I loved reading this!

[sub_zer0]

While at the Columbus home educators conference, I was handed a copy of a speech done by 11-year-old Timothy Troutner. He wrote out a speech on what he wanted to do when he grew up. He also did a self-portrait. I have enclosed a copy of this self-portrait—it fits nicely with his speech and reminds me of someone I know! This speech from an 11-year-old will touch your heart as it did mine:

"When I grow up I want to be an Answers in Genesis speaker, because AiG is Christ-centered, is on the Creation-evolution front lines, and is impacting peoples’ lives.

The company is Christ-centered. I would be surrounded by strong Christians, which would encourage my walk with God. Also, I would have the satisfaction of working for the good of a world that is rushing head-over-heels down a slippery slope towards destruction.

Secondly, it would be interesting to work on the Creation-evolution front lines, a battlefront that has become increasingly crucial in the fight over origins. Many religious leaders have backed down in the face of crushing pressure from the growing evolution movement and said “Don’t worry about Genesis, just believe in Jesus”.

When some people hear this they think, “They don’t have answers. We don’t have to believe Genesis. Why should I believe the rest of the Bible?” AiG is giving answers to these questions and more. We as Christians need to back them up, and through Christ turn the tide of battle in favor of the personal God who wants to seek and save all that are lost and perishing.

Most importantly, AiG is impacting peoples’ lives. Not just giving believers answers so that they know what they believe and why they believe it, but directly touching the lost sheep of the world who are groping blindly for truth and purpose in a world ravaged by sin.

If I was an AiG speaker I could work in a Christ-centered environment, be on the creation-evolution front lines, and impact lives for the better, “…through Christ who strengthens me."

AiG (http://blogs.answersingenesis.org/aroundtheworld/2006/06/28/creation-college-2-begins/)

Not only is this inspiring, but it sums up the focus of my life at this moment in a way as well.

To quote Pink Floyd: "Hey you! Don't tell me there is no hope alive."

[JoeR]

If this sort of psuedo-scientific mentality takes over, expect China to pass us with a modern equivalent of Sputnik.

[sub_zer0]

If this sort of psuedo-scientific mentality takes over, expect China to pass us with a modern equivalent of Sputnik.

Boy, I'm sorry you can't even appreciate how this 11 year old comes off so mature and inspiring.

[JoeR]

More like brainwashed.

[sub_zer0]

More like brainwashed.

I love how Christ is exaulted every time you say something insulting about my or this little girls belief. What you are saying now, namely that a child is "brainwashed" because she loves Jesus and wants to base her life around people to help her grow in that, is fulfilling a predictive prophecy. As Jesus once said, it is because of Him that people act like you are.

It is because of Jesus and our belief in Him that gets you so upset that you cannot comment with your heart about a child and how that can come off as inspiring considering the age of the girl and the topics she is addressing.

John 15:18 "If the world hates you, you know that it has hated Me before it hated you."

[mataj]

Bah. There is no such thing as "Creation-evolution front lines". William of Ocham cleared this issue up as long ago as 1300 and something. In the middle ages, that is. :rolleyes:

[sub_zer0]

Bah. There is no such thing as "Creation-evolution front lines". William of Ocham cleared this issue up as long ago as 1300 and something. In the middle ages, that is. :rolleyes:

Sorry I got ya beat. ;p

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."

[mataj]

Sorry I got ya beat. ;p

Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."So?

Bible is not applicable to natural phenomena, unless you want to practice Natural theology.

[sub_zer0]

So?

Bible is not applicable to natural phenomena, unless you want to practice Natural theology.

Sure it does, God created all the natural things, it says it right there. ;p

[mataj]

Sure it does, God created all the natural things, it says it right there. ;pMaybe. Ochkam clearly proved, however, that there is unbridgeable gap in between studying God, and studying nature.

Ochkam argued somehow as follows: Natural theology (predcessor of science) uses reason alone to understand God, as contrasted with revealed theology which is founded upon scriptural revelations. The idea of God is not established by evident experience or evident reasoning. All we know about God we know from revelation. The foundation of all theology, therefore, is faith.

