------------------
Why hasn't someone done this before?

------------------
Why hasn't someone done this before?

his message is accurate whereas yours is quite obviously biased from the outset

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

------------------
Why hasn't someone done this before?

------------------
I Eat Small Goats!

[This message has been edited by Cryptobranchus (edited September 09, 2004).]

[This message has been edited by Cryptobranchus (edited September 09, 2004).]

------------------
Hard work often pays off in time, but lazieness always pays off now.

[This message has been edited by en972 (edited September 09, 2004).]

quote:

---

Maybe instead of trying to disprove evolution, we should instead disprove the idea that evolution and the Bible are compatible. It might be better to prove that evolution is a pagan religion, and I think that we should show that the evolution theories that include a god do not have the God of the Bible.

---

quote:

---

Basicly, all you have to do to prove an evoluionist wrong is by opening up the Bible. You don't need science or theorys, all you have to do is show them the truth.

---

by the way, curious abotu your name..
why D000hg ? 53248g prehaps? getting into some dangerous dos Hi-mem areas
or maybe its a C-64 number of importance, i can't remember seems like in the range that the graphics chips memory and 'registers' lived..
actually it seems to be an important graphcis number to "POKE" on an atari computer also.
well if you are familiar with c64 you'd be awre of 64738 but in that case you'd be FCE2hg.
anyway be nice to newcommers so the mods don't have to SYS 64738 you

------------------
Karl /GODCENTRIC
Visionary Media
the creative submitted to the divine.
Husband of my amazing wife Aleshia
Klumsy@xtra.co.nz

[This message has been edited by klumsy (edited September 10, 2004).]

But please back up your claims...

ps it's an old login-name that was allocated to me, I got used to using it. Nothing interesting at all!
pps I wouldn't call it patronising, just intellectually sound in a forceful manner

[This message has been edited by d000hg (edited September 10, 2004).]

quote:

---

for by saying evolution cannot be reconciled with the Bible you pretty much rule out the cornerstones of physics and geology too.

---

I don't need "evolution" to maintain physics and geology.

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

------------------
I Eat Small Goats!

------------------
I Eat Small Goats!

It goes back even further.
In Egypt and Babylon/Persia, before the time of Daniel, there was a powerful sect of teacher's and advisor's that believed very much in the worship of nature. Violence in the region caused these teacher to head into what is now Europe and they are recorded as bringing their influence and religion to Europe; specifically the countries of Greece and Italy (and possibly as far as the British Isles). Many of the 'great' Greek philosopher's teachings had their roots in learning at the feet of these same teachers.

Also, the idea of evolution being a religion isn't a new one. Darwin often embarrassed his followers by making remarks to that effect. Thomas Huxley especially didn't like that one, as he was busy trying to set up a case of "science vs religion" while Darwin himself was saying "religion vs religion". Naturalistic humanism, which is grounded in evolutionary doctrine, was declared by the US Supreme Court to be a religion in the late 1800s (can't remember the exact date; writing all of this off the top of my head).

Dr. Michael Ruse, an evolutionist (and who was then a philosopher of science professor at Guelph University), was one of the main witnesses for evolution in the 1981 Arkansas federal trial concerning the constitutionality of the equal time law for creation and evolution passed by the Arkansas legislature (declared unconstitutional by Judge William Overton). At that time he argued strenuously that evolutionary theory was strictly science, while creation theory was exclusively religious. This served as the main basis for Judge Overton’s decision. About 20 years later, in an article published in a Canadian newspaper, Ruse, although still a Darwinian evolutionist, revealed his complete turnabout on the question of evolutionary theory and religion. Ruse flatly stated that he now believes that “Evolution is promoted by its practitioners as more than mere science. Evolution is promulgated as an ideology, a secular religion—a full-fledged alternative to Christianity, with meaning and morality . . . Evolution is a religion”.

(Yes, I had to look in my notes to get that quote for the last paragraph. My memory isn't that good. )

I've noticed that more and more western evolutionists are coming to the same conclusion as Dr. Ruse. Why did I put "western" in bold? If you look up the writings of the Chinese scientist Dr. Jun-Yuan Chen I'll think you'll find it interesting how he views western scientists and their religious beliefs. To paraphrase his thoughts, he said he was amazed that when he held a conference to discuss his findings all the western scientists wanted to do was defend their preconceived beliefs against the data he had gathered from the Chengyiang bed in southern China. There was no attempt to find the truth, only hostility towards the idea that the evidence contradicted Darwin's original ideas.

On a side note, Chen is still an atheist as far as I know. Like many Eastern scientists he just plain doesn't hold Darwin in high esteem (almost worshipful in some cases) like Western scientists. Of course, being sponsored by the Chinese government as he is, it's possible he is hiding his true beliefs.

