-
Christian Chat is a moderated online Christian community allowing Christians around the world to fellowship with each other in real time chat via webcam, voice, and text, with the Christian Chat app. You can also start or participate in a Bible-based discussion here in the Christian Chat Forums, where members can also share with each other their own videos, pictures, or favorite Christian music.
If you are a Christian and need encouragement and fellowship, we're here for you! If you are not a Christian but interested in knowing more about Jesus our Lord, you're also welcome! Want to know what the Bible says, and how you can apply it to your life? Join us!
To make new Christian friends now around the world, click here to join Christian Chat.
To get back to the topic at hand. Here are the average genetic commonalities that humans at random share with certain specimens of other species chosen at random.
Apes: 96%
Chimps: 90%
Mice: 88%
Cows: 85%
Dogs: 84%
Platypus: 69%
Honey bees: 44%
Earthworms: 40%
Grapes: 24%
Yeast: 18%.
From apes, through the various species thereafter, the gene commonality with homo sapiens increases with time.
Some of these species in close geological layers look very similar, but others in more separate geological layers look much more different. Those closer to the geological columns of the earliest apes look more like apes, while those closer to the surface look more like humans. Ape skeletons, geologically, in layers, come before Homo Erectus skeletons, which come before Homo Sapiens skeletons. So we know that humans didn't exist at the time of the first apes.
Progressively, certain apes within a gene pool mutated to bring Sahelanthropus, and certain Sahelanthropus within their gene pool changed to bring Aripithicus, then Austrelopithicines, then Homo Habilis. Homo Habilis branched to Homo Erectus, some of which branched to Homo denisova, Homo floresiensis and Homo neanderthalensis, while others branched to form isolated groups of Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis and Homo antecessor, and also groups coming together, interbreeding, leading to the evolution of small groups of early Homo Sapiens who interbred with the most modern Neanderthals and possibly Denisovans, leading to further increased gene pools, leading to eventual brain mutations that led to the extinction of other human species because of the arrival of us, Homo Sapiens Sapiens. As time progressed, homonid genes became more and more like anatomically modern humans'. This is evidenced by the geological positioning of the fossils, the physical shapes of skeletons of relative species, and the sequencing of various homo genomes.
It is a fact that not even all humans share the same genetic code. We classify humans in one species because we are sufficiently similar in physical characteristics to be grouped as a similar species able to breed with one another, but our code is on average around 99.5% the same, with similar races in similar geographical locations sharing more similar genes than different races on different continents.
Chinese people share a considerably larger amount of their genetic code with Desonivans than European Caucasians, who share a considerably larger amount with Neanderthals than African natives. Our appearance is varied, our genes, antibodies, immunities are varied, our intelligence, at least academically, is varied. We are all unique and ever evolving and changing.
I challenge any person here to scientifically explain all that with a 6000 year old Earth theory and a creation model wherein only days separate humans and apes.
Apes: 96%
Chimps: 90%
Mice: 88%
Cows: 85%
Dogs: 84%
Platypus: 69%
Honey bees: 44%
Earthworms: 40%
Grapes: 24%
Yeast: 18%.
From apes, through the various species thereafter, the gene commonality with homo sapiens increases with time.
Some of these species in close geological layers look very similar, but others in more separate geological layers look much more different. Those closer to the geological columns of the earliest apes look more like apes, while those closer to the surface look more like humans. Ape skeletons, geologically, in layers, come before Homo Erectus skeletons, which come before Homo Sapiens skeletons. So we know that humans didn't exist at the time of the first apes.
Progressively, certain apes within a gene pool mutated to bring Sahelanthropus, and certain Sahelanthropus within their gene pool changed to bring Aripithicus, then Austrelopithicines, then Homo Habilis. Homo Habilis branched to Homo Erectus, some of which branched to Homo denisova, Homo floresiensis and Homo neanderthalensis, while others branched to form isolated groups of Homo heidelbergensis, Homo rhodesiensis and Homo antecessor, and also groups coming together, interbreeding, leading to the evolution of small groups of early Homo Sapiens who interbred with the most modern Neanderthals and possibly Denisovans, leading to further increased gene pools, leading to eventual brain mutations that led to the extinction of other human species because of the arrival of us, Homo Sapiens Sapiens. As time progressed, homonid genes became more and more like anatomically modern humans'. This is evidenced by the geological positioning of the fossils, the physical shapes of skeletons of relative species, and the sequencing of various homo genomes.