So, there is no way we could prove or disprove anything biblical by studying nature, and vice versa. After all, God revealed himself by miracles, which are, by definition, unnatural. If there would be any connection between natural and supernatural, miracles would make no sense.

The purpose of the Bible is to reveal God, and God only. It's not meant to reveal anything about nature.

[sub_zer0]

Ochkam argued somehow as follows: Natural theology (predcessor of science) uses reason alone to understand God, as contrasted with revealed theology which is founded upon scriptural revelations. The idea of God is not established by evident experience or evident reasoning. All we know about God we know from revelation. The foundation of all theology, therefore, is faith.

Well no not really, that isn't the Biblical God.

So, there is no way we could prove or disprove anything biblical by studying nature, and vice versa. After all, God revealed himself by miracles, which are, by definition, unnatural. If there would be any connection between natural and supernatural, miracles would make no sense.

The purpose of the Bible is to reveal God, and God only. It's not meant to reveal anything about nature.

The Bible is to reveal God, I agree with that. But it IS to reveal nature is created by Him as well. God also reveals Himself not just through miracles, but through the natural creation He has created, as it states:

For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes, His eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly seen, being understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse.

Since the creation of the world Gods "eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen", in other words, through creation God is clearly seen!

Those attributes, "His eternal power and divine nature" are "understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse".

Essentially the verse is saying through creation of the natural world by God, one is without excuse because that very thing defines God, or His "eternal power and divine nature".

[mataj]

Since the creation of the world Gods "eternal power and divine nature have been clearly seen", in other words, through creation God is clearly seen!

Those attributes, "His eternal power and divine nature" are "understood through what has been made, so that they are without excuse".

Essentially the verse is saying through creation of the natural world by God, one is without excuse because that very thing defines God, or His "eternal power and divine nature".The chapter you are referring to is about creation, belief in it, and, above all, being guilty and without excuse.

It says nothing about laws of nature being described in the Bible.

Besides, I'd imagine Occam knew what the hell is talking about. I'm sure he knew far more about the scriptures than you and I. After all, he was a monk. Moreover, nobody objected his reasoning for the last 650 years, or so.

[sub_zer0]

The chapter you are referring to is about creation, belief in it, and, above all, being guilty and without excuse.

It says nothing about laws of nature being described in the Bible.

That wasn't your requirement in the first place.

Your point was:

"The purpose of the Bible is to reveal God, and God only. It's not meant to reveal anything about nature."

My point is:

Of course the Bible is meant to reveal that God created nature.

[Ethos]

I find nothing inspiring about a child, soon to enter his teen years, who appears incapable of indepedent, critical thought.

Ethos

[sub_zer0]

I find nothing inspiring about a child, soon to enter his teen years, who appears incapable of indepedent, critical thought.

Ethos

I guess you failed to see how independant that thought is as it doesn't conform to yours.

[mataj]

My point is:

Of course the Bible is meant to reveal that God created nature.This is revelation about God, not about nature.

[sub_zer0]

This is revelation about God, not about nature.

Well not exactly, it is both. God created nature and nature was created by God.

The Bible speaks of many things about nature that were not so easily observed or catagorized as scientific observations or laws today:

Job 38:19 speaks of the fact that light is always moving. This fact is not easily observed, and it is the most natural interpretation of the verse.

Job 26:7 speaks of the fact that the planet Earth moves freely in space suspended over the sun, by centrifugal force. This fact is not easily observed, and it is the most natural interpretation of the verse.

Ecc 1:6 is a clear description of the wind cycle. This fact is not easily observed, and it is the most natural interpretation of the verse.

There are many more descriptions of scientific observations or laws we have today that are found in the Bible, which leads me to believe the Bible had quite a lot to talk about nature and that God was responsible for it.

