|
|
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,033
Member
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2004
Posts: 2,033 |
""In her recent book, Ann Coulter spewed,""
Same chick that dis'd the 9/11 widows....HMMmmmmmmm..interesting....
CORDUROY PILLOWS ARE MAKING HEADLINES!!
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816 |
FGG:
Well stated, thank you.
Assuming there IS a God... ...I would of course still have no problem with evolution being discovered 1800 years after the time of Christ and still not conflicting with the Bible.
I've been 2 Florence, and seen Galileo's telescope in the science museum there. He was still allowed 2 use it and continue his observations, even in house arrest. Judging from the places I visited in Florence, and the city itself (I never saw his residence), I think one could serve house arrest in a whole lotta worse places! Florence is a beautiful city.
At my telescope thingy that I go 2 over Memorial weekend, there was a guy there who'd built replicas of Galileo's telescopes so people could see what the views Galileo had were like....
...no WONDER he missed recognizing Neptune as a planet when it was near Jupiter in 1612! He saw it, but thought it was a star.
-ol' 2long
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,251
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,251 |
20: For ever since the world was created, people have seen the earth and sky. Through everything God made, they can clearly see his invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature. So they have no excuse for not knowing God.
Were I to take this to heart, I would spend all of my time trying to observe and understand natural phenomena, in the hopes of better knowing God.
Come to think of it, I did take it to heart. It's one of the reasons I originally went into science, though I didn't put it that way at the time. At the time, I would have said I was awestruck by the wondrous nature of the universe all around me, and wanted to understand it better.
What did I learn about God in the decade I spent studying nature? I learned that God is one heck of a mathemetician and that He ordered the universe according to an astonishingly simple -- and yet astonishingly complex -- set of rules that appear to apply everywhere and all the time. I also learned that the entirety of creation continues to unfold according to those rules, that creation is far more vast than I ever could have imagined (a lace in the sky, made of more galaxies than I can count, each one made of more stars than I can count), and also far more intricate (in each grain of sand, more atoms and molecules than I can count, each made of more kinds of subatomic particles than I can hope to understand).
My direct experience and observations do, I must admit, take precedence over almost all the book-learning I've ever done. So I'm with 2Long on this one. Observing the world around me and learning that it functions according to rules that I can understand does nothing to disprove God's existence, as far as I'm concerned. It does, however, lead me to believe that the stories our ancestors told about how we got here are probably based on too narrow and too simple a worldview to ever be accurate.
Sunny Day, Sweeping The Clouds Away...
Just J --
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,320
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,320 |
FH - I'm not so sure Occam's Razor really solves much in this type of debate. If I remember correctly, Occam's Razor generally says when presented with multiple solutions, the simplest one is generally the best. I think in this case, both creation or evolution are equally complex. I mean both concepts are easy enough to understand, but the complexity of evolution all arises when one asks how did we evolve. I suppose, if we were to ask how were we created, it would also be a complex answer. Possibly unknowable.
As to your answers, it seems to me that you are saying, in general that;
a) Their is evidence out there (non-manufactured) that supports either creation or evolution.
b) The evidence that has been analyzed has at times (or at all times?) been intrepreted incorrectly due to;
1) Bias
2) Selective testing
c) and that evidence that supports creation or discredits evolution is disregarded
Is that the general position?
Me 43 BH
MT 43 WW
Married 20 years, No Kids, 2 Difficult Cats
D-day July, 2005
4.5 False Recoveries
Me - recovered
The M - recovered
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,187
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,187 |
Here is the worldview that I CHOOSE (by FAITH) to believe:
On a beautiful Georgia morning when I drive to work with the top down, see the blue sky, see the clouds...the trees...the flowers. When I hear the birds (which amaze me that all those tiny little parts are packed into such a small body) singing....etc., I am reminded and THANKFUL that God has chosen to allow me to enjoy HIS handiwork.
Can I PROVE that my worldview is correct? No.
But...if I may say so..I fell a certain amount of remorse for those who see the same things I do and yet see them as nothing more than "accidents".
Formerly G.G. and Jeb
Me: BS 50
She: xW 50
Jeb: Mini Schnauzer
Married: 29 yrs
Children: MM25, MM23
Plan B - 12/06/04
Divorced - 11/17/05
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,693
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 2,693 |
This thread is very interesting. This thread has become a microcosim of society.
Groups of people with different beliefs trying to prove they are right. LOL.
I can't see where either side is getting anywhere.
If my memory serves me correct many of wars were started over religion.