It is a fact that not even all humans share the same genetic code. We classify humans in one species because we are sufficiently similar in physical characteristics to be grouped as a similar species able to breed with one another, but our code is on average around 99.5% the same, with similar races in similar geographical locations sharing more similar genes than different races on different continents.
Chinese people share a considerably larger amount of their genetic code with Desonivans than European Caucasians, who share a considerably larger amount with Neanderthals than African natives. Our appearance is varied, our genes, antibodies, immunities are varied, our intelligence, at least academically, is varied. We are all unique and ever evolving and changing.
I challenge any person here to scientifically explain all that with a 6000 year old Earth theory and a creation model wherein only days separate humans and apes.
P
And I'm anxiously awaiting your response to mine...perhaps I'll repeat it for you and if ESanta wants to chip in that would be top notch too.
what do you say to someone who asks, "if death entered the world as a result of sin and that through one man Adam" how come you say that the world is a world under the effects of "progressive evolution" as you call it and which surely has as its mechanism, the death of millions of organisms prior to the "evolution of mankind". How do reconcile this with mankind, created in the image of God.
Romans 5 12-19
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
what do you say to someone who asks, "if death entered the world as a result of sin and that through one man Adam" how come you say that the world is a world under the effects of "progressive evolution" as you call it and which surely has as its mechanism, the death of millions of organisms prior to the "evolution of mankind". How do reconcile this with mankind, created in the image of God.
Romans 5 12-19
12 Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all people, because all sinned—
13 To be sure, sin was in the world before the law was given, but sin is not charged against anyone’s account where there is no law. 14 Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who is a pattern of the one to come.
15 But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God’s grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many! 16 Nor can the gift of God be compared with the result of one man’s sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification. 17 For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God’s abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ!
18 Consequently, just as one trespass resulted in condemnation for all people, so also one righteous act resulted in justification and life for all people. 19 For just as through the disobedience of the one man the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
P
Hi ESanta, I'm not qualified to scientifically explain a 6000 year old earth...but then again I don't suppose any of us are really, either to scientifically explain it or to scientifically explain a world eons of years old. But for the stupid like me, could you explain how your series of % for genetic similarities explains anything other than to say that isn't it incredible to see what God can make out of nothing and why shouldn't He have created everything here on planet earth to have similar building blocks. I don't see how that necessarily explains any one theory over another.we all know that the subject of the origins of the earth can't be proven one way or another, so what I as a Christian do is I take the scriptures that I trust, the same scriptures that teach me about salvation, and I put my trust in them, unless that is it is proven that I am in error to do so. But what do I do then if that's the case...where do I stop believing and start believing. You see ultimately it comes down to what we put our faith in....you in science alone ( but science on your terms in that much of what you want to believe cant be proven or denied by scientific means as there is nothing to test). I too have faith I freely admit. The difference being that the one I believe in sent His son to die on a cross for the sake of mankind, rising from the dead on the third day triumphant over death. Now you see if you want scientific evidence for His Ressurection, I'm not sure i am qualified to give you that either, so again we have a dilemma. What should we do? Trust in God or trust in mans science? Well I have made my choice and so must you....so that's about it then!
10 fallacies/double standards/ignorant statement within the first three minutes of this video:
1. The narrator opens the science portion of his attack on evolutionary theory with the logic 'if you kiss a frog, it doesn't turn into a prince, but that's exactly what evolution teaches'. This opening argument is beyond ignorant. It is utterly, stupendously daft. Magical transformation in an instant is so far from what evolution teaches that this argument should be considered utterly and entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Evolution by natural selection is the theory of small genetic mutations cause branches in animal lineages that either help or hinder an organism's survival in their respective ecosystems and food chains. These survived organisms are thus 'selected' naturally and pass on their genes. Such organisms may, further in their lineage, mutate again causing further changes in their biology. Magical transformation is a fairy tale.