[neo of the mind]

I don't have a problem in what the boy said, but the statements seem too "press release" like to have come from him. If the statements did come from his thoughts, then I would have to say he does exhibit critical and independent thinking. :D

[sub_zer0]

I don't have a problem in what the boy said, but the statements seem too "press release" like to have come from him. If the statements did come from his thoughts, then I would have to say he does exhibit critical and independent thinking. :D

The blog comes with a picture drawn by the kid as well if you follow the link.

[mataj]

Well not exactly, it is both. God created nature and nature was created by God.Please, correct me if I'm wrong, English is my 3rd language, after all- didn't you said the same thing twice here?

The Bible speaks of many things about nature that were not so easily observed or catagorized as scientific observations or laws today:

Job 38:19 speaks of the fact that light is always moving. This fact is not easily observed, and it is the most natural interpretation of the verse.

Job 26:7 speaks of the fact that the planet Earth moves freely in space suspended over the sun, by centrifugal force. This fact is not easily observed, and it is the most natural interpretation of the verse.

Ecc 1:6 is a clear description of the wind cycle. This fact is not easily observed, and it is the most natural interpretation of the verse.

There are many more descriptions of scientific observations or laws we have today that are found in the Bible, which leads me to believe the Bible had quite a lot to talk about nature and that God was responsible for it.Before we start dwelling on the scientific aspects of the Bible, we should first clarify the flat Earth issue.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

[sub_zer0]

Please, correct me if I'm wrong, English is my 3rd language, after all- didn't you said the same thing twice here?

Not really, if you take the two sides from a Biblical view. You see, from God's view He created nature. And from nature, or what it is telling us by it simply being created, is that God created it.

Before we start dwelling on the scientific aspects of the Bible, we should first clarify the flat Earth issue.

http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/febible.htm

Refuted: http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=flat%20earth

The Bible doesn't promote a flat-earth, nobody should read into it that way and/or practice that as their belief based on Biblical teachings.

My point still stands, the Bible has quite a bit to say about the natural world.

[mataj]

The Bible doesn't promote a flat-earth,Read literarilly, it does. There's no doubt about it.

nobody should read into it that way and/or practice that as their belief based on Biblical teachings.Well, OK then. Read it in the way that fits the facts.

[steveksux]

Not really, if you take the two sides from a Biblical view. You see, from God's view He created nature. And from nature, or what it is telling us by it simply being created, is that God created it.



Refuted: http://www.answersingenesis.org/search/default.aspx?qt=flat%20earth

The Bible doesn't promote a flat-earth, nobody should read into it that way and/or practice that as their belief based on Biblical teachings.

My point still stands, the Bible has quite a bit to say about the natural world.Why wouldn't you believe in a flat earth? That link has bible verses supporting it. Flat earth makes as much sense as anything you've proposed regarding creationism.

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Why wouldn't you believe in a flat earth? That link has bible verses supporting it. Flat earth makes as much sense as anything you've proposed regarding creationism.

Randy

No it doesn't. Which verse should be taken as describing a flat earth, or contradictory to a spherical earth? Pick a verse and we can go over it if you like.

[JoeR]

It is because of Jesus and our belief in Him that gets you so upset that you cannot comment with your heart about a child and how that can come off as inspiring considering the age of the girl and the topics she is addressing.

It's not your belief in Jesus, it's your young earth nonsense.

[sub_zer0]

It's not your belief in Jesus, it's your young earth nonsense.

I have shown where it is Biblical, I'm sorry you don't like my belief in the Bible to which Jesus teaches from then.

[mataj]

No it doesn't. Which verse should be taken as describing a flat earth, or contradictory to a spherical earth? Pick a verse and we can go over it if you like.There's nothing to go over. There are only two options here. Bible can either be taken literarily, or interpreted. Taken literarily, Bible clearly says Earth is flat. We are both literate enough to realize that, I hope. Once you start to interpret (or "go over") the Bible, though, you can interpret it in any way you bloody want to. So, there is no reason why you couldn't read the Bible so, that it fits Evolution theory.