I cannot see either side making headway here. It actually seems to be polarizing people that for quite some time have been working together for a common good.
I sincerely hope this thread does not cause damage to relationships that have been built here trying to help others through the pain they are going through.
The people posting here have given so much good advice and I really hope that the effort you are giving this thread is not taking away from helping others.
Just my .02 cents.
The thing that really bothers me is this thread was a spin off of a thread that was started by someone that came to MB to stir the pot. I guess Kinger was succesfull in doing so. I wonder if he is studying this thread for his group think paper.
BS 38
FWW 35
D Day 10/03
Recovery started 11/06
3 boys 12, 8 and a new baby
When life hands you lemons make lemonade then try to find the person life hands vodka and have a party.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Feb 2002
Posts: 10,816 |
Here is the worldview that I CHOOSE (by FAITH) to believe:
On a beautiful Georgia morning when I drive to work with the top down, see the blue sky, see the clouds...the trees...the flowers. When I hear the birds (which amaze me that all those tiny little parts are packed into such a small body) singing....etc., I am reminded and THANKFUL that God has chosen to allow me to enjoy HIS handiwork.
Can I PROVE that my worldview is correct? No.
But...if I may say so..I fell a certain amount of remorse for those who see the same things I do and yet see them as nothing more than "accidents". Ah, interesting! And if I told you that I do very nearly the same exact thing as I walk from the parking lot on my way in2 work in the morning, across the arroyo, watching all the birds, bunny rabbits, Lynxes, and lizards, and don't have much the same thoughts you do? I just go straight 2 my concept of the source of all that (you can call it God, I have no problem with that). I don't do religion, but I am spiri2al. -ol' 2long
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 245
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 245 |
There never seems to be a good point to insert my questions, but I’m going to jump in and ask anyway.
As I understand it, radiometric dating uses the empirically-measured half-life of various isotopes to calculate the time needed to produce the ratio of the different isotopes found in the article under test.
Don’t the testers have to make assumptions about what the original composition of the test article was?
What is the rationale behind the assumptions about the original composition?
If the test article originally contained, say, 5% less of the heaviest isotope than commonly assumed, how much effect would that have on its calculated age?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060 |
But...if I may say so..I fell a certain amount of remorse for those who see the same things I do and yet see them as nothing more than "accidents". I, for one, can respect that point of view. Everyday I try to admire a wonder of the natural world. Keep in mind that different folks have different concepts of the diety. One view - sorta a Jeffersonian Diest - says that the diety devised how it should all go, kick started it, and has not bothered it since. When did this sort of scheme result in stuff going from intent to accident? I recently read a rather, in my opinion, strained explanation that the nature of solar eclipses here on earth is "proof" of devine design. They're sooooooo beautiful and rare in the universe - having a moon and a sun about the same apparent size - that this is just tooooo coincidental to have happened by accident. Well, I appreciate the recognition of how rare this is. I'm very fortunate to have seen a total solar eclipse in Va. Beach in March 1969. I will never forget it. It's the single most memorable natural phenomena I've ever witnessed - with the possible exception of seeing Mary Sue fall out of her bathing suit top playing beach volleyball when I was 14. But here's the rub regarding solar eclipses being of devine design. They weren't always like that and won't be like that in the future because the moon is gradually moving farther away from the earth. We're lucky - IMHO - to have the chance now to see them. Pure accident, because it's a transient phenomena. Should the folks in the future argue that having a moon whose apparent size is too small to do a "perfect" eclipse be proof that there's no diety? - otherwise, He/She/It would not have made the moon so small? I think not. "Accidents" work both ways. GG - did you observe the news reports of the Dec. 2004 tsunami? Accident? How about the sheer beauty of a funnel cloud - right before it reaches the ground and destroys a home? And what about the extremely efficient and effective seal killing machine that is an Orca or a polar bear? Each a wonder to respect of either creation or an "accident." Gotta take the bad along with the good, the ugly along with the beautiful, huh? WAT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060 |
There never seems to be a good point to insert my questions, but I’m going to jump in and ask anyway.
As I understand it, radiometric dating uses the empirically-measured half-life of various isotopes to calculate the time needed to produce the ratio of the different isotopes found in the article under test.
Don’t the testers have to make assumptions about what the original composition of the test article was?
What is the rationale behind the assumptions about the original composition?
