A question for all you conservative Christians
May 17, 2019 02:32:17 #
May 17, 2019 02:34:43 #
rafterman wrote:
For me, easily reconciled. Against a******n (unle... (show quote)
I’m with you on this, it makes no sense to save the life of a cold blooded murderer, but give a death penalty to an innocent.
May 17, 2019 04:02:22 #
maximus
Loc: Chattanooga, Tennessee
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Flies are still evolving... All life is... br Fru... (show quote)
So true. The part about 98% of flies dying every year is true though.
Flies and roaches will inherit the earth!
May 17, 2019 04:34:47 #
maximus wrote:
So true. The part about 98% of flies dying every year is true though.
Flies and roaches will inherit the earth!
Flies and roaches will inherit the earth!
Yep...
On the bright side, no more rap
May 17, 2019 04:38:53 #
Take a slab of bacon and put it in a swamp, maximus, and you'll have at least one happy alligator.
The snake is under God's curse, to crawl on his belly, ever since the Garden of Eden.
As for the rest, there will be no evolution in any of them.
Evolution is a fairy tale for adults… If the theory of evolution was true, we would have discovered millions upon millions of t***sitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.
It is based on ancient pagan religious philosophy that hundreds of millions of people around the world choose to believe with blind faith. When asked to produce evidence for the theory of evolution, most adults in the western world are totally blank. When pressed, most people will mumble "most scientists believe it," and that is good enough for them.
This anti-intellectualism runs rampant on our college campuses. Go to a college campus and ask students why they believe in evolution. Few, if any, will be able to give any real reasons why they believe it. Most of them have blind faith in the priest class in our society, a.k.a. "the scientists."
When Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, he had no actual evidence that it was true. Since then the missing evidence has still not materialized. Most Americans are absolutely shocked to learn that what is taught as "t***h" about evolution is the badly flawed product of the imaginations of members of the scientific community. They so need it to be true that they go to extraordinary lengths to defend their fairy tale. They keep insisting that the theory of evolution has been "proven" and is, therefore, beyond debate.
Most citizens are intimidated into accepting their unproven "t***h" about evolution because they fear being labeled "stupid" publicly.
The snake is under God's curse, to crawl on his belly, ever since the Garden of Eden.
As for the rest, there will be no evolution in any of them.
Evolution is a fairy tale for adults… If the theory of evolution was true, we would have discovered millions upon millions of t***sitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.
It is based on ancient pagan religious philosophy that hundreds of millions of people around the world choose to believe with blind faith. When asked to produce evidence for the theory of evolution, most adults in the western world are totally blank. When pressed, most people will mumble "most scientists believe it," and that is good enough for them.
This anti-intellectualism runs rampant on our college campuses. Go to a college campus and ask students why they believe in evolution. Few, if any, will be able to give any real reasons why they believe it. Most of them have blind faith in the priest class in our society, a.k.a. "the scientists."
When Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, he had no actual evidence that it was true. Since then the missing evidence has still not materialized. Most Americans are absolutely shocked to learn that what is taught as "t***h" about evolution is the badly flawed product of the imaginations of members of the scientific community. They so need it to be true that they go to extraordinary lengths to defend their fairy tale. They keep insisting that the theory of evolution has been "proven" and is, therefore, beyond debate.
Most citizens are intimidated into accepting their unproven "t***h" about evolution because they fear being labeled "stupid" publicly.
maximus wrote:
Ha! That's a good one...T***sformers, I guess. How... (show quote)
May 17, 2019 04:43:08 #
What is a planet k**let?
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Flies are still evolving... All life is... br Fru... (show quote)
May 17, 2019 04:54:36 #
Zemirah wrote:
Evolution is a fairy tale for adults… If the theory of evolution was true, we would have discovered millions upon millions of t***sitional fossils that show the development of one species into another species. Instead, we have zero.
Millions and millions...Hmmm... Tens of thousands so far... No doubt millions more do exist....
From fish and indects to birds and reptiles to mammals and of course all sorts of flora...
