HCW

Long Gone: It is obvious from your posts that you consider 'science' to be the highest knowledge available. You speak of 'science' as if 'science' were a living entity, in and of itself. You speak of 'science' with a reverent tone; about what 'it' is and isn't, what it can do, what it is seeking to do. Your questions and comments have been asked and made for hundreds of years. Yet you, today, still have no answers, only a bunch of 'maybe,' "he could have," and 'IF's. Then you spit out "how ludicrous it is to look to..." and you use the words 'fundamentalist' and 'literal' as if they were curse words. Then you compare the Genesis account to your obviously beloved 'scientific truth;' placing Genesis in a lower position, I might add. Then YOU, Long Gone, have the unmitigated GALL to explain to all of US what Gensis is, at BEST. In so doing, you point to and use THE most foundational and universally accepted truth found in any and ALL religious belief systems on this planet to support YOUR singular, self-derived, lofty position. That foudational, FUNDAMENTAL belief that GOD is our FATHER and we, His children. In light of that relationship He, God, treats us as such. You've told me what I ovbiously and apparently don't know. I know what I see. and I see God as our father, we as His children. I see that... ... and YOU don't like it. NO we can't be just children! We are the highest form of life on the planet! WE must know! WE must be ABLE to EXPLAIN!!! Not only all of 'it' in our own planet, but the entire universe as well. We know how big it is, how old it is, what it is doing, what it WILL do. How it works, how it DOESN'T work, what it looks like. According to your beloved science, you are nothing more than a mere blip of momentary breath, on a miniscule, insignificant, ordinary fragment of an ordinary, insignificant grain of dust; which is yet one of billions of equally insignificant specs of dust in an ever moving, constantly growing, pseudo-intelligent, eternal universe. Yet you, whisp of breath of a spec that you are, seek to explain it ALL. Are you even a peer of the great scientific minds you speak of? Are you even fractionally as knowledgeable of the Bible you dismiss as "mythical" as the men who speak of it as universally faithful, eternal truth? I think not. If you were, you would speak of so many IF's and maybe's. Then again the great and wonderful science you speak so highly of requires that one not speak in difinitive terms, because to do so is NOT scientific. You can't do that unless, you've seen or proved, experimented or scientifically concluded, in and of yourself or the wider scientific community of ordinary, insignificant, momentary whisps of fragments on the ordinary, insignificant, decidedly non-special spec inside the ordinary, insignificant grain of dust that we are in our, ordinary, insignificant spot in the eternal universe. Even in your scientific "explanations" you can't escape the GODLY concept of eterity. While you spit in God's direction, dismissing HIS explanation (as the one who DID create it ALL) you don't see the hypocracy in your words. Instead you try to align WITH the creator as you dismiss Him at the same time, in your momentary blip of a next breath. My children often ask me questions, the answers to are often beyond their comprehension. I tell them, "You will be able to understand better, later, when you grow up." My views are based on actual ANSWERS that are wholly accurate and ARE certainly complete. You don't see it that way primarily because you just haven't read the answers that I have. Those that you have read you dismiss as myths because YOU can't see the truth that is there before your eyes. God doesn't have to explain 'everything' to us any more than we do, or children. Proble with your position is that He HAS explained more than YOU know and even more than YOU think he has. You would rather believe that some other creature from some other, equally insignificant spec would someday arrive in a hyper-drive enabled ship bearing notes from HIS insignificant, non-special spec in the eternal universe. On that day we could have a symposium and compare notes; not even beginning to THINK that they would say, "Here's what the specs you've seen look like from the other side!" MY human Science is TRUTH. You say. The Word of GOD is MYTH. You say. I say the more you know about science, the more you know about the word of God, the more you see that the word of God EXPLAINS the science you see. YOU just don't know enough about EITHER to see that. Isn't it both scientific and legally accepted to accept the account of an eye witness over all else?

The "success" of a rebuttal has nothing to to with the quality of the rebuttal. I originally posted the link to the Answers in Genesis website because they have an impressive array of information and have engaged in "all" of the arguments on the subject. I was "amazed" and am still amazed by how people who haven't read easily available information will rebuke it just because of the source. Answers in Genesis simply is NOT the negative things people have said about them on this thread. They do have their position but in stating their position they post reams of information that the other side propounds. They have links to the books we've noted. They have audio concerning these topics where you can hear for yourself what they say. Unlike TWI, and most religious organizations they don't only say here is what we believe, the other guys are SEED, possessed et al. If you want a rebuttal to your question you can find it there. Their basic format is that they have archives of articles by a number of sources. Each article has many many footnotes. Look there, decide for yourself about the info. I really don't care. This discussion, to me, isn't about what I know. I don't care who has answers. I really don't care who's right. A short answer, IMHO, its not about billions of years. If we really are just a random spec. There IS life on other planets, billions of years ago. If we can se them, They can see us. If we're so damn curious, why aren't they? Don't tell me they flew light years across the galaxy to do graffitti in a corn field in Nebraska. That's plain crazy.