If the test article originally contained, say, 5% less of the heaviest isotope than commonly assumed, how much effect would that have on its calculated age? smidge - I'll offer some info on this is you can wait until tomorrow. I assure you I'm qualified to do so. 2long probably is as well. He's a geologist, I'm a nuke. But first, I need to warn you that there are two schools of thought you may come across out there. Unfortunately, there's a "Christian Apologetic" version of radiometric dating. I swear I am not making this up. Google it and see for yourself. This is the case, I believe, because radiometric dating must be particularly threatening to some. It turns on its head the belief of a young earth, consistent with some biblical interpretations. All sorts of mental gymnastics take place to either 1) discredit the "science" of radiometric dating or 2) argue that isotopic decay rates have varied over time - indicating that stuff is older than it really is. That said, a very good web site, Radiometric Dating, A Christian Perspective clearly reveals that the "threat" isn't universal among Christians. So which do you want to know about? BTW, similar mental gymnastics take place regarding the speed of light. Pretty scarry stuff. WAT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,320
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,320 |
It may sound kind of corny, but this is a good model I use for these kinds of discussions. It helps me keep things from breaking down. The meeting of two minds may consist in their understanding of one another while still in disagreement or it may consist in their coming into agreement as a result of their understanding one another.
All impersonal conversations, whether theoretical or practical in aim, should strive to conclude with a meeting of minds in one or the other form in which that can be achieved.
Practical conversations are often unsuccessful because misunderstanding prevents them from reaching a decision. Even with sufficient understanding present, disagreement can block the way to action.
Theoretical conversations that engage persons in the pursuit of objective truth about a certain matter may not end with a meeting of minds but may still be profitable for all concerned. The pursuit of objective truth is a long, arduous, and difficult enterprise. A good conversation may help the individuals engaged in it to make some advance toward their goal, but it will seldom if ever enable them to reach it with finality and incorrigibility.
About any matter of objective truth, the ultimate goal is universal agreement, but about certain matters of this sort, it may take until the end of time to achieve it. The pursuit of truth has many stages. At each stage progress may be made and yet still fall short of the goal aimed at.
With these general observations noted and heeded, let us consider how persons engaged in such conversations or discussions should proceed with regard to achieving understanding and agreement, at least pro tem, if not for all time.
The first rule to be followed is this. Do not disagree -- or, for that matter, do not agree -- with anyone else unless you are sure you understand the position the other person is taking. To disagree before you understand is impertinent. To agree is inane.
To make sure that you understand, before you disagree, exercise the courtesy of asking the other person the following question: "Do I understand you to say that . . . ?" Fill in the blank by phrasing in your own words what you think you hear the other person saying. He may respond to this by saying to you, "No, that is not what I said or not what I meant. My position is as follows." Then, after the other person has restated his position for you, you should once again try to state in your own words what you have understood the other to say. If the other still dissents from your interpretation, you must continue with the question and answer procedure until the other tells you that you have at last caught the point, that you understand him precisely as he wishes to be understood. Only then do you have the grounds indispensable for intelligent and reasonable disagreement or agreement.
This procedure is time consuming. It requires patience and persistence. Most people anxious to get on with the discussion bypass it. They are willing to risk being impertinent or inane by disagreeing or agreeing with what they do not understand. They are satisfied with merely apparent disagreements or agreements, instead of seeking a genuine meeting of minds.
Real as opposed to apparent agreement occurs when two persons, concerned with a certain question to be answered, understand that question in exactly the same way yet give incompatible answers to the question on which their minds meet in mutual understanding.
Apparent as opposed to real disagreement occurs when two persons, concerned with a certain question, do not understand that question in exactly the same way. When their minds have not met in mutual understanding of the question, the incompatible answers they give to it constitutes a difference of opinion that is not a genuine disagreement, even though it may appear to be such. Real disagreement occurs only when, with their minds meeting in mutual understanding of the question, they then give incompatible answers to it.
When two persons find themselves in real disagreement, a meeting of minds about that very disagreement still remains to be achieved. It takes the form of understanding their disagreement. To achieve this, each must forsake partisanship with regard to his own position, and substitute for it a kind of impartiality with respect to the position taken by the other person. What I mean by an attitude of impartiality is trying to understand why the other individual holds the view he does. Each person should not only be able to state the position of the other in a manner that the other approves, he should also be able to state the other person's reasons for holding that view.
All of us should be aware of the moral obligation that the pursuit of objective truth imposes upon us. If we find ourselves in real disagreement with others, we should be tireless in our effort to resolve that disagreement. We should never desist from trying to overcome it and reach agreement.
