Comments
361 - 380 of 846 Comments Last updated Sep 25, 2013
socci

Lawson, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#364
Mar 2, 2013
 
While starlight seems to be a problem for the biblical model it is in fact a measure of distance not time, and can not really be used to date the universe. The biblical account says God created Adam and Eve fully grown. The trees and animals were all mature, and starlight made visible on the fourth day. But can we date the event with empirical observations?

According to astronomical observations, galaxies like our own experience about one supernova (a violently-exploding star) every 25 years. The gas and dust remnants from such explosions (like the Crab Nebula) expand outward rapidly and should remain visible for over a million years. Yet the nearby parts of our galaxy in which we could observe such gas and dust shells contain only 274 supernova remnants. That number is consistent with only about 7,000 years worth of supernovas.

According to astronomers model, the SNR should reach a diameter of about 300 light years after 120,000 years. So if our galaxy was billions of years old, we should be able to observe many SNRs this size. But if our galaxy is 6,000-10,000 years old, no SNRs would have had time to reach this size. So the number of observed SNRs of a particular size is an excellent test of whether the galaxy is old or young. In fact, the results are consistent with a universe thousands of years old, but are a puzzle if the universe has existed for billions of years.
http://creation.com/exploding-stars-point-to-...
http://www.mrao.cam.ac.uk/surveys/snrs

Since: Dec 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#365
Mar 2, 2013
 
For those who can handle the truth: www.thebibleistheotherside.org
Job

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#366
Mar 2, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The word hypothesis is a scientific term. I already told you I think he gave a personal opinion.
<quoted text>
2. Richard Dawkins is not only qualified to make those comments but he is absolutely correct. Although those comments may be offensive to you and other creationists the fact that they are true takes precedence over the fact that they may be offensive to a few.
Maintaining a belief in creationist theories in the spite of all the undeniable scientific evidence is exactly the same as maintaining the belief that the Sun revolves around Earth in spite of the undeniable scientific evidence. It is entirely rational to conclude that a person that believes the Sun revolves around the Earth is “ignorant, stupid or insane”, therefore it is entirely rational to conclude the same thing about those that refuse to accept the undeniable scientific evidence for evolution.
3. I think a rational person would have to admit that his description of the Bible as being weird is not uncalled for; talking animals, wizards, witches, demons, sticks turning into snakes, food falling from the sky, people walking on water. Sounds a lot like Harry Potter.
4. <quoted text>
I’m sure they would need personal protection from the mean old scientists that might correct them and say bad things about them.
<quoted text>
5. He gave an unsupported personal opinion.
<quoted text>
1. The whole issue of theories, hypothesis, opinion, observation can be twisted in all kinds of directions to favor one's position. An hypothesis is not always a 'scientific' hypothesis. He made an observation. Many people have made observations public that were not correct, and were not required to retire. Why would it be in the case if there's no politics involved? You are suggesting that 'politics' is 'not' involved in terms of the scientists, right?
He was labeled a racist, not just one giving a personal opinion. Do "you" think he is racist? You seem to think he was treated justly. Why would someone come under fire for making an 'observation'?
2. So far, the only thing I got from this comment is that this is only your opinion. Why is Dawkins, a non-theologian, qualified and right? It's not enough to say he is qualified without telling me what qualifies him? I know of only one person who thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that's because you brought him up in a prior post. Prior to that I never heard of him.
3. For one, "wierd" doesn't mean untrue. Or thinking someething is weird is not a valid reason to make a claim of "untrue". The miracles in the Bible were fairly infrequent. And some you listed only happened once that we know of. So the Bible certainly is nothing like a Harry Potter book. Witches do exist. Finding out if demons exist can be done in a couple of ways. One is to find out that the God of the Bible exists, and the other is to explore avenues that place people in contact with demons. The latter I wouldn't suggest. I think many people instinctively stay away from the occult because they know it's dangerous, whether they believe in God or not.
You've told me that you think that it's possible that a creator God exists. If a creator God exists, would he capable of making an animal talk?
4. I would think the scientitsts would be the last people they would have to worry about. If you made a comment(s) deemed racist publically, or supported someone who did, do you think you would be free from the need for personal protection?
5. Why would someone be forced to retire for an opinion?
Job