Most decent museums have exhibits...
And there are numerous online museums one can visit...
Quote:
It is based on ancient pagan religious philosophy that hundreds of millions of people around the world choose to believe with blind faith. When asked to produce evidence for the theory of evolution, most adults in the western world are totally blank. When pressed, most people will mumble "most scientists believe it," and that is good enough for them.
I have never heard an evolutionist make that claim... And there are numerous threads on the OPP that deal with it..
Usually when evidence is presented it is labeled as false or ignored....
Quote:
This anti-intellectualism runs rampant on our college campuses. Go to a college campus and ask students why they believe in evolution. Few, if any, will be able to give any real reasons why they believe it. Most of them have blind faith in the priest class in our society, a.k.a. "the scientists."
And so too chemistry and physics and biology... Are you aware of how your television works? Could you build one? But you accept the Scientists who have studied and developed the theories that allow for it....
Quote:
When Charles Darwin proposed the theory of evolution, he had no actual evidence that it was true. Since then the missing evidence has still not materialized.
Darwin's Theory was developed after he discovered evidence that led him to it... He didn't set out to prove a hypothesis.. But developed it from his observations of the natural world...
Have you never read "Origins of Species"?
Quote:
Most Americans are absolutely shocked to learn that what is taught as "t***h" about evolution is the badly flawed product of the imaginations of members of the scientific community. They so need it to be true that they go to extraordinary lengths to defend their fairy tale. They keep insisting that the theory of evolution has been "proven" and is, therefore, beyond debate.
It is debated quite frequently...
Strange how the only argument against it is the denial of any evidence that supports it..
Quote:
Most citizens are intimidated into accepting their unproven "t***h" about evolution because they fear being labeled "stupid" publicly.
Yep... That is the fear....
Nobody wants to be labeled stupid
May 17, 2019 04:55:18 #
Zemirah wrote:
What is a planet k**let?
Planet K**ler...Typo...
Asteroid or comet that impacts the Earth and wipes out the majority of life...
May 17, 2019 06:43:06 #
Zemirah wrote:
Take a slab of bacon and put it in a swamp, maximu... (show quote)
People will believe almost anything if the source comes from one they perceive to be an authority. For many science is a religion.
May 17, 2019 06:49:36 #
In his youth, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) was subjected to a most diverse range of religious and philosophical ideas. His grandfather, Dr Erasmus Darwin, was a physician, a Fellow of the Royal Society and a “free-thinker”. Unafraid of social stigma, the promiscuous doctor composed erotic verse, supported the American and French Revolutions, and published material promoting evolutionary beliefs. He believed in a distant deity, bordered on agnosticism and derided Christianity. He recorded his evolutionary views in a number of literary works, including his Zoönomia, which Charles had read and admired. He was often referred to as the “English Lamarck”, and was probably the most prominent British evolutionist of his day. Charles’s maternal grandfather, Josiah Wedgwood, who built the Wedgwood pottery business, was equally radical.
Along with Erasmus Darwin, he was a member of the Lunar Society in which the élite technocrats of the new order met to discuss their world-changing ideas. One of these was Joseph Priestley, a leading Unitarian philosopher, chemist and theologian, who believed in a material world where laws of nature hold sway, everything has a physical cause, and miracles have no place. Wedgwood greatly admired Priestley, and appointed a Unitarian minister to teach in a school at one of his factories where Charles’s father, Robert, attended as a pupil.
Conversely, at Shrewsbury School, and as a student of theology at Cambridge University (1828–1831), Charles came under the strict influence of orthodox Anglicanism. Moreover, to enroll at Cambridge University, it was necessary for him to subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican faith, something that his older brother, Erasmus, had done as a student there six years earlier. This reflected a growing willingness of the Darwins to adopt “Anglican respectability”, something which was becoming common even amongst Unitarians—including the Wedgwoods.