If you find yourself in genuine disagreement with the position taken by another, you should be able to explain the grounds of your disagreement, by saying one or more of the following things.
1. "I think you hold that position because you are uninformed about certain facts or reasons that have a critical bearing on it." Then be prepared to point out the information you think the other lacks and which, if possessed, would result in a change of mind.
2. "I think you hold that position because you are misinformed about matters that are critically relevant." Then be prepared to indicate the mistakes the other has made, which, if corrected, would lead the other to abandon the position taken.
3. "I think you are sufficiently well informed and have a firm grasp of the evidence and reasons that support your position, but you have drawn the wrong conclusions from your premises because you have made mistakes in reasoning. You have made fallacious inferences." Then be ready to point out those logical errors which, if corrected, would bring the other person to a different conclusion.
4. "I think you have made none of the foregoing errors and that you have proceeded by sound reasoning from adequate grounds for the conclusion you have reached, but I also think that your thinking about the subject is incomplete. You should have gone further than you did and reached other conclusions that somewhat alter or qualify the one you did reach." Then be able to point out what these other conclusions are and how they alter or qualify the position taken by the person with whom you disagree.
If a particular conversation ends with understood agreement about a matter of objective truth, we should not regard that as finishing the matter. More remains to be done in an effort to understand the presuppositions and implications of the agreement reached. If it ends with understood disagreement, more also remains to be done.
The cautionary remark that is relevant here consists in the advice that there is another time and place for pushing matters further. Stop for the time being and return to the subject on another day. This is especially sound advice if a conversation reaches an impasse, as many conversations do when their duration is too limited.
Finally, let me say that good conversation calls for an exercise of moral virtue. It requires the fortitude needed to take the pains necessary to make it good. It requires the temperance needed for a moderation of one's passions. Above all, it requires the justice needed to give the other person his due.
Excerpted from Dr. Adler's book How To Speak, How To Listen This is why I am asking FH some questions. I simply want to be sure I understand the position before stating any agreement or disagreement.
Me 43 BH
MT 43 WW
Married 20 years, No Kids, 2 Difficult Cats
D-day July, 2005
4.5 False Recoveries
Me - recovered
The M - recovered
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015
Member
|
|
OP
Member
Joined: May 2002
Posts: 9,015 |
FH - I'm not so sure Occam's Razor really solves much in this type of debate. If I remember correctly, Occam's Razor generally says when presented with multiple solutions, the simplest one is generally the best. I think in this case, both creation or evolution are equally complex. I mean both concepts are easy enough to understand, but the complexity of evolution all arises when one asks how did we evolve. I suppose, if we were to ask how were we created, it would also be a complex answer. Possibly unknowable. rprynne - Not trying to "solve" anything. I'm merely stating, for example, that when examining the evidence, let's say the fossils, which Model might "best" fit what is actually found with a minimum of "explanations" for what is actually found. As to your answers, it seems to me that you are saying, in general that;
a) Their is evidence out there (non-manufactured) that supports either creation or evolution.
b) The evidence that has been analyzed has at times (or at all times?) been intrepreted incorrectly due to;
1) Bias
2) Selective testing
c) and that evidence that supports creation or discredits evolution is disregarded
Is that the general position? No, that's not the "general position." a) Their is evidence out there (non-manufactured) that supports either creation or evolution. Facts are "neutral." They are facts. They neither "support" the creation model or the evolution model. HOW one chooses to interpret or "assign" them is determined to a large extent by the presuppositions of the investigator. For example, the fossils are the fossils. They can be "assigned" to a supposed "Age" based upon the presupposition of evolution as the "cause" for how dinosaurs came into being in the first place and the "supposed" geologic column that is supposed to evidence "millions of years." The reference used in most cases is the "geologic column." So the validity of the geologic column and how it was "established" needs to be examined if it is to be used to "date" fossil bearing rock. b) The evidence that has been analyzed has at times (or at all times?) been intrepreted incorrectly due to; 1) Bias At times, yes. Bias against creation or biblical revelation of a Great Flood and it's attendant argument against Uniformitarianism as a foundational tenet of evolutionary theory. In short, the evidence is "interpreted" by accepting ONLY natural processes in operation today as the reason for what is found and rejection "out of hand" that a creator might have been involved. This is a key "Reason" why evolutionists "jihadically" resist any idea of teaching creation as ONE model of how things got here. Perhaps not very "scientific" to reject theories out of hand, but it's easier to hide behind the notion that "evolution" is "science" and "creation" is "not science." Neither one IS "science." They are MODELS of how things may have gotten here that science can test the found FACTS against for "best fit with what the Model would 'predict' should be found." 