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#367
Mar 2, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
He gave an unsupported personal opinion.
<quoted text>

2…a scientist that has training and experience in the branch of genetics that studies the relationship of genes to human characteristics rather than the molecular structure of genes.
<quoted text>

3. I don’t pretend to know the extent of training and experience Dr. Watson might have in branches of biology and genetics other than molecular, which is why I say probably. However, it’s entirely possible that Professor Rose does know Dr. Watson's experience and training in other brances.
1. Why would someone be forced to retire for giving an opinion?

2. So you would disagree with the Czech company?

http://www.romea.cz/en/news/czech/experts-gen...

3. Basically another thing you are unsure of?
Job

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#368
Mar 2, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
Your statement was “he doesn't seem to be addressing Genesis”. You statement was clearly incorrect. He is clearly addressing interpretations of Genesis.
2. The scientific evidence shows that the Earth was not created in 6 literal days, and that animal and human life developed over millions of years and did not appear suddenly,
3. and that there has never been any scientific evidence of a talking snake.
<quoted text>
4.…all of the scientific evidence from all of the various fields of science.
“…several independent lines of evidence indicate that the Earth is about 4.5 billion years old and that the universe is about 14 billion years old. Rejecting the evidence for these age estimates would mean rejecting not just biological evolution but also fundamental discoveries of modern physics, chemistry, astrophysics, and geology.”- National Academy of Sciences
1. Yes, I know that. I reread the comment. That's why I made this following comment:
"Actually, he seems to allude to when referring to theology. But the question still stands. Where's the contradiction between science and the literal interpretation of Genesis?"
2. Wrong. Evolution makes assumptions based on 'naturalism'.
Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.- evolutionary biologist Richard Dickerson
3. Again, if there is a creator God, could He if He so chooses, cause one of His creations without vocal cords (if that were the case back then) to speak?
4. At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.- anti-creationist science writer Boyce Rensberger
Job

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#369
Mar 2, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
with book about elementary biology. You won’t understand much about evolution without a basic understanding of biology. You’ll find many things in that book relating to the principles of evolution. That in turn should raise questions in your mind which should lead you to look for other books that provide a more in depth explanation of the principles of evolution and the evidence that supports them. If questions don’t come up in your mind don’t waste your time reading any more. Believe whatever you choose to believe; if you don’t have any questions in your mind you’re not going to learn anything.
<quoted text>

2. I attended a religious school for during my formative years I learned about evolution in science class and religion in religion class. Creationism is based on revelation and evolution is based on scientific evidence.

3. <quoted text>
I don’t think scientists are trying to remove Christianity from society today any more than Galileo was trying to remove Christianity from society in his day. They are trying to remove revelation from science.

4. Revelation has no place in science.
1. Can you provide an example of what would lead one to side with evolution when reading a book on elementary biology?

2. However, there's no evidence that God did 'not' reveal to us the past. Evolution is a world view based on a foundation of "naturalism".

3. Are you speaking for all scientists? You don't think Dawkins would like to see religion removed?

4. Says who?
Job

San Francisco, CA

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#370
Mar 2, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
1. <quoted text>
“No evidence that claimed to find people of African descent were less intelligent than Europeans or other racial groups had stood up to scientific scrutiny.”- Prof Steven Rose
“More importantly from my point of view, there is no scientific basis for such a belief." - Dr. James Watson

2. <quoted text>
We live in a country with free speech and very prominent people make statements about things they know nothing about every day. Plumbers sometimes try to give advice about electrical problems. A wise person listens to someone that knows what they are talking about.
If any scientist makes a claim that he/she asserts is based reliable scientific evidence any scientist that disagrees must provide evidence that refutes the evidence presented.
1. I believe that he made that comment 'after' he was chastized. If he had made the comment 'before' that, then I would might take notice. Not after his repremand, and possible physical harm from outside the scientific community. It's sort of like you quoting someone making a confession with a gun to his head.

