The evidence is there, it is what one infers from that evidence. The way I see it, there is only two ways we got to be here it was Evolution or it was Creation by God (this debate has gone on for decades) but, what best explains purposeful design in nature?, if one of those worldviews can not account for design in nature (and it has to) then there is the best explanation, there is the answer. Job done, no excuse.
Is Dr. Dino (Kent Hovind) a total joke?
- Thread starter JackH
- Start date
-
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.
I posted this before but I suggest you and some others actually read this article:
Reasons To Believe : Big Bang—The Bible Taught It First!
Many Christians accept this scenario with respect to the big bang.
Of course YECs don't accept it.
They don't know anything about science.
They only know about pseudoscience.
Reasons To Believe : Big Bang—The Bible Taught It First!
Many Christians accept this scenario with respect to the big bang.
Of course YECs don't accept it.
They don't know anything about science.
They only know about pseudoscience.
You are totally misinformed. I don't know about Americans but there are knowledgeable scientists outside the US who do not accept the theories you espouse. They are highly skilled and acknowledged in their fields and yet see things totally differently from you. To dismiss them as pseudo scientists is simply to demonstrate your ignorance and bias.
Of the scientists and engineers in the United States, only about 5% are creationists, according to a 1991 Gallup poll (Robinson 1995, Witham 1997). However, this number includes those working in fields not related to life origins (such as computer scientists, mechanical engineers, etc.). Taking into account only those working in the relevant fields of earth and life sciences, there are about 480,000 scientists, but only about 700 believe in "creation-science" or consider it a valid theory (Robinson 1995). This means that less than 0.15 percent of relevant scientists believe in creationism. And that is just in the United States, which has more creationists than any other industrialized country. In other countries, the number of relevant scientists who accept creationism drops to less than one tenth of 1 percent.
LOL now I know how you get your conclusions, totally invalid assumptions and guesswork. You are as big a joke as Dino. But let us move on.
So there are seven hundred American scientists who actually work in those fields, many of them top of their fields, who are brave enough to stand up to be counted? And probably the majority of the others have not considered the subject seriously but have simply accepted what they have been taught. That increases the percentage considerably. And we all know how unreliable Gallup polls are.
I wonder how many there are who are not brave enough to 'come out'?
And you think you can sweep aside 700 men whom you admit are genuine scientists, and simply ignore their doubts? You are what I would call closed minded with tunnel vision.
I notice you totally ignore their arguments and select people whom you think you can ridicule? What more needs to be said? This is not even a serious discussion.
So there are seven hundred American scientists who actually work in those fields, many of them top of their fields, who are brave enough to stand up to be counted? And probably the majority of the others have not considered the subject seriously but have simply accepted what they have been taught. That increases the percentage considerably. And we all know how unreliable Gallup polls are.
I wonder how many there are who are not brave enough to 'come out'?
And you think you can sweep aside 700 men whom you admit are genuine scientists, and simply ignore their doubts? You are what I would call closed minded with tunnel vision.
I notice you totally ignore their arguments and select people whom you think you can ridicule? What more needs to be said? This is not even a serious discussion.
LOL you are so free with statistics. Are you so free with facts? I suspect so.
The vast majority of scientists are not believers. They have nowhere to turn but to the religion of evolution. So that reduces your figures considerably. As to 'a great many' being Christians. What did your Gallup poll say?
I notice you avoid answering my questions LOL Are we to expect another dissertation from the past?
The vast majority of scientists are not believers. They have nowhere to turn but to the religion of evolution. So that reduces your figures considerably. As to 'a great many' being Christians. What did your Gallup poll say?
I notice you avoid answering my questions LOL Are we to expect another dissertation from the past?
Last edited:
The "clergy letter project" collects the signatures of American clergy to the letter below. The clergy involved are Christian, Jewish, Unitarian and Buddhist. The letter below is the Christian version:
As of 2013 the signature numbers were; Christian 12,878, Jewish 503, Unitarian 273 and Buddhist 23.
I am a Christian and if I were clergy I would have absolutely no problem in signing that letter.