As a medical student at Edinburgh (October 1825–April 1827), Charles Darwin keenly attended student societies, including the Plinian where he was even elected to the Council. Here he listened to fiery free-thinkers who wanted to “liberate science” from religious influences. Lectures were given by radicals intent on reforming Church-dominated society and removing the Church’s influence.
At the beginning of the 19th century there were two main schools of geology.
Most leading geologists believed that the earth’s geology was best explained as the result of cataclysms. Many of these believed in long ages and multiple catastrophes; however, there were also many ‘scriptural geologists’ who believed that Noah’s Flood, as recorded in Genesis, being worldwide, was the principal such catastrophic event.
The other view was that everything in geology was solely the result of processes now operating in the earth. This belief rejected the Bible, and the accounts of Creation and the Flood as recorded by Moses in Genesis. Advocates were either secretly atheists or deists, who conceded that the earth must have had a cause, but were unwilling to attribute that cause to the God of the Bible.
Charles Lyell was one such deist. In his Principles of Geology, he alluded to “a Creative Intelligence” having “foresight, wisdom and power”, but he did not allow that this “Infinite and Eternal Being” had actually communicated with mankind.
Lyell argued against catastrophic events in the history of the earth — not by citing contrary evidence, but by holding that any such events were not accessible to inquiry. But the same inaccessibility to inquiry also applied to his own view of a tranquil past. What is needed to establish past events is eye-witness testimony. However, Lyell refused to accept the Flood testimony of Noah, recorded in Genesis by Moses.
Lyell’s stated aim was to free science from "Moses".
Charles Lyell developed a system of geology aimed “to free the science from Moses”.
Charles Lyell (1797–1875) is best known as the author of Principles of Geology. Darwin read the first two volumes of this on his famous voyage on HMS Beagle. These converted Darwin, with absolutely no proof, to belief in long geological ages, which gave him the theoretical millions of years in past time he needed as a basis to make his theory of evolution believable.
Lyell’s aim in his 3-volume work (1830–33), was to “free the science from Moses”, i.e. to free geology from the time-frame of Genesis, and hence delete the Bible’s early history. This is what he confided in a letter to his friend, geologist and fellow naturalist George Poulett Scrope, who was about to write a review of Vol. I of Lyell’s Principles of Geology for the Quarterly Review:
“I am sure you may get into Q. R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses … . I conceived the idea five or six years ago, that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down [i.e. repudiated—Ed.] without giving offense, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine … .”
And he also said: “I request that people will … not form an opinion from what history has recorded.” I.e., from the historical accounts of Creation and the Flood recorded in Genesis, which are evidence of God’s supernatural power and His judgment on sin.
Lyell’s subtitle for his Principles was “Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth’s Surface by Reference to Causes Now in Operation”. This was rephrased as ‘uniformitarianism’ by William Whewell in 1832, and the term has stuck ever since.
Lyell showed his contempt for those who might be expected to oppose his attack on the authority of the Bible and Christian faith, when he wrote in his letter to Scrope: "If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians."
The late Harvard Professor of Geology, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote: “Lyell’s great treatise is not, as so often stated, a textbook summarizing all prevailing knowledge in a systematic way, but a passionate brief for a single, well-formed argument [for uniformitarianism—Ed.], hammered home relentlessly. … T***h is supposed to prevail by force of logical argument and wealth of documentation, not by strength of rhetoric.”
Gould: “Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession … [and he] relied upon two bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. … In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence.”
Gould’s summary: “Lyell was not the white knight of t***h and fieldwork, but a purveyor of a fascinating and particular theory rooted in the steady state of time’s cycle. He tried by rhetoric to equate this substantive theory with rationality and rectitude … .” And: “ … the irony of history is that Lyell won. His version became a semi-official hagiography of geology, preached in textbooks to the present day. Professional historians know better, of course, but their message has rarely reached working geologists, who seem to crave these simple and heroic stories.”
