false?

180 posted on 08/02/2006 12:03:29 AM PDT by DannyTN
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
"Are theories other than the big bang and evolution being taught in classrooms throughout the world today?"

I am not aware of "The Big Bang" theory being taught in any biology type courses these days. Evolution is taught as a fact even though it is generally given the disclaimer that it is still just a Theory. No other "theories" concerning speciation and diversity are currently considered viable by most Academics.

Of course a "theory" in scientific terms is not the same as what most English speaking people think of when using the term. It is much bigger, better, and way more serious.

It has been a long time since I took a course in Astronomy, but I think you might find origin of the universe (i.e. Big Bang) stuff briefly touched on in such a class as that.

181 posted on 08/02/2006 2:37:27 AM PDT by Radix (Somehow, my Flux Capacitor got crossed up with my Interocitor.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 45 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

What is it about the passage that requires interpretation? It is among the clearest and most direct in the Bible.


182 posted on 08/02/2006 3:37:21 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 174 | View Replies]

To: skip_intro
He took a Science article written in 1963 and pulled a factoid out of it.

Except the factoid was not in the article in which he claimed it was. That means he must have pulled the factoid out of somewhere else.

183 posted on 08/02/2006 5:18:31 AM PDT by HayekRocks
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
"any reason why you think Christians should stay off the operating table?"

The only valid reason to get on an operating table is for trauma surgery. All other reasons turn away from the commandments in God's word. For example: Jer. 17:5 "Thus saith the LORD; Cursed be the man that trusteth in man, and maketh flesh his arm, and whose heart departeth from the LORD."
In every case but one physicians are spoken of in derogative terms by the Lord, the exception being when he spoke of himself as the 'physician.' Our healing is to come from the Lord, not from men. There is not a single instance in the word where healing is the result of a physician. Luke, for example is never found practicing his prior arts after following the Lord.

Hopefully your Father is mindful of these facts. Healing in full is available to us every day, from the Lord.

184 posted on 08/02/2006 7:13:46 AM PDT by editor-surveyor (Atheist and Fool are synonyms; Evolution is where fools hide from the sunrise)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: js1138
I refer you to your own tagline: To quote you, "Well I say there are some things we I don't want to know!" Nice try though ...
185 posted on 08/02/2006 8:33:16 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

The tagline is quote from the great theologean, Homer simpson. Like you, he interprets things for his convenience.

But if you want to go through life claiming Jesus was lying when he gave instructions for getting to heaven, or that he worded his instructions so obscurely that only trained professional priests could interpret them, then join the crowd. The line forms behind the guy he gave the instructions to.


186 posted on 08/02/2006 8:49:10 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: js1138

Time for coffee.


187 posted on 08/02/2006 8:53:47 AM PDT by cornelis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: js1138; taxesareforever; Jim Robinson
Ah, the usual refuge, ad hom assault ... your dishonest approach to this discussion now reeks of condescension toward the Bible and people of faith. Your purposed misrepresentation of the passage chosen for taking out of context says a lot about your mindset. That you continue to pretend an innocence in this effort to misrepresent also tells us a lot about reading or addressing anything you have to offer further regarding evolution or science or especially the Bible. For those reading this thread, here is the followup passage from Mark chapter ten to which js1138 poster alluded with now apparent intent to twist and mischaracterize the teachings of Jesus regarding Salvation:

MK 10:21 Jesus looked at him and loved him. "One thing you lack," he said. "Go, sell everything you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me."

MK 10:22 At this the man's face fell. He went away sad, because he had great wealth.

MK 10:23 Jesus looked around and said to his disciples, "How hard it is for the rich to enter the kingdom of God!"

MK 10:24 The disciples were amazed at his words. But Jesus said again, "Children, how hard it is to enter the kingdom of God! 25 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God."

MK 10:26 The disciples were even more amazed, and said to each other, "Who then can be saved?"

MK 10:27 Jesus looked at them and said, "With man this is impossible, but not with God; all things are possible with God."

188 posted on 08/02/2006 9:03:59 AM PDT by MHGinTN (If you can read this, you've had life support from someone. Promote life support for others.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 186 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

How is quoting the Bible twisting it? If my quote is out of context, feel free to explain.

The answer to this problem is in your heart. If you are indeed "reborn" you will do good works because you want to, not out of fear of punishment. There is no conflict between faith and works. Works are the embodiment and manifestation of faith. They are what differentiates faith from hypocrisy.


189 posted on 08/02/2006 10:15:03 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

Placemarker
190 posted on 08/02/2006 10:25:03 AM PDT by CarolinaGuitarman (Gas up your tanks!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger
...any reason why you think Christians should stay off the operating table?

