Where was God on 9/11?
- Thread starter Pako
- 319 comments
- 9,329 views
Originally posted by NASCARnut
Just because you can't find me on Google doesn't mean I don't exist.
"Nine-tenths of the talk of evolutionists is sheer nonsense, not founded on observation and wholly unsupported by facts. This museum is full of proofs of the utter falsity of their views. In all this great museum, there is not a particle of evidence of the transmutation of species." (Dr. Etheridge, Paleontologist of the British Museum)
"I reject evolution because I deem it obsolete; because the knowledge, hard won since 1830, of anatomy, histology, cytology, and embryology, cannot be made to accord with its basic idea. The foundationless, fantastic edifice of the evolution doctrine would long ago have met with its long- deserved fate were it not that the love of fairy tales is so deep-rooted in the hearts of man." (Dr. Albert Fleischmann, University of Erlangen)
"By the late 1970s, debates on university campuses throughout the free world were being held on the subject of origins with increasing frequency. Hundreds of scientists, who once accepted the theory of evolution as fact, were abandoning ship and claiming that the scientific evidence was in total support of the theory of creation. Well-known evolutionists, such as Isaac Asimov and Stephen Jay Gould, were stating that, since the creationist scientists had won all of the more than one hundred debates, the evolutionists should not debate them." (Luther Sunderland, "Darwin's Enigma", p.10)
"I have come to the conclusion that Darwinism is not a testable scientific theory, but a metaphysical research programme... (Dr. Karl Popper, German-born philosopher of science, called by Nobel Prize-winner Peter Medawar, "incomparably the greatest philosopher of science who has ever lived.")
"What is so frustrating for our present purpose is that it seems almost impossible to give any numerical value to the probability of what seems a rather unlikely sequence of events... An honest man, armed with all the knowledge available to us now, could only state that in some sense, the origin of life appears at the moment to be almost a miracle... (Dr. Francis Crick, Nobel Prize-winner, codiscoverer of DNA)
"Once we see, however, that the probability of life originating at random is so utterly minuscule as to make it absurd, it becomes sensible to think that the favorable properties of physics, on which life depends, are in every respect DELIBERATE... It is therefore, almost inevitable that our own measure of intelligence must reflect higher intelligences.. even to the limit of God." (Sir Fred Hoyle, British mathematician and astronomer, and Chandra Wickramasinghe, co-authors of "Evolution from Space," after acknowledging that they had been atheists all their lives)
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged in this way is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk-yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein... I am at a loss to understand biologists' widespread compulsion to deny what seems to me to be obvious." (Sir Fred Hoyle)
"The fossil record with its abrupt transitions offers no support for gradual change..." (Dr. Stephen Jay Gould, famous Harvard Professor of Paleontology)
Read post 178, please.
These three can get you started...
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021115065518.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1994/r&r9408b.htm
http://www.kcfs.org/fliers/evolution_proof_layout2.pdf (PDF file, but good)
http://www.mala.bc.ca/~johnstoi/essays/courtenay1.htm
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2002/11/021115065518.htm
http://www.apologeticspress.org/rr/rr1994/r&r9408b.htm
http://www.kcfs.org/fliers/evolution_proof_layout2.pdf (PDF file, but good)
- 820
no matter how many proof i can show to any of you,i can't no make you believe if you don't want it.
like someone said (don't remember who) there are a lot translations to the bible so you can't have one 100 % acurated translation (or interpretation) of it.
no matter how you call it:jah, god, silasalasy ,jehova ,dios,mahoma,migthy ,lord,god bless you all the time. (i'm the living proof of it)
(note may that is out of the topic and you could find it stupid but) who see the bob marley concert: he was jaming on the name of the lord ( i don't remember what he said ) and guess what the migthy god show he's presence. (if you don't believe or just didn't see the video hurry up and look for it. may be you wi'll)
like someone said (don't remember who) there are a lot translations to the bible so you can't have one 100 % acurated translation (or interpretation) of it.
no matter how you call it:jah, god, silasalasy ,jehova ,dios,mahoma,migthy ,lord,god bless you all the time. (i'm the living proof of it)
(note may that is out of the topic and you could find it stupid but) who see the bob marley concert: he was jaming on the name of the lord ( i don't remember what he said ) and guess what the migthy god show he's presence. (if you don't believe or just didn't see the video hurry up and look for it. may be you wi'll)
- 209
This thread sucks. 👎
- 197
Originally posted by NASCARnut
http://www.otweb.com/blog/index.php?p=36
http://christiananswers.net/q-eden/genetic-mutations.html
Just a couple more.
...gonna put a stop to this right now...
WEB SITES PUT TOGETHER BY CREATIONISTS ABOUT CREATION ARE IN NO WAY FAIR TO BOTH SIDES OF THE ISSUE.
See post 191...
- 6,977
- old-guy64
How do we know that there is such a page at all?Originally posted by DODGE the VIPER
OK, how do we know we're not missing the first page of the bible that says "this is an entirely fake book, please don't take it seriously"?
We have archeological proof that the ark (Noah, not Indiana Jones) existed. (However, I believe that the Ark of the Covenant existed also.)
We have rocket scientists unable to hit the moon with unmanned rockets until somebody thought to calculate in the three hours the sun stopped moving mentioned in the Bible.
In the long run, when you add in hope, and the promise of an "afterlife" where there is no suffering on one hand, and anguish on the other... If there is no Heaven, what is our reason for being good? What defines morality if there is no "rule book"?
I'll go on and believe, if you don't mind.
I'll go as far as to ask you to accompany me to worship. But, I won't try to "split your wig" with my Bible.