[sub_zer0]

There's nothing to go over. There are only two options here. Bible can either be taken literarily, or interpreted. Taken literarily, Bible clearly says Earth is flat. We are both literate enough to realize that, I hope. Once you start to interpret (or "go over") the Bible, though, you can interpret it in any way you bloody want to. So, there is no reason why you couldn't read the Bible so, that it fits Evolution theory.

Taking the Bible literally means that what the context and text states it should be taken as, it should be taken as.

Since you don't want to answer my question, how about the verses that support evolution to you, anything?

[mataj]

Since you don't want to answer my question, how about the verses that support evolution to you, anything?You know the Bible far better than I do. If you really wanted to get support for the evolution from it, I'm sure you could find something.

[Izdaari]

Maybe. Ochkam clearly proved, however, that there is unbridgeable gap in between studying God, and studying nature.

Ochkam argued somehow as follows: Natural theology (predcessor of science) uses reason alone to understand God, as contrasted with revealed theology which is founded upon scriptural revelations. The idea of God is not established by evident experience or evident reasoning. All we know about God we know from revelation. The foundation of all theology, therefore, is faith.

So, there is no way we could prove or disprove anything biblical by studying nature, and vice versa. After all, God revealed himself by miracles, which are, by definition, unnatural. If there would be any connection between natural and supernatural, miracles would make no sense.

The purpose of the Bible is to reveal God, and God only. It's not meant to reveal anything about nature.He was also tried for heresy and excommunicated, as were other great thinkers. But although he wasn't wrong, we can learn (and have) a lot about the Bible, and the peoples and places mentioned therein, by means of archaelogy.

Btw, this Christian believes in evolution. I see no conflist. God can use any means of creation he wants, including evolution.

[burntgorilla]

Do you think that this child carefully weighed up the arguments for and against evolution, researched anthropology, chatted with some scientists, learned how radiometric dating works, and then came to a conclusion, or did they just believe what their parents told them?

[steveksux]

I guess after searching in vain for reputable scientists to back your creationist nonsense, you eventually would have to rely on the "expertise" of 11 year old boys, if desperate enough, I can easily imagine even be overjoyed to finally find SOMEONE who's willing to go on record supporting it.

Randy

[mataj]

Btw, this Christian believes in evolution.Evolution is a fact. There is nothing to believe here.
I see no conflist. God can use any means of creation he wants, including evolution.There can be no conflict either. Occam clearly separated natural and supernatural. I dare to say, that without this separation, scientific progress wouldn't be possible.

[sub_zer0]

Evolution is a fact. There is nothing to believe here.
There can be no conflict either. Occam clearly separated natural and supernatural. I dare to say, that without this separation, scientific progress wouldn't be possible.

What scientifically observed evidence proves evolution as a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt?

[burntgorilla]

What scientifically observed evidence proves evolution as a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt?


What's the point in you asking that? You've asked it in other threads, and after someone answers you, you either shift the goalposts or try and ignore it.

[sub_zer0]

What's the point in you asking that? You've asked it in other threads, and after someone answers you, you either shift the goalposts or try and ignore it.

Most often than not, what is posted is evidence for creation as well or doesn't even add up to evolution to begin with.

[burntgorilla]

Most often than not, what is posted is evidence for creation as well or doesn't even add up to evolution to begin with.

That's what I mean by moving the goalposts. You were asking for examples of evolution, people gave some and then you suddenly claimed "natural selection fits perfectly into creationism!!", which is the basis of evolution, so really nothing we could give would satisfy you, since you seem to be looking for a creature that's halfway between species.

[sub_zer0]

That's what I mean by moving the goalposts. You were asking for examples of evolution, people gave some and then you suddenly claimed "natural selection fits perfectly into creationism!!", which is the basis of evolution, so really nothing we could give would satisfy you, since you seem to be looking for a creature that's halfway between species.

Well actually there is a basis for creationism, in regards to natural selection. Natural selection was first developed by Ed Blythe, a Christian, nearly 25 years before Darwin.

What has been scientifically observed in natural selection leads to adaptation and is the filtering of traits that already exist. It is not a natural process that adds to existing DNA, rather in most cases it is a direct opposite.