2. 'The magical ingredient (for transformation) is no longer a kiss, but millions of years'. Well, there's really nothing 'magical' about it. What's cancer but a genetic mutation? What's sickle cell but a genetic mutation? What are genes but complex proteins? What are humans but chemicals and electromagnetic attraction? What is energy consumption except the transfer of electrons?
3. The statement ''we started as an amoeba, and this slowly, over millions of years, 'turned into' a frog'' is misleading. Between frog and amoeba there are a plethora of changes. Amoeba lineages split through mutation, those lineages split etc etc. The narrator actually plays on the ignorance of the audience by concluding 'if a frog turns into an amoeba quickly, that's fairy tale, but if it happens slowly, that's modern science'. Well no, modern science is a lot more than that. But of course, you can simplify anything and make it sound stupid. It's called the faulty causation fallacy, wherein a person oversimplifies things to the point of there being no genuine causal correlation between the causes and the effect. It's like saying 'more guitars have been sold in the last ten years than ever, and the amount of girls studying in university in the last ten years has also increased, so the more guitars that get sold, the more girls go to university'.
4. His next piece of 'logic' is to say, ''when someone mentions millions and billions of years, stop them and ask 'where you there?'' Well, no genius, we weren't, were you? Just because we weren't alive when something happened, does not mean we can't find evidence of it happening.
5. He then says ''science is knowledge derived from observation and study'', and misquotes Webster's dictionary to back up his definition. Well, no, Webster's defines science as ''knowledge about, or study of, the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation''. Two things strike me here. Three in fact. One; he's distorting the definition by leaving out the word 'experiment'. Two; he leaves out the phrase 'natural world'. Science is a study of the natural world, not the supernatural one. And three: Science is based on facts learned by experimentation and observation of that natural world, not by theology or biblical exegesis.
6. He then asks ''can you observe, study or demonstrate something that happened billions of years ago?'' Well, yes, genius, we can. We can certainly observe natural laws of physics, such as the laws of thermodynamics, the constant passage of time, momentary consciousness. We can observe the results of this passage of time. If I smash a cup, I cannot reverse time and unsmash it, similarly, if an animal dies and gets buried into the ground and becomes a skeleton after a few years, I can not unskeletonize it. So those are observations of the natural world; part of ''science''. Can we study the natural world? Of course we can, scientists do it every day. Scientists study the chemicals in organisms, the processes of weather, the erosion of coast, they find fossils to study in certain layers on the Earth's crust, which continues to be observed to build from sedimentation. We study those things in the natural world; part of ''science''. We apply the laws we have learned and we show them to be natural laws. And finally, can we demonstrate something that happened billions of years ago? Yes, we can. We can demonstrate things that happened simply because of our observation and study of the present. We can demonstrate by the observation of the expansion of the universe and our knowledge of Newton's Laws that what is moving away was once close. Thus, at one point the universe was small and began expanding. We can use our observations and studies and experiments of astronomy in conjunction with our knowledge of physical laws, such as the speed of light, trigonometric studies, to demonstrate that the Earth is round and it orbits the sun. We can use this same knowledge to demonstrate that the light we currently see from stars has been travelling for sometimes billions of years, thus concludes the argument 'is the Earth older than 6000 years?' Emphatically, ''yes''.