Darwin read the first two volumes of Lyell’s Principles aboard the Beagle. As a result, he based his theory of evolution on Lyell’s erroneous theory of a long age for the earth.When Darwin returned to England in October 1836, he was quickly introduced to prominent scientists of his day, mainly by Charles Lyell.
In 1858, following the receipt by Darwin of a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace setting out a theory of survival of the fittest similar to Darwin’s, it was Lyell who proposed that this letter be read together with an abstract of an unpublished 1844 essay by Darwin plus an abstract of an 1857 letter from Darwin to the American botanist Asa Gray, at a meeting of the Linnean Society on 1 July 1858. Lyell read the material by Darwin first, and Hooker then read the paper by Wallace.
This achieved a flimsy chronological and alphabetical priority for Darwin.
In 1841, Lyell visited Niagara Falls. The first settler there had observed that the Falls retreated by about one yard a year during the 40 years he had lived there. At this rate, the erosion of the whole gorge would have taken less than 10,000 years. This ‘age’ was much too short for Lyell’s anti-Genesis worldview. So in the 9th edition of his Principles (published in America), Lyell wrote (concerning the rate of recession) that “the average of one foot a year would be a much more probable conjecture. In that case, it would have required 35,000 years for the retreat of the Falls, from the escarpment of Queenstown to their present site.”
This was gross hypocrisy on Lyell’s part, because it was a denial of his own uniformitarianism that required him to apply the then operating observed rate of one yard a year to the past, not to reject it.
With no evidence to refute the 40-year, eye-witness testimony of the first resident at the Falls, Lyell defiantly declared: “it will always be necessary to suppose the former existence of a barrier of rock, not of loose and destructible materials such as those composing the drift in this district, somewhere immediately below the whirlpool. By that barrier the waters were held back for ages”.
Why would it always be necessary to suppose a barrier, somewhere? Solely to undermine the Bible’s chronology and hence its history.
Lyell’s fraudulent 35,000-year-age has long been abandoned in the geological literature, but not before it seduced many Christians to doubt the reliability of the Genesis chronology. If the effects of Noah’s Flood, with huge water flow and sediment load, and the post-Flood Ice Age, with erosion by ice and meltwater, are taken into consideration, the age of the Falls reduces to the time when the ice cover retreated some 3,800 years ago.
Lyell died in 1875 and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Seven years later he was followed there by his friend and fellow Bible-rejector, Charles Darwin.
Millions have naively bought into their deliberate lies for almost two hundred years.
Are they stupid, or afraid to question a widely accepted "theory with no basis in fact?"
Along with Erasmus Darwin, he was a member of the Lunar Society in which the élite technocrats of the new order met to discuss their world-changing ideas. One of these was Joseph Priestley, a leading Unitarian philosopher, chemist and theologian, who believed in a material world where laws of nature hold sway, everything has a physical cause, and miracles have no place. Wedgwood greatly admired Priestley, and appointed a Unitarian minister to teach in a school at one of his factories where Charles’s father, Robert, attended as a pupil.
Conversely, at Shrewsbury School, and as a student of theology at Cambridge University (1828–1831), Charles came under the strict influence of orthodox Anglicanism. Moreover, to enroll at Cambridge University, it was necessary for him to subscribe to the Thirty-Nine Articles of the Anglican faith, something that his older brother, Erasmus, had done as a student there six years earlier. This reflected a growing willingness of the Darwins to adopt “Anglican respectability”, something which was becoming common even amongst Unitarians—including the Wedgwoods.
As a medical student at Edinburgh (October 1825–April 1827), Charles Darwin keenly attended student societies, including the Plinian where he was even elected to the Council. Here he listened to fiery free-thinkers who wanted to “liberate science” from religious influences. Lectures were given by radicals intent on reforming Church-dominated society and removing the Church’s influence.
At the beginning of the 19th century there were two main schools of geology.
Most leading geologists believed that the earth’s geology was best explained as the result of cataclysms. Many of these believed in long ages and multiple catastrophes; however, there were also many ‘scriptural geologists’ who believed that Noah’s Flood, as recorded in Genesis, being worldwide, was the principal such catastrophic event.