2. In light of the situation, I don't this is a good example of "freedom of speech" from an evolutionary science point of view. I think from a moral/ethical point of view, the reprimand was just, because I believe that we're dealing with a moral/ethical issue. If science seemed to point to his statement being true at any time, I will not accept it is fact. I wouldn't fault "science", but I would maintain that no matter how many scientists were making this claim, their conclusion would be wrong.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#371
Mar 3, 2013
 
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Satan stuck demons up your butt, there we are even
Ok, you weren't playing.

Since: Jul 12

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#372
Mar 3, 2013
 
Jazybird58 wrote:
<quoted text>Are you going to answer the question and remove a doubt about your intelligence???
Already have several times. The Biblically illiterate don't get it.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#373
Mar 3, 2013
 
socci wrote:
<quoted text>
The claim was made granite - earth's baserocks claimed to be bazzillions of years old - are an igneous from when earth was a molten formation. This was refuted with a published work demonstrating in the lab how granite is not an igneous and formed in less than a minute.
(Radiohalos in Radiochronological and Cosmological Perspective. Gentry, R.V., Science 184, 62, 1974)
http://www.halos.com/reports/science-1974-per...
http://www.youtube.com/watch...
As yet unrefuted proof earth did not form as claimed by evolution theories. Proof earth did not form after any 'big bang'.
I should have said that if a scientist makes a “reasonable” claim based on valid scientific evidence…

A balloon filled with helium will rise in the air rather than fall to the ground. That is a valid scientific fact. However, it would be unreasonable for a scientist to claim that fact refutes the law of gravity in the face of all of the other evidence that supports the law of gravity. Scientists would dismiss that claim out of hand as they do Robert Gentry's claim.

Robert V. Gentry did publish valid research on radiohalos but he was not the first to discover them.

“The phenomenon of radiohalos has been known to geologists since the early part of the 20th century.”- J. Richard Wakefield

Robert V. Gentry holds a Master’s degree in Physics he is not a Geologist. Geologists scoff at his claim that radiohalos prove a young Earth.

“…a perfectly ridiculous and unscientific hypothesis [radiohalos prove a young Earth] that ignores virtually the entire body of geological knowledge." - Brent Dalrymple, Ph.D in Geology, U.S. Geological Survey, awarded the National Medal of Science in 2003

“The geology of the sites at which Po halos [Radiohalos] are found clearly shows that Gentry’s proof of instantaneous creation and a young Earth is nothing of the sort. Gentry's Po halos simply do not occur in primordial granites, but instead were formed in relatively young dikes that demonstrably crosscut older sedimentary and igneous rocks. Gentry claims to be an objective scientist but he has, in fact, ignored the very extensive published evidence that disproves his hypothesis. In addition, when confronted with this evidence he simply denies its existence.”- J. Richard Wakefield, "The geology of 'Gentry’s Tiny Mystery’(1988)

“Wear white at night.”

Since: Jun 09

Albuquerque

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#374
Mar 3, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Can you provide an example of what would lead one to side with evolution when reading a book on elementary biology?
2. However, there's no evidence that God did 'not' reveal to us the past. Evolution is a world view based on a foundation of "naturalism".
3. Are you speaking for all scientists? You don't think Dawkins would like to see religion removed?
4. Says who?
Hi, Job. Good morning.

I'd really like to know where you're coming from here.
You are vehemently arguing in favor of an ancient book taking precedence over modern science, specifically evolution.

There are dozens of scientific fields of endeavor that provide substantial but inconcluseve proof of evolution. When taken in the conglomerate, however, there is little room for doubt.

Please be kind enough to enumerate a few examples of the evidence for evolution and explain why you think it is not valid. Try to avoid, if at all possible, arguments that are not based on 'The Bible says' or personal testimony. Just deal with the facts if you are aware of any.

By the way, I believe he is speaking of revelation in the context of so-called revealed religions, not uncovering a rock and finding a fossil.

God bless you.

“Reality bites”

Since: Dec 11

Location hidden

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#375
Mar 3, 2013
 
dollarsbill wrote:
<quoted text>
Already have several times. The Biblically illiterate don't get it.
No you did not.