7. The man then quotes something apparently form the Washington Times, Aug 31, 1998 stating ''55% of US natural scientists believe in Darwinian evolution''. Well I'm sorry to tell you, every major scientific association on Earth reports an outstanding majority of scientists believe in evolution. 1
In PubMed, the database for reputable scientific journals, there exists not one single peer-reviewed, scientifically honest, genuine research article that disclaims evolution. They've all been discredited. 2
8. The man then states ''just because most scientists believe something, does not make it true''. Well, neither does it make anything true, not Christianity, not religion, not the fact that hot sauce is hot or that black is black. But the evidence speaks for itself if you take the time to properly observe, study and experiment with it instead of running away from it. The facts are there for you to study and refute honestly, with integrity and scientific reasoning. Science is ''knowledge about, or the study of, the natural world based on facts learned through experimentation and observation''. Based on the laws we observe and the areas we study, evolution has overwhelming evidence, thus it is classified as a valid theory.
9. The man then says ''[scientists] used to teach that the sun revolved around the Earth''. In fact, it was the church who propagated this, and anyone who said otherwise was called a heretic. Galileo agreed with the idea that the Earth orbits the sun in, and thus started the 'Galileo Fiasco' around 1610 (Finnocchiaro, 1989). Scientists long before him had known about it, though Copernicus took credit in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. It was the church who propagated the nonsense of the sun revolving round the Earth in light of scientific evidence to the contrary.
10. Next the narrator says ''[scientists] used to teach that a big rock will small faster than a small rock''. Then he shows text stating that Galileo proved them wrong. Galileo, the same Catholic man who vehemently opposed the various churches' unerring control of their populations at the expense of the truth. The same Galileo who fought against the psychological dictatorship of blind faith and furthered the cause for the progression of genuine science 'til the day he died. And your narrator uses him to say ''if scientists believe something, it doesn't make it true''? How hypocritical is that? Galileo was a man of discovery. That's the very point of science; to discover new things. And we have. And we do.
I can safely assume the rest of this video is just as shockingly ill-informed.
1. The narrator opens the science portion of his attack on evolutionary theory with the logic 'if you kiss a frog, it doesn't turn into a prince, but that's exactly what evolution teaches'. This opening argument is beyond ignorant. It is utterly, stupendously daft. Magical transformation in an instant is so far from what evolution teaches that this argument should be considered utterly and entirely irrelevant to the discussion. Evolution by natural selection is the theory of small genetic mutations cause branches in animal lineages that either help or hinder an organism's survival in their respective ecosystems and food chains. These survived organisms are thus 'selected' naturally and pass on their genes. Such organisms may, further in their lineage, mutate again causing further changes in their biology. Magical transformation is a fairy tale.
2. 'The magical ingredient (for transformation) is no longer a kiss, but millions of years'. Well, there's really nothing 'magical' about it. What's cancer but a genetic mutation? What's sickle cell but a genetic mutation? What are genes but complex proteins? What are humans but chemicals and electromagnetic attraction? What is energy consumption except the transfer of electrons?
3. The statement ''we started as an amoeba, and this slowly, over millions of years, 'turned into' a frog'' is misleading. Between frog and amoeba there are a plethora of changes. Amoeba lineages split through mutation, those lineages split etc etc. The narrator actually plays on the ignorance of the audience by concluding 'if a frog turns into an amoeba quickly, that's fairy tale, but if it happens slowly, that's modern science'. Well no, modern science is a lot more than that. But of course, you can simplify anything and make it sound stupid. It's called the faulty causation fallacy, wherein a person oversimplifies things to the point of there being no genuine causal correlation between the causes and the effect. It's like saying 'more guitars have been sold in the last ten years than ever, and the amount of girls studying in university in the last ten years has also increased, so the more guitars that get sold, the more girls go to university'.
4. His next piece of 'logic' is to say, ''when someone mentions millions and billions of years, stop them and ask 'where you there?'' Well, no genius, we weren't, were you? Just because we weren't alive when something happened, does not mean we can't find evidence of it happening.
5. He then says ''science is knowledge derived from observation and study'', and misquotes Webster's dictionary to back up his definition. Well, no, Webster's defines science as ''knowledge about, or study of, the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation''. Two things strike me here. Three in fact. One; he's distorting the definition by leaving out the word 'experiment'. Two; he leaves out the phrase 'natural world'. Science is a study of the natural world, not the supernatural one. And three: Science is based on facts learned by experimentation and observation of that natural world, not by theology or biblical exegesis.