Oh yeah? Its from a book called 'Pale Blue Dot: A vision of the Human Future in Space' by Carl Sagan. Page 9. Published by Ballantine Books in 1977 Yeah it figures. Even that quote Song posted is on AiG.In fact everything, every single piece of science, every scriture, every authorevery concept that has been mentioned, quoted spit on or even casually mentioned on this thread is on AiG. Hmmm..... All of it.

Basically true from what I've read... except cosmology says that astromomers, all of 'em, Christian or secular observe that no matter what direction one looks in "everything" is moving away from US. "Astronomers have confirmed that numerical values of galaxy redshifts are ‘quantized’, tending to fall into distinct groups. According to Hubble’s law, redshifts are proportional to the distances of the galaxies from us. Then it would be the distances themselves that fall into groups. That would mean the galaxies tend to be grouped into (conceptual) spherical shells concentric around our home galaxy, the Milky Way. The Table diagram of Hubble's law shows three rainbow lines, top to bottom as being grouped far, medium and near in terms of distance. Left to right; Blue (violet) on the left going through the color spectrum to red on the right. The colors represents "shifts." Blue being smaller and red larger, hence the further something is away; the larger the shift. It also includes black "Hydrogen lines" that form an angular pattern as the cross the colored bands. By 1924 most astromoners has decided that the "white nebulae" were outside our galaxy. Hubble calculated distances with a new, more accurate technique, confirming that more distant nebulae have larger redshifts. Hubbles distance calculations, published in 1929, revolutionized previous ideas of the universe. The 'white nebulae' as it turns out are galaxies like our own Milky Way. They say each is a 12 million light years away from its nearest neightbors. The Hubble Speace Telescope can photograph galaxies as far as 15 billion light years away. There are hundreds of billions of galaxies within that distance. They (scientists) use radio wavelength shifts in addition to the former usage of only light. Using the Hubble telescope recent discoveries conclude that redshifts are 'quantized" or grouped into groupings of distances, which means that galaxies are located in concentric shells © around us. According to Hubble’s law, the cosmological part of the redshift z of each galaxy corresponds to a particular distance which is a radius r. It "transforms redshift groups to distance groups." You can solve for the distance with a (supplied by me and simplified) formula: "r equals c over H" H corresponds to two redshift intervals 1.6 and 1.3 million light years. Or. The radius (distance) of a galaxy from the center of the universe is calculated by the relationship of its redshift intervals according to the Hubble's law distances that sets it near its neighboring galaxies. Our galaxy is not located in the center of the pattern it is NEAR the center. There is a complex series of formulae starting with: "r to the t power = the square root of: r squared, plus a squared, minus 2a,r times the cosign theta" A is the distance the Milky way is from the calculated mathematical center of the universe. Continuing to solve for a it has been found that our home galaxy, using the smallest observed interval would put us within about 100,000 light years, which is the diameter of our galaxy. The idea, s, we live in a galactocentric cosmos —a universe that has a unique geometric center very near our own home galaxy, the Milky Way. In other words; recent, within the last two decades, scientific evidence based on the Hubble law and aided by discoveries made possible by the Hubble telescope concludes two things: 1. The universe has a center. 2. Our galaxy is at the center of the universe. There's some science. People have done this by "simply" looking at the universe and doing some calculations. You have your redshifts (expansions) and doppler shifts (coming nearer) that occurr simultaneously, indicating a sort of undulation in the universe as it expands. Very little in science is accepted by "everyone" so I'm not saying this is the be it all end all thinking.

TheSongRemainsTheSame You are truly a person who thinks for himself. Congrats man.

You know Long Gone. I'm actually glad you're niot leaving the discussion. I wasn't kidding, I actually would like to hear what you have to say on this topic. I was never mad at you at all. Still am not now. Specifically, HOW much of the Bible do you now think is a myth? How do you determine what is and what is not myth?

Garth! If you've got the time. I'll bring the beer! Michelob is fine w/ me! :)-->

Gee. I'm really mad now.... NOT! I'm not angry. I'm amused. In your own words you've added little substance to this discussion but to correct me, now you're leaving because you THINK I'm showing you wrath. Ok. --> If you wish to come back and actually add something other that your obviously superior attitude, feel free attitude and all. I'm sure we'd all like to hear just how the evolutionary process of random selection actually fits "like a hand in a glove" with God creating the first human. Or are you saying the first Adam was a pithecanthropus erectus? I know exactly what you're talking about when you say evolution fits with the Bible. Its bogus.