I think it's the "E's" that should staying off!

After all, we'll just keep propagating WEAKNESS in our species by NOT letting "Nature take it's course."

191 posted on 08/02/2006 10:29:07 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 176 | View Replies]

To: js1138
If you are indeed "reborn" you will do good works because you want to, not out of fear of punishment.

Amen!!

192 posted on 08/02/2006 10:31:12 AM PDT by Elsie (Heck is where people, who don't believe in Gosh, think they are not going....)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 189 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

I might add that the earliest Christians, those closest to the original context, did attempt to take this passage literally.

I do not mock the Bible, but I do point out hypocrisy. There are people posting to these threads who are eager to condemn some of us for our interpretation of faith. Sometimes we are merely accused of not being conservatives. Sometimes we get these neat little messages telling us that we will see the truth after it is too late.

All of these people seem to think that they alone know which passages of the Bible have to be taken literally and which require interpretation. They see religion from a lawyer's point of view -- observe the right rituals, say the right things, close your mind to inconvenient facts.

But the meaning of faith is right before your eyes. Be a good person; help others; avoid hating even your enemies. The message of Jesus is about love, not about how old you think the earth is. I can understand why this is upsetting to some.


193 posted on 08/02/2006 10:35:28 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Elsie

Goodness, we agree on something.


194 posted on 08/02/2006 10:36:09 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: Fiji Hill
Back in the seventeenth century, Archbishop James Ussher of the Church of Ireland calculated that the earth was created on October 23, 4004 BC at 9:00 AM--and I assume it was Pacific Daylight Time. Therefore, on on October 23, 1972, the Geology Department at Occidental College thew a party during my class, which met at 9:00 AM that day, to celebrate the creation of the earth. Our party even made the evening news on our local NBC affiliate.

I missed the sweet 6,000 in 2004? I am CRUSHED!

195 posted on 08/02/2006 10:38:50 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 25 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
"After all, we'll just keep propagating WEAKNESS in our species by NOT letting "Nature take it's course."

You're just being silly.

Saying what is, is in no way the same as saying what should be. Besides, we are every bit as much a part of nature and our environment as anything else. Nor are we the only organism affecting its own evolutionary environment.

196 posted on 08/02/2006 10:39:27 AM PDT by b_sharp (Why bother with a tagline? Even they eventually wear out! (Second Law of Taglines))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Elsie
After all, we'll just keep propagating WEAKNESS in our species by NOT letting "Nature take it's course."

That view has been popular throughout recorded history, but it isn't something Darwin thought up. Darwin got the idea of natural selection from studying the activities of animal breeders.

197 posted on 08/02/2006 10:40:25 AM PDT by js1138 (Well I say there are some things we don't want to know! Important things!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
So, there is no conclusive evidence to show whether the earth is 4 billion or 40,000 years old. In respect to creationism and chaos theory of creation, it's mostly educated speculation.

So when you turn your back does that part of the world dissapear? I hate to be the one to tell you this, but ALL OF SCIENCE is built on "speculation" (but not in the way you are using it).

And I know of no "chaos theory of creation." What is it?

198 posted on 08/02/2006 10:43:15 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: phoenix0468
the aging systems that we use today are inaccurate after only a few thousand years.... there is no conclusive evidence to show whether the earth is 4 billion or 40,000 years old.

There are several radiometric methods of dating the earth and/or the time of various geological events, such as volcanoes (Potassium-Argon method.) They are accurate back millions and billions of years.

Radio carbon dating is just one of many, but it has particular use for dating the bodies of living things in the last 30,000 years. Other radiometrics are useful in dating the time of creation of strata. The layering of strata, in a similar fashion to tree rings, defines the age of the things embedded in them.

Several methods converge on the same age of the earth, being about 4 billion years old. So yes, there is plenty of hard evidence that the earth is 4 billion and not 40,000 years old.

199 posted on 08/02/2006 10:43:37 AM PDT by Dracian
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 123 | View Replies]

To: MHGinTN

Why did you ping JR? Can't handle a little skepticism?

Lots of people on this site are atheists, agnostics, a few Hindus and Buddhists, etc.

Being a Bible-thumper is not a requirement to being a Conservative. Conservatism is a rational-based philosophy (as opposed to a feeling-based philosophy). If you define yourself by what you believe, and define others based on what you believe, then you are limited in your ability to conduct rational thinking.


200 posted on 08/02/2006 10:48:55 AM PDT by freedumb2003 (A Conservative will die for individual freedom. A Liberal will kill you for the good of society.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250 ... 301-343 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