[burntgorilla]

The Old Earth theory was developed long before Darwin, by Christians, yet you lump it in with evolution. So why can't natural selection be part of evolution? Darwin was a Christian for many years, so I don't see the importance of Blythe's faith. The whole tenant of Darwin's theory was that species changed through the process of natural selection, which you try to claim as creationist (where is it cited in the Bible?). Therefore, it would be impossible to explain evolution, because you've already tried to take away a key part of it. Creationism, to quote Wikipedia, is: "a religious doctrine which teaches that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God relatively recently (about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago)". I have also read about Creationist biology, and I fail to see where natural selection fits in.

[mataj]

What scientifically observed evidence proves evolution as a fact beyond a shadow of a doubt?Facts are not supposed to be proven beyong a shadow of doubt. They are not supposed to be believed into, on the contrary. Facts must always be doubted into, verified, and re verified over and over again. That's also called repetition of experiments & observation, or empirism. One of the many reasons, why there can be no dialogue between science and religion.

BTW, I don't know why you are so bothered by evolution anyway. Evolution is merely a manifestation of the Emergence principle.

[sub_zer0]

The Old Earth theory was developed long before Darwin, by Christians, yet you lump it in with evolution. So why can't natural selection be part of evolution?

Never said it couldn't. But the point is, natural selection doesn't add up to evolution.

What part of natural selection adds up to evolution, as in changing one organism to another?

Darwin was a Christian for many years, so I don't see the importance of Blythe's faith.

Darwin made a theory directly opposing the Christian view of natural selection. That is the importance of Blythes faith, he used the Biblical creationism model to formulate science about natural selction before Darwin had one directly opposite of it.

The whole tenant of Darwin's theory was that species changed through the process of natural selection, which you try to claim as creationist (where is it cited in the Bible?).

Good, natural selection supports Biblical creationism if it is only species changing, and not one organism changing to another which is evolution.

Therefore, it would be impossible to explain evolution, because you've already tried to take away a key part of it. Creationism, to quote Wikipedia, is: "a religious doctrine which teaches that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God relatively recently (about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago)". I have also read about Creationist biology, and I fail to see where natural selection fits in.

You don't know where natural selection fits into Biblical creationism? Especially when it is only change within species which has been scientifically observed, while change from one organism to another has not?

Clearly evolution needs natural selection to change an organism from itself to another completely different more complex organism, like ape to man. But natural selection as said by Darwin and creationism is only change within species.

Perhaps these links will explain it better than I:
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/3035
http://www.creationontheweb.com/content/view/4348

[sub_zer0]

Facts are not supposed to be proven beyong a shadow of doubt. They are not supposed to be believed into, on the contrary. Facts must always be doubted into, verified, and re verified over and over again. That's also called repetition of experiments & observation, or empirism. One of the many reasons, why there can be no dialogue between science and religion.

BTW, I don't know why you are so bothered by evolution anyway. Evolution is merely a manifestation of the Emergence principle.

I guess you shouldn't make statesments like: "Evolution is a fact. There is nothing to believe here", if you want dialogue.

[Meek Heir]

and not one organism changing to another which is evolution.

Not to get too nit-picky, but with kind and barimology I never know when you are creating a new definition for words.

Are you using a different meaning of organism then this one:

or·gan·ism n.
1. An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

Because if you are not then you should be informed that in evolution organisms do not change into other organisms, in fact, just like in reality, they give birth to new organisms.

[sub_zer0]

Not to get too nit-picky, but with kind and barimology I never know when you are creating a new definition for words.

Are you using a different meaning of organism then this one:

or·gan·ism n.
1. An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.

Because if you are not then you should be informed that in evolution organisms do not change into other organisms, in fact, just like in reality, they give birth to new organisms.

I mean from ape to man as identified in post 41.

[mataj]

I guess you shouldn't make statesments like: "Evolution is a fact. There is nothing to believe here", if you want dialogue.There can be no discussion about facts. Fact is something anybody can verify. You can either verify the fact yourselves, or trust the guy who verified it, that he did his job properly.