6. He then asks ''can you observe, study or demonstrate something that happened billions of years ago?'' Well, yes, genius, we can. We can certainly observe natural laws of physics, such as the laws of thermodynamics, the constant passage of time, momentary consciousness. We can observe the results of this passage of time. If I smash a cup, I cannot reverse time and unsmash it, similarly, if an animal dies and gets buried into the ground and becomes a skeleton after a few years, I can not unskeletonize it. So those are observations of the natural world; part of ''science''. Can we study the natural world? Of course we can, scientists do it every day. Scientists study the chemicals in organisms, the processes of weather, the erosion of coast, they find fossils to study in certain layers on the Earth's crust, which continues to be observed to build from sedimentation. We study those things in the natural world; part of ''science''. We apply the laws we have learned and we show them to be natural laws. And finally, can we demonstrate something that happened billions of years ago? Yes, we can. We can demonstrate things that happened simply because of our observation and study of the present. We can demonstrate by the observation of the expansion of the universe and our knowledge of Newton's Laws that what is moving away was once close. Thus, at one point the universe was small and began expanding. We can use our observations and studies and experiments of astronomy in conjunction with our knowledge of physical laws, such as the speed of light, trigonometric studies, to demonstrate that the Earth is round and it orbits the sun. We can use this same knowledge to demonstrate that the light we currently see from stars has been travelling for sometimes billions of years, thus concludes the argument 'is the Earth older than 6000 years?' Emphatically, ''yes''.
7. The man then quotes something apparently form the Washington Times, Aug 31, 1998 stating ''55% of US natural scientists believe in Darwinian evolution''. Well I'm sorry to tell you, every major scientific association on Earth reports an outstanding majority of scientists believe in evolution. 1
In PubMed, the database for reputable scientific journals, there exists not one single peer-reviewed, scientifically honest, genuine research article that disclaims evolution. They've all been discredited. 2
8. The man then states ''just because most scientists believe something, does not make it true''. Well, neither does it make anything true, not Christianity, not religion, not the fact that hot sauce is hot or that black is black. But the evidence speaks for itself if you take the time to properly observe, study and experiment with it instead of running away from it. The facts are there for you to study and refute honestly, with integrity and scientific reasoning. Science is ''knowledge about, or the study of, the natural world based on facts learned through experimentation and observation''. Based on the laws we observe and the areas we study, evolution has overwhelming evidence, thus it is classified as a valid theory.
9. The man then says ''[scientists] used to teach that the sun revolved around the Earth''. In fact, it was the church who propagated this, and anyone who said otherwise was called a heretic. Galileo agreed with the idea that the Earth orbits the sun in, and thus started the 'Galileo Fiasco' around 1610 (Finnocchiaro, 1989). Scientists long before him had known about it, though Copernicus took credit in De revolutionibus orbium coelestium. It was the church who propagated the nonsense of the sun revolving round the Earth in light of scientific evidence to the contrary.
10. Next the narrator says ''[scientists] used to teach that a big rock will small faster than a small rock''. Then he shows text stating that Galileo proved them wrong. Galileo, the same Catholic man who vehemently opposed the various churches' unerring control of their populations at the expense of the truth. The same Galileo who fought against the psychological dictatorship of blind faith and furthered the cause for the progression of genuine science 'til the day he died. And your narrator uses him to say ''if scientists believe something, it doesn't make it true''? How hypocritical is that? Galileo was a man of discovery. That's the very point of science; to discover new things. And we have. And we do.
I can safely assume the rest of this video is just as shockingly ill-informed.
This diagram shows the trigonometric method of measuring the distance of stars. We know stars are moving further away from us because we can also observe the expansion of the universe by observation of the night sky and the application of our trigonometric knowledge.