2) Selective testing More along the lines of selective interpretation of test results and filtering out or dismissing results that don't support evolution or that casts serious questions about the validity of the test(s) employed as a reliable test in every case that it is used and one that can be used to definitively prove something to the exclusion of any alternatives. Radiometric dating would be one example of this sort of thing. c) and that evidence that supports creation or discredits evolution is disregarded This happens all the time as evidence is ONLY interpreted as supporting evolution and any possibility that it might "better" support creation and global catastrophism is "rejected out of hand" because it would "call into question" many other presuppositions that are needed to support the evolution model. Let me give you one brief example, without going into details at this time. The tallest mountain in the world is Mt. Everest. At the top of Mt. Everest are found fossils in sedimentary rock. Whence came these fossils? How did they get there? The FACT that they ARE there would indicate that at one point Mt. Everest was covered in water and the fossils were buried in the waterborne sediment (to say nothing about how the animals GOT to the top of the mountain in the first place). How does one interpret their "getting there?" Which Model might more reasonably predict what is actually found? NEITHER model, it would seem, would be able to "support" Mt. Everest being under water so that the sediments could be deposited IF Mt. Everest were the same in the past as it is today. NEITHER a "local catastrophic flood" nor the "Great Flood" of Noah would be able to support covering Mt. Everest (and obviously everything lower than it) at it's present altitude. Water seeks it's own level lacking something to constrain it. So SOMETHING must have been "different" in the past and NOT uniform to what we have today. But "the Present is the key to the Past" assumes that all is as it always was. Hence, things like this have caused most evolutionists to move away from Uniformitarianism and toward "periodic catastrophism" as a "new way" to try to explain what is actually seen, rather than consider that the Great Flood could just as easily, or better, explain WHY the fossils are found all over the world and in some "unusual" places. The creation model does not have that problem, it PREDICTS that what is found SHOULD be found if conditions on earth WERE different "pre Great Flood" and radically altered as a result of the Great Flood.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,187
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,187 |
WAT..one of the age old questions is why bad things happen to good people (and conversely, why does good things happen to bad people?).
Death by tsunami?
Cancer in a child?
Car crash killing a father/mother/child.
Terrorist killing 3,000 otherwise non-intertwined people.
Some will want to come to the table and argue that they know why..and they'll use the sin nature of Adam, the fall of the world, etc. The best, most honest answer, IMO, is we don't know why things happen the way they do.
However, I will offer the following:
“.. He causes his sun to rise on the evil and the good, and sends rain on the righteous and the unrighteous” Matthew 5:45
Formerly G.G. and Jeb
Me: BS 50
She: xW 50
Jeb: Mini Schnauzer
Married: 29 yrs
Children: MM25, MM23
Plan B - 12/06/04
Divorced - 11/17/05
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060 |
Well, I lost my second son to cancer and I know exactly why - he was unlucky. The incidence of his disease is known to be consistent worldwide across all ethnic and social borders and is attributed to a second genetic mutation paired with a common, normally benign one. Purely a chance occurance. An accident. I am comfortable with this. If his fate was otherwise determined by a diety, I'd be mad as he11. WAT ------------------- Remember the benefits of evolutionary biology the next time you visit your doctor and he orders an EKG and blood tests instead of chanting incantations and shaking colored beads over your head.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,187
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 2,187 |
Formerly G.G. and Jeb
Me: BS 50
She: xW 50
Jeb: Mini Schnauzer
Married: 29 yrs
Children: MM25, MM23
Plan B - 12/06/04
Divorced - 11/17/05
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712 |
In her recent book, Ann Coulter spewed, "Liberals' creation myth is Charles Darwin's theory of evolution, which is about one notch above Scientology in scientific rigor. It's a make-believe story, based on a theory that is a tautology, with no proof in the scientist's laboratory or the fossil record - and that's after 150 years of very determined looking. We wouldn't still be talking about it but for the fact that liberals think evolution disproves God." emphasis added I don't agree with either Anne nor FH and MM on this point. But I wouldn't have expected FH and MM to line up with the liberals. <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/grin.gif" alt="" /> WAT Are you calling me a liberal?? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Them are fighting words! In His arms.
Standing in His PresenceFBS (me) (48) FWW (41) Married April 1993... 4 kids (19(B), 17(G), 14(B), 4(B)) Blessed by God more than I deserve "If Jesus is your co-pilot...you need to change seats!"Link: The Roles of Husbands and Wives
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712 |
MM:
"Not suprisingly, I also believe that if the Bible were proven false, that God would cease to be truthful...and become a liar."