The problem with biological part of evolution theory is, that it's very hard to verify. It's based on millions of tiny little facts, meticulously, and painstalkingly assembled together over many years into one theory. You can, however simulate the evolution on your computer, and see for yourself, that logically, evolution is capable of solving complex problems. You can also see, that evolution reduces so called "irreducible complexity" quite easily. All this, of course, requires a bit of effort from your part, an effort you are probably not willing to make. And that's another big difference between religion and science: statements are confirmed or refuted through deeds, not words.

[JoeR]

Where in the Bible does it say one animal can't turn into another over time, anyways?

[burntgorilla]

Never said it couldn't. But the point is, natural selection doesn't add up to evolution.

What part of natural selection adds up to evolution, as in changing one organism to another?

What part doesn't? At what point does one species stop being varied, and become another?


Darwin made a theory directly opposing the Christian view of natural selection. That is the importance of Blythes faith, he used the Biblical creationism model to formulate science about natural selction before Darwin had one directly opposite of it.


I again refer you to the Old Earth theories that were about long before Darwin, which were put forward by Christians, and also directly contravened the Biblical account. I know that you're a real God Squad type person, and see the Pope as un-Christian, but let's be realistic here. All Blythe wrote about was natural selection. Where in the Bible is natural selection discussed?

[/QUOTE=sub_zer0]
Good, natural selection supports Biblical creationism if it is only species changing, and not one organism changing to another which is evolution.
[/QUOTE]

You base your scientific views on the Bible. So, again, where does natural selection appear in the Bible? Where does it fit into the Genesis account? I disagree with your claim that natural selection fits into the creationist theory.


You don't know where natural selection fits into Biblical creationism? Especially when it is only change within species which has been scientifically observed, while change from one organism to another has not?


That's right. Where is it discussed in the Bible?


Clearly evolution needs natural selection to change an organism from itself to another completely different more complex organism, like ape to man. But natural selection as said by Darwin and creationism is only change within species.


Again, when does one species stop being varied and becomes a completely different one? New studies suggest that Neanderthals and humans may have interbred.

[heel31ok]

Do you think that this child carefully weighed up the arguments for and against evolution, researched anthropology, chatted with some scientists, learned how radiometric dating works, and then came to a conclusion, or did they just believe what their parents told them?
when given the choice the parents are way more credible.when it comes to dating, parents have a better handle on it.

[heel31ok]

I guess after searching in vain for reputable scientists to back your creationist nonsense, you eventually would have to rely on the "expertise" of 11 year old boys, if desperate enough, I can easily imagine even be overjoyed to finally find SOMEONE who's willing to go on record supporting it.

Randy
It is more of the point that even an 11 year old can see through the deception and pure fairy tale of evolution.It shows he is not to the point of brainwashing by the "reputable scientists" and has a mind of his own. the old dog new tricks concept comes into play here.
You first response in your post is classic,like evolutionist everywhere you begin with the mantra,"I guess".which is the basis evolution is built on as a whole.
Well, guess what?
Survey said...!

[heel31ok]

The Old Earth theory was developed long before Darwin, by Christians, yet you lump it in with evolution. So why can't natural selection be part of evolution? Darwin was a Christian for many years, so I don't see the importance of Blythe's faith. The whole tenant of Darwin's theory was that species changed through the process of natural selection, which you try to claim as creationist (where is it cited in the Bible?). Therefore, it would be impossible to explain evolution, because you've already tried to take away a key part of it. Creationism, to quote Wikipedia, is: "a religious doctrine which teaches that the Earth and life on Earth were created by a direct action of God relatively recently (about 6,000 to 10,000 years ago)". I have also read about Creationist biology, and I fail to see where natural selection fits in.
I would equate to Darwins belief as a christian on the same par as his theories of evolution.both are suspect at the very least. It is my understanding that Darwin only went as far as saying he was a christian to secure a living and prevent retribution from those around him who would not understand his real beliefs.He was less than honest spiritually and it had a major influence on his portrayal and assumptions about evolution.the Character of a man permeates every facet of ones life.