Now, the speed of light in a vacuum is calculated at 299,792,458 ms. It is constant, always. It does not slow down in mediums, only has more 'medium' to refract off. In a vacuum, it can travel in a continuous straight line, but in water, it 'bounces' from molecule to molecule, thus giving the illusion that it has slowed.
Taking the distance of V762 Cas, a fairly close star in comparison to some of the discovered nebulae, which is 1.51368455 x 10 to the par of 20 metres, we can calculate that this star is so far away that it would take light 16,000 years to reach us. Now you might say 'because the universe is expanding faster than it did before, those stars may have been non existent 16,000 years ago', but you'd be wrong. What light we see currently from that star is already 16,000 years old. In reality, that star is not actually still in the position we see it. We are seeing light, which has a constant speed, which has taken 16,000 years to get to us.
Thus, the universe is certainly older than 16,000 years, which is 10,000 years older than YEC theory claims. With telescopes, we can see stars' light that has taken billions of years to reach us.
P
Esanta, there is no doubting the logic of your presentation...at least from me, but stick with me a wee moment and grant me the same logical courtesy. Would it not be possible for God, who is powerful enough to create trillions of stars across a universe trillions of lightyears in expanse, each with all their awesome energy from a starting point of absolutely nothing at all apart from himself, is it not just possible that this same Almighty God to lay down in space the beams of photons emminating from each star that would make it possible for His creation on planet earth to see them instantaneously and similarly is it not possible for him to lay down varyingly shorter beams of photons, that will reach planet earth over a period of time so as to satisfy the God given curiosity of His highest creation, that comes with being created in the image of such an awesome God? Is it not at least theoretically possible?
Well, an omnipresent, omnipotent God could do anything. But science is ''knowledge about, or the study of, the natural world based on facts learned through experiments and observation''. We can't observe or study omnipresent, omnipotent beings as part of the natural world, we can't glean knowledge of omnipresent, omnipotent beings through study and experimentation in the natural world, and we can't experiment with omnipresent, omnipotent beings in the natural world. Science is about the world as it can be seen and observed. Biblical exegesis isn't part of the scientific method, simply because the bible itself is a matter of faith in an omnipresent, omnipotent being who can't be observed, studied or experimented with in the natural world.
That said, it stands to reason that our knowledge of irrefutable natural laws, which are the knowledge and basis upon which all technological, biological, medicinal and otherwise scientific advancements are based, are true now just as they are always. There is no observable, testable evidence to the contrary. In fact, these laws fit with everything.
That said, it stands to reason that our knowledge of irrefutable natural laws, which are the knowledge and basis upon which all technological, biological, medicinal and otherwise scientific advancements are based, are true now just as they are always. There is no observable, testable evidence to the contrary. In fact, these laws fit with everything.
Last edited:
Thus one of four positions arises:
1. The natural method is against God, and the natural method is true, thus God is false.
2. The natural method is against God, and the natural method is false, thus God is true.
3. The natural method is in no contradiction to God, thus, the bible is mistranslated, allegorical rather than literal.
4. All of this, arguments born of animosity, are irrelevent compared to the present human situation.
The fourth position is mine. But to balance scales and share that, to instill a focus on solutions rather than problems, things have to be seen like they are. The world is billions of years old. The bible is mistranslated, or at least literalism is held too firm by those who propagandise it. Both spiritualism and science are of whole benefit to man if he would embrace them and create solutions, from them, and finally, solutions are what we need.
1. The natural method is against God, and the natural method is true, thus God is false.
2. The natural method is against God, and the natural method is false, thus God is true.
3. The natural method is in no contradiction to God, thus, the bible is mistranslated, allegorical rather than literal.
4. All of this, arguments born of animosity, are irrelevent compared to the present human situation.
The fourth position is mine. But to balance scales and share that, to instill a focus on solutions rather than problems, things have to be seen like they are. The world is billions of years old. The bible is mistranslated, or at least literalism is held too firm by those who propagandise it. Both spiritualism and science are of whole benefit to man if he would embrace them and create solutions, from them, and finally, solutions are what we need.
