Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
Then where is the ref or link?
Jose Fly
New member
Oh brother. You do realize the word "sarchasm" didn't originate with the Urban Dictionary, don't you? It's on about 84,000 websites.
6days
New member
Well... computing machines were invented by Charles Babbage somewhere around 1840. He said that science was a necessary and indispensable preparation to the understanding and interpreting the wisdom and goodness of the Divine Author.seehigh said:
Yes... Biology, microbiology and genetics helps us see the truth in God's Word.seehigh said:
For example Dr. Anrde Eggen (geneticist) says "Being a creationist, I found it fascinating to study what God did in six days, particularly in my field, genetics. I find it marvelous to discover how God used the genetic codes to inscript life—so brilliant, so amazing. "
Geologist Emil Silvestru says "seehigh said:
1.Given exceptional conditions (e.g. the Genesis Flood) geological processes that take an extremely long time today can be unimaginably accelerated.
2.The Genesis Flood was global, not regional.
‘These factors were immensely important in my conversion and my Christian life. I am now convinced of six-day, literal, recent, Genesis creation. That doesn't mean that there are not still some unanswered problems, but researching such issues is what being a scientist is all about.’
Archaeologist, Sir William Ramsay thought that the Book of Luke would be the easiest book of the Bible to disprove. He along with his archaeological team set out to Asia Minor to prove the Bible wrong. But... a funny thing happened. "Ramsay became so overwhelmed with the evidence he eventually converted to Christianity"seehigh said:
Ramsey wrote:
"I began with a mind unfavorable to it...but more recently I found myself brought into contact with the Book of Acts as an authority for the topography, antiquities, and society of Asia Minor. It was gradually borne upon me that in various details the narrative showed marvelous truth
Luke is a historian of the first rank; not merely are his statements of fact trustworthy...this author should be placed along with the very greatest historians. "
Dr Joachim Scheven Palaeontologist, has written articles such as this one showing how paleontology helps confirm God's Word.seehigh said:
http://creation.com/spot-the-difference
The father of modern chemistry, Robert Boyle was a Biblical creationist as are some modern chemists.seehigh said:
Theo Agart, Phd medical physics says "The natural laws under which scientists work are adequate for explaining how the world functions, but are inadequate to explain its origin, just as the tools which service an automobile are inadequate for its manufacture."seehigh said:
Science for Christians should be a form of worship.
Henry "Fritz" Schaefer (Graham Perdue Professor of Chemistry and director of the Center for Computational Quantum Chemistry at the University of Georgia): "The significance and joy in my science comes in those occasional moments of discovering something new and saying to myself, 'So that's how God did it.' My goal is to understand a little corner of God's plan." 
As you see, Darwin had it right. Look up his book and go to the section on "rudimentary organs." You'll be surprised.
Nothing is ever "proven" in science. Science is mostly inductive, and so can only deal in provisional truth.
Thus the difference between God and science. God's truth is ABSOLUTE, science changes, therefore is NEVER true.
So, you confirmed where you got it so why didn't you cite it. That is the ToS here.
Well as parody is not supposed to be the topic here, we really weren't expecting it, but not surprised in actuality.
Jose Fly
New member
So every word used here has to be cited? Are you really that desperate?
Jose Fly
New member
Ah, the all-or-none mentality of the fundamentalist. "If they haven't figured everything out, then they haven't figured anything out!!" :kookoo:
Jose Fly
New member
I bet you are. :wave2:
As you wouldn't know a fundi if they came up and bit you, we can take that for what it's worth.... 0
Yep.
Barbarian observes:
Nothing is ever "proven" in science. Science is mostly inductive, and so can only deal in provisional truth.
If God were to give us all the information about nature and how to make it work for us, science would be unnecessary. But He left some things for us to find out for ourselves.
And nothing in this world works better than science for that.
Nothing is ever "proven" in science. Science is mostly inductive, and so can only deal in provisional truth.
If God were to give us all the information about nature and how to make it work for us, science would be unnecessary. But He left some things for us to find out for ourselves.
And nothing in this world works better than science for that.
Daniel1611
New member
People actually care about the debate over whether the universe is a cylinder or not? Who cares? Whatever the NASA group eventually decides, the world will believe it. NASA could say the universe is actually a giant tuna fish sandwich and the world would believe it.
They have nearly everyone convinced that they're standing on a ball that's spinning thousands of mph and flying through space at thousands of mph. People will eat up anything the NASA complex says.
They have nearly everyone convinced that they're standing on a ball that's spinning thousands of mph and flying through space at thousands of mph. People will eat up anything the NASA complex says.
It's all NASA's fault? I coulda sworn people were saying the earth was moving fast long before NASA.
Daniel1611
New member
They were but no one had anything they could pass off as hard evidence until NASA started doing its paintings Fact is, you and I gave never seen earth from space. All we have are fake pictures from NASA.
They don't have real video of earth spinning but they're deciding the shape of the entire universe now?? People are so gullible.
- Status