Sorry about that. In another forum I am in, they have a different format to show quotes: >>quote<<. I have been it for over 20 years and sometimes I use it instead of the one in this forum. Then I forget to edit my post. I assure you it is not intentional.
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
The Big Bang and Evolution
- Thread starter Ubon
- Start date
Sorry about that. In another forum I am in, they have a different format to show quotes: >>quote<<. I have been it for over 20 years and sometimes I use it instead of the one in this forum. Then I forget to edit my post. I assure you it is not intentional.
In the Library of Congress it's under BS... oh the irony... Library of Congress Classification:Class B, subclass BS -- The Bible - Wikipedia
Its obvious you only goggle evolution sites, which never offer any evidence for their opinions. If you want to know the truth learn to google the ICR site and ask to see their comments on any subject you want to. They will put it in scientific terms.
Statements like that, which you can't prove, only expose your lack of understanding of mutations. You continue to make these statement but NEVER say HOW is works. That is because mutations do not work the way you think.
Another indication you are willing to accept opinions on faith alone. You lack scientific understanding of basic genetics and mutations.
Wonderful. Then it should be easy for you to provide the scientific evidence for just one thing the TOE preaches. I have just put on my prophecy hat and predict you will not do what I ask.
It isn't. Statements like that come from people like you who think opinions are facts.
Gen 17:19 - But God said, No, but you shall call his name Isaac and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
Luke 3:34 - The son of Jacob, the son of Isaac...
The Bible clearly says Joseph was not the father of Jesus.
Gen 17:19 - But God said, No, but you shall call his name Isaac and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
Luke 3:34 - The son of Jacob, the son of Isaac...
I accept evolution without proof - good grief, you have a nerve. I have read, listened to books, videos, been to presentations, I have questioned it and got answers that make sense.
Then post some of the evidence for goodness sake. I say you have accepted opinions as facts.
Actually you wouldn't . You would rationalize it away based on current belief system
Scientific evidence that matter, energy and life can create itself out of nothing.
DUUH. The Bible is not a science book, but where it touches on science it is correct---After their kind e.g.
Gen 17:19 - But God said, No, but you shall call his name Isaac and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
Luke 3:34 - The son of Jacob, the son of Isaac...
Altfish
Veteran Member
You seem to know more about me than I do and as far as I am aware you have never met me.
"I accept opinions as facts", "I would rationalize it away based on current belief system" - I now fully understand that you are not worth discussing issues with as you constantly make statements without evidence.
Grief, now you are in Ken Ham, AiG land, "Kinds", but at least we agree the bible is not a science book.
"Where it touches on science it is correct" - beam me up Scotty. For one example, what about the firmament?[/QUOTE]
So you actually believe the Earth is 6000 years old? Really? Age of the Earth | The Institute for Creation Research
[/QUOTE]
Thanks for admitting you have no evidence to support your opinions, and it is better to run away than admit it. How sad, with all that supposed evidence, you can't provide even one example from the TOE proved by science.
Since the Bible doesn't give the age of the earth, it is irrelevant. Talk Origins will give it as several billions of years old and they can't prove that either. See I look at both sides f the coin. Evidently you are afraid to look on the other side. I guess you faith is not strong enough.
Besides we are talking abut science, not the Bible. What did they say about mutations? O you didn't look that up did you? Or maybe you did and found out you are wrong about them, but will not admit it.
Gen 17:19 - But God said, No, but you shall call his name Isaac and I will establish My covenant with him for an everlasting covenant for his descendants after him.
Luke 3:34 - The son of Jacob, the son of Isaac...
ROTFL. You said and I quote: "If you want to know the truth learn to google the ICR site". I did.
"Scripture presents enough chronological information to estimate the number of years between Adam, whom God created on Day 6 of the creation week, and Christ, who was the last Adam.
From Adam to the Flood was about 1,656 years, and Abraham lived a few hundred years after the Flood. Other time markers in Scripture include the number of years Jacob’s descendants spent in Egypt, the total number of years Israel was ruled by judges, then kings, and how long Israel was held captive by Assyrians and Babylonians until God re-established them under Ezra and Nehemiah.
Adding these and other pieces, most of which even find confirmation from secular archaeological sources, brackets an age for the world of around 6,000 years."
Biblical Age of the Earth | The Institute for Creation Research
http://www.icr.org/biblical-age
So is the Earth 6000 years old?
The subject is evolution, what the TOE preaches, not about what the Bible does not say.
First of all there are always gaps in Biblical chronology and you have no way of knowing how long the gaps were. Second you don't know how much times there was between Gen 1:2 and 1:3. Third the age given by Talk Origins can to be proved either. So why do you not include the guess also? Talk origins gives the age, the Bible does not.
Finally you are trying to change the subject because you are afraid to see what they say about mutations, which was the original subject of this discussion and will scientifically prove you wrong.
Thumper
Thank the gods I'm an atheist
Luke 3:26 - "And Jesus himself began to be about thirty years of age, being the son of Joseph ..."
Clearly.
Your reference is Luke 3:23 - And Jesus Himself, began to be about 30 years of age, being(as was supposed) the Son of Joseph, which was the son of Heil.
Clearly
If people can say that the Earth is 6000 years old, I don't see why I should care what they would have to say about mutations. It's obviously biased.
Thumper
Thank the gods I'm an atheist
You said and I quote: "If you want to know the truth learn to google the ICR site". The ICR site says the Earth is 6000 years old and they also say they have a lot of scientific evidence for it. Is that the truth or not!?
Last edited:
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
Still saying this despite the fact that almost all the scientists in the world who study genetics and mutations disagree with you?
It simply isn't credible - in fact is kind of comical...
That's fine . If you are afraid to see what they say it point to the FACT you are unsure of what you have been taught. Since the evolutionist can't prove what they say but you believe them only point your your bias and your hypocrisy, and not to science.
When they all agree, get back to me.
ratiocinator
Lightly seared on the reality grill.
When you have an even remotely credible reason why almost all the scientists in the world who study genetics lack "understanding of basic genetics and mutations", let me know.
As I said before: if you weren't claiming it was obvious and basic, your position might be less ridiculous.