The other view was that everything in geology was solely the result of processes now operating in the earth. This belief rejected the Bible, and the accounts of Creation and the Flood as recorded by Moses in Genesis. Advocates were either secretly atheists or deists, who conceded that the earth must have had a cause, but were unwilling to attribute that cause to the God of the Bible.
Charles Lyell was one such deist. In his Principles of Geology, he alluded to “a Creative Intelligence” having “foresight, wisdom and power”, but he did not allow that this “Infinite and Eternal Being” had actually communicated with mankind.
Lyell argued against catastrophic events in the history of the earth — not by citing contrary evidence, but by holding that any such events were not accessible to inquiry. But the same inaccessibility to inquiry also applied to his own view of a tranquil past. What is needed to establish past events is eye-witness testimony. However, Lyell refused to accept the Flood testimony of Noah, recorded in Genesis by Moses.
Lyell’s stated aim was to free science from "Moses".
Charles Lyell developed a system of geology aimed “to free the science from Moses”.
Charles Lyell (1797–1875) is best known as the author of Principles of Geology. Darwin read the first two volumes of this on his famous voyage on HMS Beagle. These converted Darwin, with absolutely no proof, to belief in long geological ages, which gave him the theoretical millions of years in past time he needed as a basis to make his theory of evolution believable.
Lyell’s aim in his 3-volume work (1830–33), was to “free the science from Moses”, i.e. to free geology from the time-frame of Genesis, and hence delete the Bible’s early history. This is what he confided in a letter to his friend, geologist and fellow naturalist George Poulett Scrope, who was about to write a review of Vol. I of Lyell’s Principles of Geology for the Quarterly Review:
“I am sure you may get into Q. R. [Quarterly Review] what will free the science from Moses … . I conceived the idea five or six years ago, that if ever the Mosaic geology could be set down [i.e. repudiated—Ed.] without giving offense, it would be in an historical sketch, and you must abstract mine … .”
And he also said: “I request that people will … not form an opinion from what history has recorded.” I.e., from the historical accounts of Creation and the Flood recorded in Genesis, which are evidence of God’s supernatural power and His judgment on sin.
Lyell’s subtitle for his Principles was “Being an Attempt to Explain the Former Changes of the Earth’s Surface by Reference to Causes Now in Operation”. This was rephrased as ‘uniformitarianism’ by William Whewell in 1832, and the term has stuck ever since.
Lyell showed his contempt for those who might be expected to oppose his attack on the authority of the Bible and Christian faith, when he wrote in his letter to Scrope: "If you don’t triumph over them, but compliment the liberality and candour of the present age, the bishops and enlightened saints will join us in despising both the ancient and modern physico-theologians."
The late Harvard Professor of Geology, Stephen Jay Gould, wrote: “Lyell’s great treatise is not, as so often stated, a textbook summarizing all prevailing knowledge in a systematic way, but a passionate brief for a single, well-formed argument [for uniformitarianism—Ed.], hammered home relentlessly. … T***h is supposed to prevail by force of logical argument and wealth of documentation, not by strength of rhetoric.”
Gould: “Charles Lyell was a lawyer by profession … [and he] relied upon two bits of cunning to establish his uniformitarian views as the only true geology. First, he set up a straw man to demolish. … In fact, the catastrophists were much more empirically minded than Lyell. The geologic record does seem to require catastrophes: rocks are fractured and contorted; whole faunas are wiped out. To circumvent this literal appearance, Lyell imposed his imagination upon the evidence.”
Gould’s summary: “Lyell was not the white knight of t***h and fieldwork, but a purveyor of a fascinating and particular theory rooted in the steady state of time’s cycle. He tried by rhetoric to equate this substantive theory with rationality and rectitude … .” And: “ … the irony of history is that Lyell won. His version became a semi-official hagiography of geology, preached in textbooks to the present day. Professional historians know better, of course, but their message has rarely reached working geologists, who seem to crave these simple and heroic stories.”