God created man and animal, at the same time, according to the bible, True??

Cool, why is it that human fossilized remains are never found with dinosaur fossilized remains"

Given that carbon dating can be flawed, why is it that no human remains date back as far as dinosaurs???
dollarsbill

Donetsk, Ukraine

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#376
Mar 3, 2013
 
Jazybird58 wrote:
God created man and animal, at the same time, according to the bible, True??
false. I am God and do not forget that.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#377
Mar 3, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. The whole issue of theories, hypothesis, opinion, observation can be twisted in all kinds of directions to favor one's position. An hypothesis is not always a 'scientific' hypothesis. He made an observation. Many people have made observations public that were not correct, and were not required to retire. Why would it be in the case if there's no politics involved? You are suggesting that 'politics' is 'not' involved in terms of the scientists, right?
I will repeat what I previously wrote…

“Certainly the magnitude of the response by the scientific community was affected by the socially and politically offensive nature of the comments but the lack of scientific evidence was the determining factor in the unanimity of the rejection of them.”
Job wrote:
He was labeled a racist, not just one giving a personal opinion. Do "you" think he is racist? You seem to think he was treated justly. Why would someone come under fire for making an 'observation'?
I think Dr. Watson’s comments were certainly racist in character. I don’t know Dr. Watson personally and I can’t judge him a racist or not a racist simply on the basis of those comments. I don’t know what his background is and he may well have been raised in a racist environment which still affects his thinking to this day. He obviously wasn’t thinking too clearly when he made those statements.

He was treated exactly as he should have been for making unsupported very offensive comments.
Job wrote:
2. So far, the only thing I got from this comment is that this is only your opinion. Why is Dawkins, a non-theologian, qualified and right? It's not enough to say he is qualified without telling me what qualifies him? I know of only one person who thinks the Sun revolves around the Earth, and that's because you brought him up in a prior post. Prior to that I never heard of him.
Dawkins is a scientist (PhD evolutionary biologist) which makes him eminently qualified to comment on evolution. You don’t have to be a theologian or be qualified in any way to hold the personal opinion that the Bible is “just plain weird”.
Job wrote:
3. For one, "wierd" doesn't mean untrue. Or thinking someething is weird is not a valid reason to make a claim of "untrue". The miracles in the Bible were fairly infrequent. And some you listed only happened once that we know of. So the Bible certainly is nothing like a Harry Potter book. Witches do exist. Finding out if demons exist can be done in a couple of ways. One is to find out that the God of the Bible exists, and the other is to explore avenues that place people in contact with demons. The latter I wouldn't suggest. I think many people instinctively stay away from the occult because they know it's dangerous, whether they believe in God or not.
weird (adj)- odd: strange or unusual, supernatural – The Bible is weird.

Witches and demons exist only in human imagination.
Job wrote:
You've told me that you think that it's possible that a creator God exists. If a creator God exists, would he capable of making an animal talk?
The “God” that I consider to be a possibility wouldn’t be so unintelligent as to expect rational thinking people to believe in a talking snake.
Job wrote:
4. I would think the scientitsts would be the last people they would have to worry about. If you made a comment(s) deemed racist publically, or supported someone who did, do you think you would be free from the need for personal protection?
What does any of that have to with your comment that people who referred to Dr. Watson’s comments as hypotheses would need personal protection? Your comment was humorous.
Job wrote:
5. Why would someone be forced to retire for an opinion?
…because it was extremely offensive and unsupported.
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#378
Mar 3, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Why would someone be forced to retire for giving an opinion?
…because it was extremely offensive and unsupported.
Job wrote:
2. So you would disagree with the Czech company?
http://www.romea.cz/en/news/czech/experts-gen...
No
Job wrote:
3. Basically another thing you are unsure of?
Not being a bible scholar I don’t claim to have inerrant knowledge of everything. I readily admit there are a lot of things that I am unsure of and a lot of things I don’t know. One of the things I admit that I don't know is whether or not there is a "God".
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#379
Mar 3, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Yes, I know that. I reread the comment. That's why I made this following comment:
"Actually, he seems to allude to when referring to theology.
Allude to what? If somebody is alluding they have to be alluding to something.
Job wrote:
But the question still stands. Where's the contradiction between science and the literal interpretation of Genesis?"
I will repeat…

