Things have moved on from Darwin! Right Genesis, OK Enc Brit says that it was based on oral traditions well so were all of the earth's other creation myths. PB people in ancient times did seek answers but did not have the tools that we have so you can excuse their ignorance Btw PB I am not asserting these things dogmatically, rather there is no evidence to back them up, I would also say the same about Greek, Hindu, Viking etc myth so please do not think that I am making a special case of aspects of the Bible.
As JW pointed out no-one here is dismissing entirely the whole Bible as fabrication, but some of us do put on are critical thinking faculties. So Genesis can be dismissed as historical. If you think differently please provide objective, credible and verifiable evidence to back it up. PB you bore false witness against the Enc Brit article. I have already exposed you in posts 73 and You stated that the article said something and it fact it said the opposite-false witnessing for Jesus! Btw I think the article is great, well-written and have no problem with it.
Books by Angus McIntosh
PB the mainstream view of the Bible is that people think that is was as divinely inspired as much as they believe that Homer was, the Egyptian myths, Hindu myths etc etc. Could you tell me how Biblical creationism is falsifiable, how it is testable and can in be confirmed by independent experiment? Could you provide just one piece of objective, credible and verifiable evidence to back up your claims? PB Peter loves you! PB could we have your full name and address so we can let your work colleagues know your puerile posts, your stunning willful ignorance, your false witnessing etc etc I mean "do unto others I don't think that I will post links to you anymore as I am not sure if you are sincere and more importantly I do not see why I should waste precious time researching stuff on the web when you can do it yourself.
However here is link to a pdf that deals with the basic aspects of evolution:. Now if you are sincere and genuinely do want to know to know more about science here are some links where you can ask scientists questions biologists, paleontologists et al :. PB, either you are being willfully ignorant for convenience to your position, or you are missing some parts of my earlier responses. I'll show you what I mean, so we can get over this roadbump and get to something more valuable:. In 64, I told you that the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 of the bible do not constitute evidence for creationism.
In 73, you respond by saying, "If you want to talk about the bible and history, here is Enc Britannica take on the life of Christ. In 84, I replied, "No-one has suggested there's no historical facts in the bible.
Books Between Podcast
We are disputing with you the historical value of creationism, saying that it's a theological myth rather than a historical account. I then proceeded to explain why you cannot use the historical accuracy of one part of the bible to stregthen your case for the historical accuracy of another. Now in your latest entry in 90 you are right back at the start, citing examples of other biblical passages that you assert the Encyclopedia Britannica regards as having historical value.
Yet they're nothing to do with the discussion!
How Oxford and Peter Singer drove me from atheism to Jesus - The Veritas Forum - The Veritas Forum
You can't bolster the historical value of Genesis 1 by appealing to the historical value of the gospel of Matthew! They're different pieces of literature. We aren't discussing other passages; we're discussing the creation stories. I'm really trying to be patient here. A that creationism contradicts the wealth of scientific data which points to a very old Einsteinian cosmos and Darwinian evolution by natural selection; and. B that the reason for A is that the creation stories in Genesis 1 and 2 are mythological in genre, not historical. Therefore creationism derives from a mistaken reading of the Genesis creation stories.
If you wish to contradict A or B or both, you cannot cite what the Encyclopedia Britannica says about other parts of the bible. That is irrelevant , since we aren't discussing the gospels or other parts of the OT or anything else; we're discussing the creation stories in Genesis. In case you genuinely missed it, see my second response in 84 for more on why you can't point to historical accuracy in one part of the bible to augment the historical accuracy of another.
To give light means instant light mature light, the speed of light at creation was infinite not , miles per second as we know it to day.
- Books library - Prostate cancer.
- Cookies on the BBC website!
- Dialogues with the Holy Spirit: journal of a student.
God created a mature Universe. Bronze Age 3, — 1, B. Abraham born B. Jacob enters Egypt B. The Exodus B. Iron Age 1, — B. David becomes King b. The Jews Return B. Evolution is only a false religious philosophy nothing more, generated by atheistic scientific freethinkers and their supporters with theatrical imaginations; who are nothing more than false teachers who are trying to vandalize the clear teaching of the scriptures, the established fact is that evolution is beyond the reach of the scientific method, meaning that the theory of evolution is, consequently, not science at all.
Is there scientific proof of evolution, no, there simply is none. Many people regard the Bible and science to be at odds with each other which causes them to reject the Bible without first examining the facts for themselves, science and the Bible are in full accord with each other. The Bible is consistent with Meteorology; Job The Bible is consistent with Biology Leviticus , the Bible is consistent with Anthropology, Hydrology, Geology and Physics which can be supported by the facts of the Bible; there is more science in the Bible than one can fathom, and it would actually be helpful if the skeptic resolved himself to read the Bible.