[chukster8614]

To quote Pink Floyd: "Hey you! Don't tell me there is no hope alive."

Er, the line actually goes: "Hey you, dont tell me theres no hope at all"

Here's some more Floyd:

"You better make your face up,
In your favorite disguise,
With your button-down lips,
And your roller blind eyes.
With your empty smile,
And your hungry heart,
Feel the bile rising,
From your guilty past.
With your nerves in tatters,
As the cockleshell shatters,
And the hammers batter,
Down your door,
You better run.

"You better run all day,
And run all night.
And keep your dirty feelings deep inside.
And if youre taking your girlfriend out tonight,
You better park the car well out of sight.
cause if they catch you in the back seat,
Trying to pick her locks,
Theyre gonna send you back to mother,
In a cardboard box.
You better run!"
—from Run Like Hell

[heel31ok]

"We're just two lost souls swimming in a fish bowl year after year "

[chukster8614]

"Breathe, breathe in the air. Don't be afraid to care."

[heel31ok]

"when I was a child I had a fever my hands felt just like two balloons now I've got that feeling once again, I can't explain, you would not understand , that is not how I am,
I have become comfortably numb."

[Meek Heir]

Am I the only one who thinks that this 11 year old copied quotes from the AIG mission statement and therefore plagurised his assignment?

[heel31ok]

Am I the only one who thinks that this 11 year old copied quotes from the AIG mission statement and therefore plagurised his assignment?
Looks like you are. :D

[Dangerrmouse]

Am I the only one who thinks that this 11 year old copied quotes from the AIG mission statement and therefore plagurised his assignment?

No you are not. The kid must be a genius to have thought of it, compared with the "average" reader there ....

[burntgorilla]

when given the choice the parents are way more credible.when it comes to dating, parents have a better handle on it.

I have no idea what you are trying to say.

I would equate to Darwins belief as a christian on the same par as his theories of evolution.both are suspect at the very least. It is my understanding that Darwin only went as far as saying he was a christian to secure a living and prevent retribution from those around him who would not understand his real beliefs.He was less than honest spiritually and it had a major influence on his portrayal and assumptions about evolution.the Character of a man permeates every facet of ones life.

Well, he did give up on Christianity, so I suppose you're correct to a degree. However, considering that Christians developed a theory of Old Earth long before Darwin, the faith of Darwin and Blythe are both irrelevant.

[sub_zer0]

Well, he did give up on Christianity, so I suppose you're correct to a degree. However, considering that Christians developed a theory of Old Earth long before Darwin, the faith of Darwin and Blythe are both irrelevant.

Old-earth isn't biblical so that is irrelevant. We are distinguishing between Blythe, a biblical Christian and Darwin, old earth evolution.

Blythe was using a Biblical model of natural selection way before Darwin even thought of the idea. That was my point.

[JoeR]

Old-earth isn't biblical so that is irrelevant.

No, this statement is irrelevant. So what if it isn't biblical. It is true.

[sub_zer0]

No, this statement is irrelevant. So what if it isn't biblical. It is true.

How so, what makes it so true?

[steveksux]

It is more of the point that even an 11 year old can see through the deception and pure fairy tale of evolution.It shows he is not to the point of brainwashing by the "reputable scientists" and has a mind of his own. the old dog new tricks concept comes into play here.
You first response in your post is classic,like evolutionist everywhere you begin with the mantra,"I guess".which is the basis evolution is built on as a whole.
Well, guess what?
Survey said...!If all you can find are 11 year old boys to validate your beliefs, and that makes you feel justified... I'm happy for you... :lol:

Randy

[sub_zer0]

If all you can find are 11 year old boys to validate your beliefs, and that makes you feel justified... I'm happy for you... :lol:

Randy

You don't get that her views are based on AiG's. So it is the scientists and well-qualified individuals at AiG that make our views. Well mine at least to a certain extent.