Why do you and FH believe that we're trying 2 prove the Bible "false?" Here's what I believe...I believe that, as FH said...there are only two answers. Either God was right (by extension, Jesus was right)...or they werent. We have said it before that if you start with Jesus, then this all becomes clear. If Jesus isnt who he said He was, then evolution and whatever else is possible. And maybe even a different god or beings. But if Jesus was not a nut case or liar...if He was who He said He was...then the Bible is truth because Jesus said it was truth. Here's the logic...if Jesus was who He said He was (God), then if He said the Old Testament books were the Word of God...then they are the Word of God. Otherwise that would make Jesus a liar! So, my world view starts with the question: who do you say that I am? Since I know who He is, since I know Him personally, then I also know He is not capable of mistakes, or sin or lying. Which tells me that His word is true also. Now, do I udnerstand all of it yet? Nope. Has He given me the knowledge of exactly how everything happened in the beginning. Nope. But, I start with the fact that if there is a God, and Jesus was who He said He was...then the book is His word. And it HAS to be true. If it is not true, then either Jesus is a liar (which would make Him NOT God) or the whole thing is one big hoax. And either way, the Man I worship and God I worship cease to exist. At what instant would God become this liar? The day the Bible is "proven false" or the Thursday afternoon at 3:00pm after he said "let there be light?" Cute! When I was a tyke (20 years old), I had a friend who insisted that if I "believed in evolution" I was calling God a liar. Over 30 years later, it still makes no sense whatsoever. I felt sorry for him.
-ol' 2long I feel sorry for those that do not know Jesus. But I get your point 2Long. But, unfortunately, the statement is true. Evolution cannot co-exist with the Bible. The proof of evolution would make parts of the Bible inaccurate. Which would make Jesus a liar. Which would make the whole thign a hoax. Either the Bible is the Word fo God or it is not. It is that simple! In His arms.
Standing in His PresenceFBS (me) (48) FWW (41) Married April 1993... 4 kids (19(B), 17(G), 14(B), 4(B)) Blessed by God more than I deserve "If Jesus is your co-pilot...you need to change seats!"Link: The Roles of Husbands and Wives
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712 |
""In her recent book, Ann Coulter spewed,""
Same chick that dis'd the 9/11 widows....HMMmmmmmmm..interesting.... Krusht, She dis'd 4 9/11 widows who had used their husbands' deaths to try to achieve celebrity status and to try to use it on the public stage. Like Cindy Sheehan. Cindy Sheehan became open season when she entered the political stage. So did thsoe 4 widows. Once they threw their hats in the political ring, they opened themselves up to criticism. Go read about what they are upto...what they have been saying. Ann was right on with this one (although I would have toned down the rhetoric a little...but hey, that wouldnt be Ann). In His arms.
Standing in His PresenceFBS (me) (48) FWW (41) Married April 1993... 4 kids (19(B), 17(G), 14(B), 4(B)) Blessed by God more than I deserve "If Jesus is your co-pilot...you need to change seats!"Link: The Roles of Husbands and Wives
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 10,060 |
Are you calling me a liberal?? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Absolutely not! I'll just call you MM - and possibly "late for breakfast" if the occasion is ever witnessed. I was just noting the irony that Anne accuses liberals of claiming evolution disproves God, and you and FH apparently would agree - if you accepted evolution as the explanation for speciation. WAT
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712
Member
|
|
Member
Joined: Jun 2002
Posts: 4,712 |
Are you calling me a liberal?? <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/wink.gif" alt="" /> Absolutely not! I'll just call you MM - and possibly "late for breakfast" if the occasion is ever witnessed. I was just noting the irony that Anne accuses liberals of claiming evolution disproves God, and you and FH apparently would agree - if you accepted evolution as the explanation for speciation. WAT I know what you meant WAT....I was just making a joke! In His arms.
Standing in His PresenceFBS (me) (48) FWW (41) Married April 1993... 4 kids (19(B), 17(G), 14(B), 4(B)) Blessed by God more than I deserve "If Jesus is your co-pilot...you need to change seats!"Link: The Roles of Husbands and Wives
|
|
|
|
0 members (),
205
guests, and
39
robots. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
Forums67
Topics133,621
Posts2,323,487
Members71,942
| |
Most Online3,185
Jan 27th, 2020
|
|
|
|