[This message has been edited by Gump (edited September 10, 2004).]

quote:

---

I don't need "evolution" to maintain physics and geology.

---

quote:

---

First of all, where would you put millions of years into the Bibical creation account? Second of all when I say Pagan I do not mean Greek Paganism; I am talking about any religion than worhips a god other than God the the Bible. There is no where you can put million of years into the Bible, it's impossible. If the evolution theory is a theological evolution theory it is going to believe in a very different god than the God of the Bible.

---

First of all, since Adam, there has been a record of how long people lived and how old they were when they had children (ex. Genesis 11:14, 32). So the lineage up to date is approximately 6,000 years old. The only place that I know that Gap Theorist try to put millions of years, is in the creation of Genesis.

It also doesn't fit in creation. By the way, you say that I am biased when I say that evolution can't fit in the Bible, but why can't you be biased when you say that it can? Also you want me to provide support of my claims. Well I am using the best source, the Bible. I’m not using a web site. Why don’t you provide Biblical support for your claims?

Of what I know, when million of years are inserted into the Bible they are inserted into the 7 days of creation. This creates a major problem with the day light cycles. “God called the light Day, and the darkness He called Night. So the evening and the morning were the first day” (Gen 1:5). The literal meaning is: And evening was, and morning was, a day, one. If the first or if any of the other 7 days of creation were millions of years old there would be thousands or million years of morning (day) then thousands or million years of evening (night). The Bible says evening and morning, not evenings and mornings. If there were thousands of years in creation, evening and morning would be plural not singular. This day light cycle would create a very different climate on opposite sides of the earth. The side that was exposed to morning would be insanely hot and the side with the evening would be insanely cold. I don’t know of any animals that could withstand the kind of climates that would be created from this effect.

Also God created birds before reptiles. Birds and sea creatures were made on the fifth day (Genesis 1:20-23) and on the sixth day land animals and man were made (Genesis 1:24-31). Also there wasn’t death before man ate the fruit of knowledge of good and evil (or before he sinned). “Therefore, just as though one man sin entered the world, and death through sin , and thus death spread to all men, because all sinned-“ (Romans 5:12). This means that nothing died before Adam sinned. So over the millions of years that Gap Theorist believe in, there would have been no death and no fossils.

Constantly the Bible says that he created his creation, not that it evolved (Genesis 1:24, 25, 27). These are just a few things that refute the idea that evolution and the Bible are compatible.

------------------
I Eat Small Goats!

quote:

---

Originally posted by en972:
Basicly, all you have to do to prove an evoluionist wrong is by opening up the Bible. You don't need science or theorys, all you have to do is show them the truth.

---

I agree with this whole heartedly. In 1 Corithians 1:18-21 it talks about wisdom. God cannot be proven through human intellect. So we must speak through God's wisdom not our own.

quote:

---

1 Corinthians 1:18-21
I know very well how foolish the message of the cross sounds to those who are on the road to destruction. But we who are being saved recognize this message as the very power of God. As the Scriptures say,
"I will destroy human wisdom and discard their most brilliant ideas."
So where does this leave the philosophers, the scholars, and the world's brilliant debaters? God has made them all look foolish and has shown their wisdom to be useless nonsense. Since God in his wisdom saw to it that the world would NEVER find him through human wisdom, he has used our foolish preaching to save all who believe.

---

quote:

---

Well they both require billions of years which means the universe sits about for 99.9999% of its life then we get made!

---

No, they don't require it. It's only required when you're dealing with theories about the history of the Earth. In normal, everyday, practical science, you never really need to concern yourself with the age of the Earth.

------------------
Reasoning with non-believers without encouraging them to read the Bible, I have found, is quite useless. God's word convinces - not our own reason.
--CobraA1

Switch Mayhem now available! Get it here
Codename: Roler - Writing object code and GUI.

quote:

---

Originally posted by CobraA1:
No, they don't require it. It's only required when you're dealing with theories about the history of the Earth. In normal, everyday, practical science, you never really need to concern yourself with the age of the Earth.

---

quote:

---

Why do you say English version? Are you supposing that the Bible isn't the same as it was in the original translations? I have read English translations of the Dead Sea Scrolls (which were mostly copies of the Old Testaments) Old Testaments (which are almost exactly the same as the Bibles) and they also don't allow millions of years. Why should it matter if it is in English or not if it says the same thing?

---

quote:

---

First of all, since Adam, there has been a record of how long people lived and how old they were when they had children (ex. Genesis 11:14, 32). So the lineage up to date is approximately 6,000 years old. The only place that I know that Gap Theorist try to put millions of years, is in the creation of Genesis.

---

[This message has been edited by d000hg (edited September 17, 2004).]