Well who else would put a creationist site together? An athiest?
An evolutionist?
All you did was to state the obvious about who put the sites together.
If I am the president of American Airlines I don't put together a site that talks about how good USAir is just so it's fair to both companies.
My first link was from Malaspina University, in British Columbia, which is in no way biased.
The second link was to a science journal that reports the results of research. If you read it, that's exactly what my link shows it doing. It's in no way biased.
The third link is a website started in order to defend the Old Testament, so it is biased, in your favor.
The fourth link is "KCFS," or "Kansan Citizens For Science." The study itself is not biased.
The second link was to a science journal that reports the results of research. If you read it, that's exactly what my link shows it doing. It's in no way biased.
The third link is a website started in order to defend the Old Testament, so it is biased, in your favor.
The fourth link is "KCFS," or "Kansan Citizens For Science." The study itself is not biased.
- 209
I knew I liked you for some reason...
When we can agree that something sucks, it must truly suck.
Never heard of these, and I was just watching a show about a year ago about the (unsuccessful) search for evidence of the Ark. Can you back these up at all, without going to a site founded by creationists (the second, especially, which should be documented by NASA or some other source).
Oh, but you know that would be those Liberals in their ivory tower, and you know they're all creationists, so it's totally biased.
- 209
Yeah, didn't you know, Canada doesn't have conservatives.
At least, not 'American' conservatives. I think it's something like 9 Canadian conservatives equal 1 American conservative.
At least, not 'American' conservatives. I think it's something like 9 Canadian conservatives equal 1 American conservative.
If it is a site on evolution and it supports evolution it doesn't matter what they call themselves. They can be scientist or college professors they are still evolutionist. In the same way you say that Creation web sites are made by Creationist. They are both bias towards what they are trying to prove or disprove. I wouldn't expect anything else.
There are scientist professors that don't believe in evolution the same as there are scientist and professors that do.
So let's just say that neither side has come up with deffinate proof either way. (theory)
What bothers me about the whole thing is that evolution is still taught in classrooms as fact. I know when my son begins to be taught evolution I will be attending the school board meeting as I usually do and confront them about at least teaching that evolution has never been proven and is still a scientific theory.
I will also push to have them introduce other beliefs on the subject or not teach on the subject at all. Other schools have dropped that subject all together for this very reason. Neither has been proven.
There are scientist professors that don't believe in evolution the same as there are scientist and professors that do.
So let's just say that neither side has come up with deffinate proof either way. (theory)
What bothers me about the whole thing is that evolution is still taught in classrooms as fact. I know when my son begins to be taught evolution I will be attending the school board meeting as I usually do and confront them about at least teaching that evolution has never been proven and is still a scientific theory.
I will also push to have them introduce other beliefs on the subject or not teach on the subject at all. Other schools have dropped that subject all together for this very reason. Neither has been proven.
- 24,344
- Midlantic Area
- GTP_Duke
DGB, unfortunately you're coming at this with some misperceptions. Evolution is not taught as 'fact' in the same way that, say, Newton's Laws of Physical Motion are represented as fact. Evolution, in every case I've ever seen, has been presented as a theory - a continually-refined, science-based explanation of the physical evidence as it has been observed.
There is a very real and important difference between a fact - "An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force", a theory - "It appears from studying both fossil records and living species of plant and animal life that those species have evolved over the course of millions of years, and some may share common ancestors", and a myth - "God created Heaven and Earth and all the living things in 6 days, and on the 7th day He rested."
If you say that Evolution is taught as a fact, and that Creationism is a theory, then I respectfully submit that you need to understand the definitions of those words more precisely.
There is a very real and important difference between a fact - "An object at rest will remain at rest unless acted upon by an external force", a theory - "It appears from studying both fossil records and living species of plant and animal life that those species have evolved over the course of millions of years, and some may share common ancestors", and a myth - "God created Heaven and Earth and all the living things in 6 days, and on the 7th day He rested."
If you say that Evolution is taught as a fact, and that Creationism is a theory, then I respectfully submit that you need to understand the definitions of those words more precisely.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
Were the differences in education is evident is how this theory is presented. In the public schools in Hawaii when I was there, the concepts that were taught were taught as fact. Let me explain what I mean. In explaining Darwin's Evolution Theory, it was said by the teacher and in the curricullum, that man evolved from apes. (This is a summary of course) Now to me, being a young and impressionalble mind, would take that statement as fact. That fact states that man, humans, us, did in fact evolve from apes. It was never taught in the context of statements that would enforce that it is a theory. In stating it as a theory, to better distinguish it from fact, it would have better been presented as, "Man might have evolved from apes according to Darwin's Theory."
There is a big difference between these two approaches. I've been out of the public school system for eleven years now, and perhaps the material is more careful when discribing these Theorys.
I remember from school that creation was never brought up only evolution. I'm saying that when you teach that the myth of evolution is the only answer it doesn't matter if you call it a theory. It is the only thing taught.I am saying that it's ok to teach evolution but it needs to be taught along with creationism or not taught at all. That is not being done in most schools.
I understand the definitions of those words by the way.
Pako
Staff Emeritus
- 16,450
- NW Montana
- GTP-Pako
- GTP Pako
A point that neon_duke made some while back is that he has no problems with teaching creation in a Mythology class, but should not be taught in science.
My point is that the ultimate goal is to discover the origin of man, and where we came from. This is a topic that I feel cannot be explained by science alone.
My point is that the ultimate goal is to discover the origin of man, and where we came from. This is a topic that I feel cannot be explained by science alone.
Similar threads
- Poll