There's no real thinking behind it. You apparently run to atheist blogs which are always happy to mock and condemn creationists, who are also Christians...which you claim to be...for a long time...so you say.
Hovind never attempted to launder dirty money (or use it for any illegal activity) so your statement isnt true. The people (U.S. legislators) who created the laws Hovind was accused of violating and those who reported him (the banks), do the same things on a daily basis. Those people have bankrupted our nation and roam free. If you and I handled money entrusted to us the way our government does, you and I would be in prison. Not to be conspiratorial, but do you think it's possible that the rich and powerful institutions who run our society have ever benefitted from the deaths of military soldiers, or the slaughter of a nations citizens?
No, but if I ever do I'll send you a pic. I'll wear a cowboy hat.
Ah...the Buddhist who equates Buddha with the One and only begotten Son of God. Yes, I'll be getting to his copy and paste, but not for a few days, as I'm taking my family for a little r&r.
Hovind never attempted to launder dirty money (or use it for any illegal activity) so your statement isnt true. The people (U.S. legislators) who created the laws Hovind was accused of violating and those who reported him (the banks), do the same things on a daily basis. Those people have bankrupted our nation and roam free. If you and I handled money entrusted to us the way our government does, you and I would be in prison. Not to be conspiratorial, but do you think it's possible that the rich and powerful institutions who run our society have ever benefitted from the deaths of military soldiers, or the slaughter of a nations citizens?
No, but if I ever do I'll send you a pic. I'll wear a cowboy hat.
Ah...the Buddhist who equates Buddha with the One and only begotten Son of God. Yes, I'll be getting to his copy and paste, but not for a few days, as I'm taking my family for a little r&r.
Our views on evolution are false... we didn't come from apes. There are no genetic ancestors, only mutation. When God created Man, he saw that it was very good. But that changed when sin entered the world through Adam. At first, sin wasn't too much of an issue for God, that's why He blessed the marriage of Abraham and Sarah... that's why Cain took his sister as his wife. But as sin became more progressive with each generation, its result became known, revealing all of creation in a bondage of decay. This is why he commanded us to not lay with our relations in Leveticus when he did. Sin becomes progressively apparent as we slip further and further away from God. Sin is the reason for birth defects and sickness and disorders. We are dying as a race because of our separation from God, because sin separates... The wages of sin is death. This is the law of life. The claim that God doesn't exist implies that we shouldn't be here. Counterfactually, who is to say that if God doesn't exist and Jesus didn't come back, then what would that say about sin mutating us into zombies? When everything's all said and done, would our final end be abject oblivion? I'm betting that the Bible's sole purpose is to prevent this disaster, to accept Jesus into our lives and live in his wisdom, bringing as many people as possible with us. God is the only one sustaining us... the bible is literally a fish hook, our relationships with him is the line. We must draw closer to him. We must grab the hook...
P
Well you see perhaps this is the real crux of the matter....I believe and trust in the One true, Living, Omnipotent, Omnipresent God who I believe, by faith, is capable of doing all of this. I accept that biblical exegesis is not part of the scientific method as you define it...and that's just fine with me but don't let that lead you to believe that Christians are de facto not interested in truth. You see you and I both know that science can only test the testable. It is stuck in a moment in time...presented with the physical evidence of that moment in time. Any attempt to step outside of that time frame is a step of faith as it involves speculation (scientists probably prefer theword extrapolation) based on current observable testable evidence.
We all have baggage....every human being has an agenda, formed by who we are, our experiences of life and our consciences also. But we must all accept that added to that are external spiritual forces of which we understand very little. That's where our souls drive who we are...much I suppose like the nucleus of a cell. That soul is impacted on at a higher level where God and Satan do "battle" ( in a conflict who's outcome is already determined. As human beings we havea default position of "born in sin and sharpen in iniquity". That's who we are cut and dried and therefore our basic agenda is warped, out of kilter with reality.
its only when we are born again by the in dwelling of the Holy Spirit that we begin to come ack into a right sense of perspective and understanding. Our eyes become opened as we grow from a spiritual baby and e come more and more like Christ, this is the work of theHoly Spirit in us.
i don't expect you to agree with me on this Esanta and I suppose that is entirely how it is.