The year and the National Restoration of the Jewish Nation is further proof that Biblical prophesy supports the accuracy of the Bible which can be read in Ezekiel God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of heaven and earth, dwelleth not in temples made with hands; ACTS A fundamentalist is bound also to be a creationist, accepting the literal account of creation in six days given in Genesis, and affirmed by other references throughout the Bible. The creation account does not appear in a figurative part of the Bible, such as the prophetic book, but in one of the historical books, It is presented as factual, and endorsed as factual by the Lord Jesus Christ, do you, theistic evolutionist doubt the words of our Lord.
Shame on you! Apostate New evangelicals usually find the biblical account of creation an embarrassment. They are to self conscious about their standing in the eyes of the world. They are too anxious to be respected by the world, and non evangelical scholars. They are afraid of being scorned, or of being regarded as obscurantists.
One of the necessary mechanisms of the evolutionary argument or theory is mutations, a small accidental change in the biochemical structure of the gene, but this basis forms an inadequate argument, mutations do cause physical and physiological changes in organisms which are usually harmful and lethal almost always resulting in destructive regression not evolution, resulting in physical and mental handicap this is hardly the foundation of a evolutionary argument, such change is hardly a vital process to assist change in organisms causing advantageous complex development.
If positive mutations did happen how would they become established in the population based on rare occurrence? One of the necessary mechanisms of the evolutionary argument or theory is mutations, a small accidental change in the biochemical structure of the gene, but this basis forms an inadequate argument, mutations do cause physical and physiological changes in organisms which are usually harmful and lethal almost always resulting in destructive regression not evolution, good to bad, resulting in physical and mental handicap this is hardly the foundation of a evolutionary argument, such change is hardly a vital process to assist change in organisms causing advantageous complex development.
Distorted DNA information mutations is a violation of the 2nd law of thermodynamics, going from a normal state to a state of distortion, going from good to bad, from complexity to chaos. The evolutionist always fails to look at the big picture the whole picture; evolutionists violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics there information becomes twisted and distorted from the truth.
Read earnestly, the enc britt quotes on genesis show credible affirmation of genesis' records on sedimentary formation of contients from the noachian flood, the tower of Babuil, the destruction of Sodom and Gomorah and espcially the existence of the actual person of Abraham, which DD just appears to refuse to see??? It is a fact that more recent excavations discovered ziggurats matching the description of the biblical tower and with an almost perfect match in name.
Yes John, nobody expected Enc Brit to bat for creationism, but even I was surprised how deeply into Genesis it goes with an open mind. That is mainstream secular scholarship for you, but hey, JW, if YOU can retain your self respect by rejecting international scientific consensus on climate change, forgive me if I also reserve judgement on Enc Brit's view on the first chapter of genesis. And getting back to the point; DD i dont have time to read every link you give me so lets stick to the main dispute here and see it through properly;. At the moment my money is on the side which says there are too few fossils to stand up feather evolution.
If Peter is really saying that Prum wasnt up to much because the important discoveries are all much more recent, well lets see it out. PB- I give up. You've singlehandedly failed, yet again, to coherently deal with my response to you in 94, nor the clean slate I offer in the latter part of that post in terms of how to continue to conduct this debate.
Let me ask you one final question, the answer to which may perhaps be the most illuminating of all:. Yes evolution does tend to get over posts, it's because people like you and Bill post utter garbage and expect to get away with it! Could you provide just 0ne!?!?! While I have shown you wrong SO many times, it seems you now expect me to build the case against myself?!
I have little time before the weekend. But later on I'll explain again why you are such a brilliant example of how religion can poison a persons mind. Talking about religion poisoning peoples mind's have you read Christopher Hitchens 'God is not great how religion poisons everything '?
I'm a big Hitchens fan and loved reading parts of God Is Not Great : it's full of so many valid points about religion and religious attitudes that, while I disagree with his ultimate conclusion 'there is no god' I would recommend it for entertainment value alone. I'd also like to reiterate on a link posted by someone possibly you DD?
The link is here for those interested in this great exchange. Whilst not necessarily agreeing with everything the Hitch says Iraq but by gum he can make a point well, he is excellent entertainment value. I have been watching quite a bit of him on the web recently in debates and find myself hoping that everyone else will just shut up and let him speak!
POETRY AND RESOURCES IN EMAIL FORM
I do like a caustic wit. Personally I do not believe that a belief in God worries Hitchens nor myself it's the attitude that it gives certain people and I would broaden my concerns to fundamentalism in general as unfortuantely it is not only limited to religion. John - genesis is evidence, but not by your scientific standards. The people that wrote it did not write it with that in mind. And why does Enc Brit say evolution is a "theory" which "postulates" the development of life in that manner? DD asks for scientific evidence of supernatural creation???