“The scientific evidence shows that the Earth was not created in 6 literal days, and that animal and human life developed over millions of years and did not appear suddenly, and that there has never been any scientific evidence of a talking snake.”
Job wrote:
2. Wrong. Evolution makes assumptions based on 'naturalism'.
"The principles of evolution have been tested repeatedly and found to be valid according to scientific criteria." - American Anthropological Association
Job wrote:
Rule #1: Let us see how far and to what extent we can explain the behavior of the physical and material universe in terms of purely physical and material causes, without invoking the supernatural.- evolutionary biologist Richard Dickerson
It seems to me science has done an excellent job of explaining natural phenomenon without invoking the supernatural.

“However, before we come to creation [supernatural], which puts an end to all discussion: I think we should try everything else.”— Johannes Kepler
Job wrote:
3. Again, if there is a creator God, could He if He so chooses, cause one of His creations without vocal cords (if that were the case back then) to speak?
The “God” that I consider to be a possibility wouldn’t be so unintelligent as to expect rational thinking people to believe in a talking snake.
Job wrote:
4. At this point, it is necessary to reveal a little inside information about how scientists work, something the textbooks don’t usually tell you. The fact is that scientists are not really as objective and dispassionate in their work as they would like you to think. Most scientists first get their ideas about how the world works not through rigorously logical processes but through hunches and wild guesses. As individuals, they often come to believe something to be true long before they assemble the hard evidence that will convince somebody else that it is. Motivated by faith in his own ideas and a desire for acceptance by his peers, a scientist will labor for years knowing in his heart that his theory is correct but devising experiment after experiment whose results he hopes will support his position.- anti-creationist science writer Boyce Rensberger
"In all science, error precedes the truth, and it is better it should go first than last." ~Hugh Walpole
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#380
Mar 3, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. Can you provide an example of what would lead one to side with evolution when reading a book on elementary biology?
"The historical fact of evolution...and the concepts used to study evolutionary change in living systems, provide the unifying theme for all biological knowledge.”- Society of Systematic Biologists
Job wrote:
2. However, there's no evidence that God did 'not' reveal to us the past. Evolution is a world view based on a foundation of "naturalism".
There are many different claims of divine revelation. They all require faith because they cannot produce any scientific evidence. The Theory of Evolution is not revelation it is science, therefore no faith is required. The proof of evolution came about through the hard work of digging up fossils and doing experiments. Scientists don’t just sit there waiting for a revelation from “God”.
Job wrote:
3. Are you speaking for all scientists? You don't think Dawkins would like to see religion removed?
There’s no reason for any scientist including Dawkins to care what anybody’s personal beliefs are unless they try to interject them into objective science.
Job wrote:
4. Says who?
Galileo

"It vexes me when they would constrain science by the authority of the Scriptures…”- Galileo Galilei
Big Al

Hibbing, MN

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#381
Mar 3, 2013
 
Job wrote:
<quoted text>
1. I believe that he made that comment 'after' he was chastized. If he had made the comment 'before' that, then I would might take notice. Not after his repremand, and possible physical harm from outside the scientific community. It's sort of like you quoting someone making a confession with a gun to his head.
The point is that he admitted he had no scientific evidence to support his statement.
Job wrote:
2. In light of the situation, I don't this is a good example of "freedom of speech" from an evolutionary science point of view. I think from a moral/ethical point of view, the reprimand was just, because I believe that we're dealing with a moral/ethical issue. If science seemed to point to his statement being true at any time, I will not accept it is fact. I wouldn't fault "science", but I would maintain that no matter how many scientists were making this claim, their conclusion would be wrong.
Freedom of speech has nothing to do with it. He was not arrested and put in jail. You don’t have freedom of speech in relation to your job. If your boss doesn’t like what you are saying to him or the public you get fired.