As of 2013 the signature numbers were; Christian 12,878, Jewish 503, Unitarian 273 and Buddhist 23.
I am a Christian and if I were clergy I would have absolutely no problem in signing that letter.
I wouldn't have a problem signing this statement either:
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
In my opinion, any Christian who would not sign this statement is delusional or belongs to a YEC cult.
Within the community of Christian believers there are areas of dispute and disagreement, including the proper way to interpret Holy Scripture. While virtually all Christians take the Bible seriously and hold it to be authoritative in matters of faith and practice, the overwhelming majority do not read the Bible literally, as they would a science textbook. Many of the beloved stories found in the Bible – the Creation, Adam and Eve, Noah and the ark – convey timeless truths about God, human beings, and the proper relationship between Creator and creation expressed in the only form capable of transmitting these truths from generation to generation. Religious truth is of a different order from scientific truth. Its purpose is not to convey scientific information but to transform hearts.
We the undersigned, Christian clergy from many different traditions, believe that the timeless truths of the Bible and the discoveries of modern science may comfortably coexist. We believe that the theory of evolution is a foundational scientific truth, one that has stood up to rigorous scrutiny and upon which much of human knowledge and achievement rests. To reject this truth or to treat it as “one theory among others” is to deliberately embrace scientific ignorance and transmit such ignorance to our children. We believe that among God’s good gifts are human minds capable of critical thought and that the failure to fully employ this gift is a rejection of the will of our Creator. To argue that God’s loving plan of salvation for humanity precludes the full employment of the God-given faculty of reason is to attempt to limit God, an act of hubris. We urge school board members to preserve the integrity of the science curriculum by affirming the teaching of the theory of evolution as a core component of human knowledge. We ask that science remain science and that religion remain religion, two very different, but complementary, forms of truth.
In my opinion, any Christian who would not sign this statement is delusional or belongs to a YEC cult.
I can actually understand that some people would choose to reject the theory of evolution based solely on their religious beliefs. What annoys me is when some of them choose to attack their perceived enemy using such ploys as mockery and ridicule and general "bad mouthing". Even worse is when they accuse scientists and those who support them of being part of a world wide conspiracy or even being in league with the devil. To me, such attacks and accusation reveal a lack of touch with reality coupled with a vast ignorance of the subject matter itself. These are blunt words but they have to be said because as a Christian I have an immense respect for the truth and it pains me to see my fellow Christians to behave in this manner.
Religious or Biblical beliefs? (not always the same thing). I can sort of see how God's supreme power at work would be a monumental atomic explosion when creating the universe and all phenomena within it, when one thinks about man made atomic bombs and that kind of power and energy but man made things really do pale in comparison to all the atomic energy within the universe as a known whole. Perhaps the cosmic microwave background actually is the after effects of God's creative and supreme power?
I think one has to look at the definition of Evolution and also how does one approach the Evolution of man from a Biblical perspective?, if man Evolved by random chance Evolution then this cause and effect simply refutes the salvation of Christ, in fact i would go as far as to say it makes the Bibles message utterly pointless. How can man be accountable for his sin if his actions are simply the by product of unguided random chance evolution?, seriously, what would be the point of the Christ?, this is where the definition of Evolution needs to be made clear, imho.
I think one has to look at the definition of Evolution and also how does one approach the Evolution of man from a Biblical perspective?, if man Evolved by random chance Evolution then this cause and effect simply refutes the salvation of Christ, in fact i would go as far as to say it makes the Bibles message utterly pointless. How can man be accountable for his sin if his actions are simply the by product of unguided random chance evolution?, seriously, what would be the point of the Christ?, this is where the definition of Evolution needs to be made clear, imho.
Well I think he was talking about you 
Seriously.
But your name will be Shorty.
Mitspa doesn't fit.
You got anything to say about that carbon-14 article? I gave you some time to analyze it. You got anything to say before I critique it?
That article is a perfect example of YEC distortion, misrepresentation, and outright lying.
And don't forget that it was a YEC who linked to it in the attempt to support YEC.
The point being I didn't just go out and find the dumbest article I could.