In reality we can banter back and forth for the rest of our lives and never come to agreement because we see things with different eyes...in different light if you like.
im not sure what "faith" you profess to belong to, that's not even important because our words and actions speak volumes for what we have faith in, but I would implore you to give The Lord Jesus's words, serious consideration..."I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father except through me."
Some final questions for you my friend.....What is life? What is that spark that separates the living from the dead?
have you ever lost someone you love? Have you ever watch someone die? I have, both my parents died before my eyes. They were very strange experiences. One second they are there with you the very next gone, yet nothing happened, they were just gone. Their spirit was removed from their physical bodies and "they" had left this scene of time forever. Just a change in chemical reactions?
Likewise at the other end of "life" what makes a seed grow, what makes two gametes form a new life? What organises the structure of a cell with its irreducible complexity? Why would it even ever happen?
i wish you well Esanta, I really do but I recognise that without Christ and the leading of His Holy Spirit, we may ne'er find our viewpoints reconciled, yours has too many unanswered holes in it and mine is as you rightly state untestable byte "scientific method"....just as it should be too.
We all have baggage....every human being has an agenda, formed by who we are, our experiences of life and our consciences also. But we must all accept that added to that are external spiritual forces of which we understand very little. That's where our souls drive who we are...much I suppose like the nucleus of a cell. That soul is impacted on at a higher level where God and Satan do "battle" ( in a conflict who's outcome is already determined. As human beings we havea default position of "born in sin and sharpen in iniquity". That's who we are cut and dried and therefore our basic agenda is warped, out of kilter with reality.
its only when we are born again by the in dwelling of the Holy Spirit that we begin to come ack into a right sense of perspective and understanding. Our eyes become opened as we grow from a spiritual baby and e come more and more like Christ, this is the work of theHoly Spirit in us.
i don't expect you to agree with me on this Esanta and I suppose that is entirely how it is.
In reality we can banter back and forth for the rest of our lives and never come to agreement because we see things with different eyes...in different light if you like.
im not sure what "faith" you profess to belong to, that's not even important because our words and actions speak volumes for what we have faith in, but I would implore you to give The Lord Jesus's words, serious consideration..."I am the Way, the Truth and the Life, no man comes to the Father except through me."
Some final questions for you my friend.....What is life? What is that spark that separates the living from the dead?
have you ever lost someone you love? Have you ever watch someone die? I have, both my parents died before my eyes. They were very strange experiences. One second they are there with you the very next gone, yet nothing happened, they were just gone. Their spirit was removed from their physical bodies and "they" had left this scene of time forever. Just a change in chemical reactions?
Likewise at the other end of "life" what makes a seed grow, what makes two gametes form a new life? What organises the structure of a cell with its irreducible complexity? Why would it even ever happen?
i wish you well Esanta, I really do but I recognise that without Christ and the leading of His Holy Spirit, we may ne'er find our viewpoints reconciled, yours has too many unanswered holes in it and mine is as you rightly state untestable byte "scientific method"....just as it should be too.
Creationists who claim that the earth is 6000 years old and that dinosaurs coexisted with humans probably deserve to be mocked.
Hovind has said that dinosaurs exist today.
When a dinosaur is discovered and I can go see it in the zoo, I'll apologize for saying Hovind is a convict, even though he is.
Of course I could go to Ham's museum in Kentucky, stand next to a dinosaur, pretend it's real, and scream.
Is that where you are taking the family for R & R? Dude, don't let the kids feed T. rex.
Hovind has said that dinosaurs exist today.
When a dinosaur is discovered and I can go see it in the zoo, I'll apologize for saying Hovind is a convict, even though he is.
Of course I could go to Ham's museum in Kentucky, stand next to a dinosaur, pretend it's real, and scream.
Is that where you are taking the family for R & R? Dude, don't let the kids feed T. rex.