I will repeat…

“Certainly the magnitude of the response by the scientific community was affected by the socially and politically offensive nature of the comments but the lack of scientific evidence was the determining factor in the unanimity of the rejection of them.”
socci

Lawson, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#382
Mar 3, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
Robert V. Gentry did publish valid research on radiohalos but he was not the first to discover them.

Prove it. Specifically the 218po - Gentry was the first.
Big Al wrote:
“…a perfectly ridiculous and unscientific hypothesis [radiohalos prove a young Earth] that ignores virtually the entire body of geological knowledge." - Brent Dalrymple, Ph.D in Geology

Gentry's work was published in peer-reviewed scince journals anbd that is where it would need to be addressed. Until then the work on 218po stands proving granite is not an igneous thus earth was not formed over millions of e=years as a molten mass as claimed with big bang theories - themselves having numerous other problems. Gentry's work is then further confirmed in the lab in the fact that granite cannot be heated to a molten state, recooled, and remain granite. It is reclassified another mineral at that point having lost its crystalline inter-mix.
Big Al wrote:
“The geology of the sites at which Po halos [Radiohalos] are found clearly shows that Gentry’s proof of instantaneous creation and a young Earth is nothing of the sort. Gentry's Po halos simply do not occur in primordial granites, but instead were formed in relatively young dikes that demonstrably crosscut older sedimentary and igneous rocks. Gentry claims to be an objective scientist but he has, in fact, ignored the very extensive published evidence that disproves his hypothesis. In addition, when confronted with this evidence he simply denies its existence.”- J. Richard Wakefield, "The geology of 'Gentry’s Tiny Mystery’(1988)

Baseless claim, and why he has said no such thing in a published science journal citing the original work.

"I have examined some 105 or more radiohalos, mainly from Precambrian granites and pegmatites located in several continents. I have also reported on a class of halos which had been tentatively attributed to the x-decay of 210Po, 214Po, and 218Po (half-life, 3 minutes), a problem that almost defies reason." (Gentry, R.V., Science 184, 62, 1974)
-reprinted
www.halos.com/reports/science-1974-perspectiv...
www.youtube.com/watch...
socci

Lawson, MO

|
Report Abuse
|
Judge it!
|
#383
Mar 3, 2013
 
Big Al wrote:
There’s no reason for any scientist including Dawkins to care what anybody’s personal beliefs are unless they try to interject them into objective science.

While we would all like objective unbiased science the fact is 'science' today is part of marxist world revolution that includes an irreligion agenda resulting in censorship of anything that proves the Bible. This has been the case since the French Revolution.

Admittedly so...

Atheism: The NWO Lie

http://atheists.org/The_Enlightenment,_Freema...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cult_of_Reason

www.creationism.org/books/TaylorInMindsMen/in...

www.youtube.com/watch...

Also see the Royal Society + Freemasonry -- this is where the peer-review censors science. The Darwins were members.

• Pagan Roots of Evolution Theories
with professor Paul James-Griffiths
http://edinburghcreationgroup.org/video/31
This is a sourced power-point lecture.

http://creation.com/evolution-ancient-pagan-i...

www.resurrectisis.org/PaganEvolution.htm

Tell me when this thread is updated: (Registration is not required)

Add to my Tracker Send me an email

Type in your comments below
Name
(appears on your post)
Comments
Characters left: 4000
Type the numbers you see in the image on the right:

Please note by clicking on "Post Comment" you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

53 Users are viewing the Christian Forum right now

Search the Christian Forum:
Title Updated Last By Comments
A Message from Nettie 7 min loveismygoal 1,263
Cookie's Place (Oct '13) 24 min purplelady1040 11,881
Why would God allow MH17 to be shot down??? 37 min blacklagoon 185
Is the Bible always literally true or correct? 43 min 10uhsee 1,462
dollarsbill, my grandson 1 hr dollarsbilll 23
If Jesus said few would find the "road that lea... 1 hr Flygerian 366
Matthew 22:24; What does this say to you about ... 2 hr Flygerian 58
Was Paul a False Apostle? (May '08) 2 hr Barnsweb 1,716
•••
•••