Darwin read the first two volumes of Lyell’s Principles aboard the Beagle. As a result, he based his theory of evolution on Lyell’s erroneous theory of a long age for the earth.When Darwin returned to England in October 1836, he was quickly introduced to prominent scientists of his day, mainly by Charles Lyell.
In 1858, following the receipt by Darwin of a letter from Alfred Russel Wallace setting out a theory of survival of the fittest similar to Darwin’s, it was Lyell who proposed that this letter be read together with an abstract of an unpublished 1844 essay by Darwin plus an abstract of an 1857 letter from Darwin to the American botanist Asa Gray, at a meeting of the Linnean Society on 1 July 1858. Lyell read the material by Darwin first, and Hooker then read the paper by Wallace.
This achieved a flimsy chronological and alphabetical priority for Darwin.
In 1841, Lyell visited Niagara Falls. The first settler there had observed that the Falls retreated by about one yard a year during the 40 years he had lived there. At this rate, the erosion of the whole gorge would have taken less than 10,000 years. This ‘age’ was much too short for Lyell’s anti-Genesis worldview. So in the 9th edition of his Principles (published in America), Lyell wrote (concerning the rate of recession) that “the average of one foot a year would be a much more probable conjecture. In that case, it would have required 35,000 years for the retreat of the Falls, from the escarpment of Queenstown to their present site.”
This was gross hypocrisy on Lyell’s part, because it was a denial of his own uniformitarianism that required him to apply the then operating observed rate of one yard a year to the past, not to reject it.
With no evidence to refute the 40-year, eye-witness testimony of the first resident at the Falls, Lyell defiantly declared: “it will always be necessary to suppose the former existence of a barrier of rock, not of loose and destructible materials such as those composing the drift in this district, somewhere immediately below the whirlpool. By that barrier the waters were held back for ages”.
Why would it always be necessary to suppose a barrier, somewhere? Solely to undermine the Bible’s chronology and hence its history.
Lyell’s fraudulent 35,000-year-age has long been abandoned in the geological literature, but not before it seduced many Christians to doubt the reliability of the Genesis chronology. If the effects of Noah’s Flood, with huge water flow and sediment load, and the post-Flood Ice Age, with erosion by ice and meltwater, are taken into consideration, the age of the Falls reduces to the time when the ice cover retreated some 3,800 years ago.
Lyell died in 1875 and was buried in Westminster Abbey. Seven years later he was followed there by his friend and fellow Bible-rejector, Charles Darwin.
Millions have naively bought into their deliberate lies for almost two hundred years.
Are they stupid, or afraid to question a widely accepted "theory with no basis in fact?"
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Yep... That is the fear....
Nobody wants to be labeled stupid
Nobody wants to be labeled stupid
May 17, 2019 07:11:11 #
[quote=Zemirah]In his youth, Charles Darwin (1809–1882) was subjected to a most diverse range of religious and philosophical ideas...
References for the preceding post:
Lennox, John C., God’s Undertaker—has science buried God? Lion Hudson, Oxford, p. 32, 2007. Barlow, N. (Ed.),
The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Collins, St James’s Place, London, p. 49, 1958; 3. Desmond, A. and Moore, J., Darwin, Penguin, London, p. 9, 1991.
Desmond and Moore, ref. 3, pp. 31–40. 5. Darwin, C., Letter to John Lubbock, 22nd November 1859; <http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-2532.html>.
See Grigg, R., Darwin’s mentors, Creation31(1):50–53, 2010.
See also 2 Peter 3:3–7.10. Lyell, C., Principles of Geology, vols. 1, 2 and 3, John Murray, London, 1830, 1832, 1833.11.
