24 Nov 04
Originally posted by gumbieNot if all the people copying it are divinely inspired by the Lord God Almighty, brother!! No spell check or fact check needed; like running it off at your local Kinko's' just 2000 years early!!
Hand copying a long text such as the bible will only be accurate for about five copies. After that you will only be looking at errors.
24 Nov 04
Just part way into the the first page and already debunking evolution. For all the creationists who think that creationism deserves time in science class in the public schools, can you please give us the model or scientific theory associated with creationism?
Please give us something a little more specific than just, "Goddunnit!" or "some intelligent designer (not necessarily my god, although I'd like you to think so) made everything."
Tell how when and how different species arose and the vehicle for their change over time (if they have changed at all); and as we raise objections, demonstrate how your theory is not only impervious to the emperical critiques, but actually accounts for and is strengthened by the data.
24 Nov 04
Originally posted by KellyJayYes, according to the TOE I and most other evolutionists feel is probably an accurate model of how life arose, elephants and grass did share a common ancestor.
I doubt that too, but they do claim somewhere down the line they
were once a simple cell or something along those lines, as all life
grass and elephants included. If evolution is true, then without a
doubt grass and elephants shared an ancestor. Besides, how do
you know that isn’t the case if evolution is true?
Kelly
I don't know that elephants didn't evolve from grass. The evidence that supports the TOE doesn't support that claim however, so I don't think it's likely. There is only a very basic similarity and a lot of dissimilarity in the two organisms such that they probably divergered early on in the evolutionary process.
I think you made the claim about elephants and grass to imply that evolutionists make that claim too, which is misleading.
24 Nov 04
2 edits
Originally posted by KellyJay
Who has told you creationism is a valid scientific theory? Creation is
an event while evolution is supposedly a process that was, is, and will
always be occurring throughout life’s existence. Seeing how again
creation was an event I am not sure any explanation is possible that
would fit what anyone could call a scientific explanation.
If it is to be taught in science class as an alternative to the theory of evolution, then it should be viewed as a hypothesis. If it is not possible for it to be a scientific explaination than it does not belong is a science class.
PS I know you haven't said anything specifically about putting it into science class.
24 Nov 04
Originally posted by KellyJay"The Biblical Book of Genesis implies a short creation period on earth a relatively short time ago. The existence of long-lived radio-isotopes together with large amounts of the daughter products in the some rocks, indicates that those rocks are much older than any reasonable Genesis interpretation. The non-existence, in nature, of all radio-isotopes with half lives of less than 4.5 million years (with the exceptions of a few that are being continually produced by natural nuclear reactions - such as carbon-14) implies that the earth is so old that they have simply ceased to exist."
So tell me, how do you know all your dating methods are correct?
They suit your preconceived ideas on how old the earth is, does
that have anything to do with it? It isn’t like you have known
items that are actually without a doubt known to be 40 thousand
years old, let alone a few million or billion years old. So you have
several different tests, all ...[text shortened]... g
they tell you accept with another bag of bones being thrown on another
animal skin.
Kelly
Source:http://www.island.net/~rjbw/opinions3.html
Some bag of chicken bones! 🙂
24 Nov 04
Originally posted by KneverKnightLike I said, 4.5 million years and you know what you are looking at
"The Biblical Book of Genesis implies a short creation period on earth a relatively short time ago. The existence of long-lived radio-isotopes together with large amounts of the daughter products in the some rocks, indicates that those rocks are much older than any reasonable Genesis interpretation. The non-existence, in nature, of all radio-isotopes w ...[text shortened]... to exist."
Source:http://www.island.net/~rjbw/opinions3.html
Some bag of chicken bones! 🙂
means this because you have something you know is 4.5 million
years old for comparison? Much like evolution, it is always million
or billions of years with your proof/evidence. Yea, some bag of bones
you have there.
Kelly
24 Nov 04
Originally posted by gumbieYou know I'll take a scribes copy as, as good as it gets, that was what
If you can't see my point you prove my point.
they did! Now later we run into issues when scribes were not at the
center of all the copies, and then we run into issues with language
too.
Kelly
24 Nov 04
Originally posted by KellyJayOK, what is a reasonable Genesis interpretation?
Like I said, 4.5 million years and you know what you are looking at
means this because you have something you know is 4.5 million
years old for comparison? Much like evolution, it is always million
or billions of years with your proof/evidence. Yea, some bag of bones
you have there.
Kelly
24 Nov 04
Originally posted by AThousandYoungI believe if you read what I said,
Yes, according to the TOE I and most other evolutionists feel is probably an accurate model of how life arose, elephants and grass did share a common ancestor.
I don't know that elephants didn't evolve from grass. The evidence that supports the TOE doesn't support that claim however, so I don't think it's likely. There is only a very basic s ...[text shortened]... about elephants and grass to imply that evolutionists make that claim too, which is misleading.
"Yes, I do believe they can change but not turn into something
something completely different like a blade of grass into an elephant
through the time line."
I did not say that elephants came from grass as you can see, it was
simply speaking about change in general. I do acknowledge there can
be change within species, but not so grand as an elephant and grass.
There was no attempt to mislead.
Kelly
24 Nov 04
Originally posted by telerionI don't like the idea of scripture being taught in school for all the
Originally posted by KellyJay
[b]Who has told you creationism is a valid scientific theory? Creation is
an event while evolution is supposedly a process that was, is, and will
always be occurring throughout life’s existence. Seeing how again
creation was an event I am not sure any explanation is possible that
would fit what anyone could call a s ...[text shortened]... class.
PS I know you haven't said anything specifically about putting it into science class.
reasons you have against it too. I don't even care that evolution
is taught, but not as a fact as some here have claimed it was. There
are areas of it where there are grand assumptions being made, I would
only like to see those acknowledged as well. Teach the kids critial
thinking, they will figure out the truth on thier own.
Kelly
24 Nov 04
Originally posted by KellyJayWe are in complete agreement!
I don't like the idea of scripture being taught in school for all the
reasons you have against it too. I don't even care that evolution
is taught, but not as a fact as some here have claimed it was. There
are areas of it where there are grand assumptions being made, I would
only like to see those acknowledged as well. Teach the kids critial
thinking, they will figure out the truth on thier own.
Kelly
I was never taught the fact of evolution in school. It was always referred to as the theory of evolution and I believe it still is.