But you were much more specific than that, you pointedly and directly made the claim that the moon’s orbit was no longer perfect. The best you can do in scientifically explaining what it meant for that orbit to have been perfect is to babble about creation groaning. No wonder you have been so impotent at actually engaging the scientific content of these discussions. A broken tape recorder that just barely manages to squeak out the phrase “God’s Word” every few minutes has as much scientific credibility as you do.
Creation vs. Evolution
- Thread starter MichaelCadry
- Start date
- Status
6days
New member
Sorry that seems to bother you. Yes...based on SCRIPTURE we know creation was perfect.....it no longer is.
Off topic a wee bit but we also see that creation is no longer perfect when we look at our genome. We see genetic burden increasing.... Each successive generation has more harmful mutations than the previous generation. (And natural selection is incapable of solving the problem)
That speaks poorly for how much attention you have been paying in these discussions.
Not similar to me at all, since I am not aware of any Christian scientists that don’t believe in an actual world-wide flood because of their religious beliefs. They simply don’t demand that everything in the Bible be read as literal history.
Is it a tenant of your faith that you are required to twist what other tells you - as you so clearly have done here? Or is it just a personal aberration of your own?
"Science” is commonly understood to mean both a methodology and those who work within that paradigm. It is sad that you choose to resort to such pathetic arguments as this, instead of focusing on the substance of the discussion.
Liar. I listed a study in which Governmental Agencies and Universities from almost a dozen of the most advanced nations in the world in which they published (not attempted) the calibration data for what you repeatedly have said “can’t be calibrated for”.
How does it feel trying to slime out of the things you have said? Demonstrating what Christian ethics really means for you – denial, dodging, anything but admission of error?
What is much more important is your refusal to admit when you have said something stupid – that lack of morals doesn’t bother YOU.
Sorry that the truth from 6days bothers you so much -
gcthomas
New member
Well, yes it is.
The attachment to another individual that produces an enduring long term parental partnership is an obvious reproductive success advantage, and so you'd expect the attachment desire to exist through evolution. Love is the subjective experience of having such an attachment.
Simples.
gcthomas
New member
Nonono. Scientist in general do not even actively reject the Flood, as it is so far down in the likelihood scales that they can't be bothered to even specfically consider such a religiously motivated claim. Most will not have given it a moment's thought, and since global floods are incompatible with the evidence that they see every day they never will.
Why isn't your faith enough? Why do you so need to have the backing of science for your anti-scientific claims? What would science provide for you that your faith cannot?
I can't tell if that is so or not, since I have yet to see that truth is something that 6days dispenses.
I am still fascinated by the article by Snelling on meteor dating that 6 days linked to. For years I have seen creationists try to discredit isochrons, yet Snelling over and over again admits that isochrons give good results. And, where 6days frequently says science supports God’s Word, Snelling makes the point that science clearly points to an old earth, and for him God’s Word trumps the science, not derives support from the science.
6days
New member
Oh my..... Redfern, I think we are agreeing but you seem bent on hostility.redfern said:
What I had said was that unknown conditions in the past can't be calibrated for. The study you mention is trying to determine the past. For example they look at tree rings along with other evidence to help determine conditions in the past.
We can get a glimpse of the past, but we often do this through biased lenses. For example, we might study mutation rates to determine when and how different distinct people groups formed. (We are examining evidence in the present, trying to determine unknown conditions in the past).
Jose Fly
New member
You win the internet for today. :first:
Cross Reference
New member
LOL!! Bull!!! Subjective evolution experience is that it???? Rofl!!!!!! <My sides are splitting> <How stupid can ya get!!!>
gcthomas
New member
Not nearly as stupid as you, it seems, it you can't follow one simple explanation.
Tell me, how is the expression of love objectively different from other attachments that you find hard to give up and that give you pleasure to experience? (The pleasure is the body's*way of reinforcing the attachment behaviour, if you weren't sure. People repeat pleasurable experiences, don't they?)
Cross Reference
New member
A yo-yo has more sense than you without even its string being jerked..
gcthomas
New member
So you still can't answer the question? Figures. Do you have no understanding of the origin of live that you could share, or will you stick to the school-yard insults?
Cross Reference
New member
God is LOVE! Learn that and love to live. . . .live to Love .. . HIM! and then live eternally!
gcthomas
New member
Cross Reference
New member
What have to to lose? Nothing else has worked for you.
Cross Reference
New member
You do know that anything left to itself NEVER self imroves, don't you? How many books have you read that you believe you needed to read to make you better at whatever it is you do?
gcthomas
New member
Silly and plainly wrong assertion.
- Status