Corsi, P., Science and Religion. Baden Powell and the Anglican debate, 1800–1860, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 243, 1988
Darwin, C., On the Origin of Species, First edition, John Murray, London, pp. 310, 312, 1859; <http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=side&pageseq=1>
Darwin, C., Notebook D, p. 49, 1838; <http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=CUL-DAR123.-&pageseq=1>
Darwin, C., Notebook B, p. 207, 1837–1838; <http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=CUL-DAR121.-&pageseq=>.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_1/j24_1_65-71.pdf
References for the preceding post:
Lennox, John C., God’s Undertaker—has science buried God? Lion Hudson, Oxford, p. 32, 2007. Barlow, N. (Ed.),
The Autobiography of Charles Darwin, Collins, St James’s Place, London, p. 49, 1958; 3. Desmond, A. and Moore, J., Darwin, Penguin, London, p. 9, 1991.
Desmond and Moore, ref. 3, pp. 31–40. 5. Darwin, C., Letter to John Lubbock, 22nd November 1859; <http://www.darwinproject.ac.uk/darwinletters/calendar/entry-2532.html>.
See Grigg, R., Darwin’s mentors, Creation31(1):50–53, 2010.
See also 2 Peter 3:3–7.10. Lyell, C., Principles of Geology, vols. 1, 2 and 3, John Murray, London, 1830, 1832, 1833.11.
Corsi, P., Science and Religion. Baden Powell and the Anglican debate, 1800–1860, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, p. 243, 1988
Darwin, C., On the Origin of Species, First edition, John Murray, London, pp. 310, 312, 1859; <http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?itemID=F373&viewtype=side&pageseq=1>
Darwin, C., Notebook D, p. 49, 1838; <http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=CUL-DAR123.-&pageseq=1>
Darwin, C., Notebook B, p. 207, 1837–1838; <http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=CUL-DAR121.-&pageseq=>.
https://creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j24_1/j24_1_65-71.pdf
May 17, 2019 07:28:52 #
Am I aware of how my computer works, Canuckus?
I have 12 or more computers at home, the oldest is five years old.
They have not spontaneously adapted, nor have they evolved.
They have updated and upgraded only at my command.
Does that make me an instrument of Intelligent Design?
I have 12 or more computers at home, the oldest is five years old.
They have not spontaneously adapted, nor have they evolved.
They have updated and upgraded only at my command.
Does that make me an instrument of Intelligent Design?
Canuckus Deploracus wrote:
Yep... That is the fear....
Nobody wants to be labeled stupid
Nobody wants to be labeled stupid
May 17, 2019 07:40:23 #
Zemirah wrote:
Am I aware of how my computer works, Canuckus?
I have 12 or more computers at home, the oldest is five years old.
They have not spontaneously adapted, nor have they evolved.
They have updated and upgraded only at my command.
Does that make me an instrument of Intelligent Design?
I have 12 or more computers at home, the oldest is five years old.
They have not spontaneously adapted, nor have they evolved.
They have updated and upgraded only at my command.
Does that make me an instrument of Intelligent Design?
Deflection?
The point was that not understanding the science behind something doesn't negate its t***h....
May 17, 2019 07:46:09 #
The Almighty Triune God of Creation is my Authority figure, Rose.
There is no authority on earth that is not to be questioned and required to prove themselves worthy of their position.
There are people who will worship absolutely anything rather than bow at the feet of Jesus Christ.
There is no authority on earth that is not to be questioned and required to prove themselves worthy of their position.
There are people who will worship absolutely anything rather than bow at the feet of Jesus Christ.
Rose42 wrote:
People will believe almost anything if the source comes from one they perceive to be an authority. For many science is a religion.
May 17, 2019 07:49:30 #
Zemirah wrote:
The Almighty Triune God of Creation is my Authority figure, Rose.
There is no authority on earth that is not to be questioned and required to prove themselves worthy of their position.
There are people who will worship absolutely anything rather than bow at the feet of Jesus Christ.
There is no authority on earth that is not to be questioned and required to prove themselves worthy of their position.
There are people who will worship absolutely anything rather than bow at the feet of Jesus Christ.
Amen to that.
“A natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned”
1 Cor 2:14
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.