[steveksux]

You don't get that her views are based on AiG's. So it is the scientists and well-qualified individuals at AiG that make our views. Well mine at least to a certain extent.Seems to be pointing to an 11 year old boy to validate those beliefs. Again, with no reputable scientists to point to, AiG and 11 year old boys are all you have, I understand why you're forced to settle for that...

Randy

[sub_zer0]

Seems to be pointing to an 11 year old boy to validate those beliefs. Again, with no reputable scientists to point to, AiG and 11 year old boys are all you have, I understand why you're forced to settle for that...

Randy

Wrong Randy, here are reputable scientists: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

And, if you actually read the topic, it said I was inspired, I was not saying she validates my beliefs.

[Dangerrmouse]

Seven years these "experts" believed a simple hoax. Your faith in them must be truly blind.

[sub_zer0]

Seven years these "experts" believed a simple hoax. Your faith in them must be truly blind.

Do we need to get into all the frauds that have been passed as evolutionary transitional forms by evolutionists? And actually what AiG believed is another hoax perpetrated by evolutionists and not identified as so.

[heel31ok]

If all you can find are 11 year old boys to validate your beliefs, and that makes you feel justified... I'm happy for you... :lol:

Randy
It is notall wecan find it is only all we need to find. The old addage aboutlevelof competition and all that. It is not our beliefs that are validated it is evolution that is not evenup to the scrutiny to a free thinking 11 yr old. :lol:

[heel31ok]

Seven years these "experts" believed a simple hoax. Your faith in them must be truly blind.
so now your criteria is whether they believe a hoax? Not looking good for evolution and it's "experts", not only believing a hoax but believing a hoax they made up. :rolleyes: pure genius.

[sub_zer0]

It is not all we can find it is only all we need to find. The old add age about level of competition and all that. It is not our beliefs that are validated it is evolution that is not even up to the scrutiny to a free thinking 11 yr old. :lol:

lol, exactly!

[Dangerrmouse]

This antiintellectualism claptrap is deeply saddening in its spread across the US.

[heel31ok]

This antiintellectualism claptrap is deeply saddening in its spread across the US.
Dimsdale! :D

[steveksux]

Wrong Randy, here are reputable scientists: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

And, if you actually read the topic, it said I was inspired, I was not saying she validates my beliefs.And if you actually read the topic, you'd see I explained why you were inspired. Nice to finally have someone to affirm your beliefs, even if its only an 11 year old boy.

Randy

[steveksux]

Wrong Randy, here are reputable scientists: http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/bios/default.asp

And, if you actually read the topic, it said I was inspired, I was not saying she validates my beliefs. :lol:

Unfortunately your list is overwhelmed merely by even the small subset real scientists named "Steve". :sorry:

Randy

[sub_zer0]

No matter, the dissent from darwin list still grows every month, when for at least a year no growth yet out of the list of steves.

[heel31ok]

:lol:

Unfortunately your list is overwhelmed merely by even the small subset real scientists named "Steve". :sorry:

Randy
fortunately that is not a factor or relevant to this or any other discussion on the subject.More of a diversion than anything else.more :sorry: !

I almost forgot the "my list is bigger than your list criteria", science, yeah right!
It just means a whole lot of people named steve who are really in the dark about science, not something to brag about. :rolleyes:

[steveksux]

fortunately that is not a factor or relevant to this or any other discussion on the subject.More of a diversion than anything else.more :sorry: !

I almost forgot the "my list is bigger than your list criteria", science, yeah right!
It just means a whole lot of people named steve who are really in the dark about science, not something to brag about. :rolleyes:Ignorance is bliss. Happy holidays.

Randy

[brainpan]

Not only is this inspiring, but it sums up the focus of my life at this moment in a way as well.It's tragic, pure and simple. A young child being influenced by a group of unqualified "liars for Jesus" is not something to celebrate.

[heel31ok]

Ignorance is bliss. Happy holidays.

Randy
Thanks, you too. :flowers:

[heel31ok]

It's tragic, pure and simple. A young child being influenced by a group of unqualified "liars for Jesus" is not something to celebrate.
that is better than being influenced by qualified liars for evolution.That I can celebrate. :D