Ouch. Nope. I merely pointed out that the first link was not what you claimed it to be and that the second was to a bogus offer. Other than to briefly and calmly clarify a couple of terms that you seem not to understand, note that the theory of evolution is compatible with Bible-based Christian belief, and clarify my interest in the topic, I have said little. So. You DIDN'T do all of that BECAUSE I posted a couple of links? Oh. I see. You just wanted to: a. make sure I knew I didn't know what I was doing when I CHOSE to post the one link, b. let me know that I also didn't know the second link was to a bogus offer. c. you wanted to clarify for me things YOU think I don't understand, d. "note" something you're pretty sure I don't know about how the theory of evolution IS compatable with Bible-based Christian belief. e. Clarify you interest in the topic. Other than saying All of that you have said little. BUT. I have carried on about many unrelated things... to what you said. Who said I was ONLY talking to YOU? Other than your ego, that is? Accepted by whom, on the basis of what evidence? If accepted as “fact,” that suggests to me that the person(s) accepting are not very scientific. The last I read... The last you read, apparently is old news. Could it be that you are actually IGNORANT of something that I know? Try accepted by all of the scientific minds who've discovered it, and accepted it and had their findings published in places like TIME magazine. You questions suggest you are ignorant of some of the latest findings on this topic you're so interested in. Hmmm. Then again, had you actually READ, more than skimmed and summarily dismissed the AiG site you might have found that all of the contributors to the site are NOT fundamentalist Christians. If you were as up on "absolute" dating techiniques (that are "more accurate" than carbon dating) you'd know that THE most accurate dating techniques have an increasing margin of error curve that the older the object appears to be the wider the margin. An absolutely dated object that is determined to be 50,000 years old can have a margin of error as old as they think the object is. In other words they can be 10's of thousands of years off on an object they think may be 10's of thousands of years old. In further other words, the only thing absolute about absolute dating techniques is that they absolutely don't know how hold an object absolutely is. One word about the evolution of man from one-celled organisms that rules God out of the picture is this:RANDOM. The concept that the proper things randomly came together and created life that evolved into human beings is ludicrous. Evolutionists NEED millions and billions of years to support their claims. Their own science requires thousands of years for even the smallest evolutionary change within a species. Not to mention evolutionary changes between different species. ...and YOU have counted everybody...? And why is is you throw all of these 'barbs' "most people who understand science" into your posts? Are YOU a scientist, or just an uninformed person who understands science? Don't you understand that 'dissin' fundamentalists is just the common buzz "thing" of the day? Sheesh. Why couldn't the all powerful, PERFECT God be perfectly succinct?Besides. Had you actually READ the Bible you'd know that the totality of God's word was written by HIM in the stars, not just a few paragraphs. Further. Had you actually, did a scientific type study of the few paragraphs, you'd see how much there is perfectly crammed into them. AND you's see many other paragraphs in the bible that ellucidate the ones in Genesis' first few chapters. If this were a calm and rational conversation maybe....

Its amusing to me, Long Gone that, according to YOU, only I have misunderstood YOU. According to you, I'm exctited and irrational. You continue to TELL me what I am. Is it even POSSIBLE that you misunderstood me? Is it possible that I agree with you that Hovind's offer is bogus? I simply pointed to it. You apparently assumed that since I posted a link to his site and he is on the same side of the national creation debates as the AiG people and I did speak in general agreement with AiG, that I agree and support Kent Hovind. I never even HEARD of Hovind and his offer, at least to the extend of paying the least bit of attention to it, until minutes before I posted a link to his site. I simply posted it in saying that if that Heard guy was so coninced that HE was so right about how wrong creationists are, here is an opportunity to "take one down" and get some pretty major bucks in the process. I was being facetious. You took me seriously. I'm speaking further to the propensity of some here on GS Cafe to resort to tactics like you've employed simply because others don't agree with them. People like you make declaritive statements, in my opinion, to save face, then cast dispersions on others surreptitiously in "support" of their own position. The simplest evidentiary example of this practice is concerning the word "bogus." Bogus and fraud ARE synonymous. Just because YOU may have intended to utilize them with their inherent distinction, does NOT mean they are NOT synonyms. YOU chose point out distinction between the two. So what? Ok if you did. I chose to use the two words as they can ALSO be used, as synonyms. Rather than acknowledge the simple fact that you & I used the same words differently you say bogus and fraud are "not really" synonyms, "and especially not as" YOU "used them." I'm just saying I have EQUAL right as you, to do as I see fit and use words as I see fit. We are BOTH right according to how the two words CAN be used, both denotatively and connotatively. It looks to me, that YOU being RIGHT motivates you as much as making ME wrong. I think THAT is BOGUS. In terms of your "obvious" (if not only self described legally knowledgable) superiority over me; perhaps you could be careful in whom you call a fraud. Such a statement, published in a forum such as the WORLD WIDE web may be construed by said allegedly fraudulent individual as slander. Maybe even defamation of character. But then again how could I know that? I having such a limited legal knowledge et al.

There were at least two aspects to the fall of man. Death and "the curse." The common belief is that, with God being Spirit, the death He was referring to in Genesis was spirit, eternal life spirit. The new birth that we can receive due to Christ, the second Adam's redemption of mankind is life, spiritual life, eternal life spirit. It make perfect sense that mankind would have lived eternally in his first earthly body, seeing as after all is said and done we will all live eternally in new uncorrupted bodies in what is referred as the new earth. Its all there in the Bible, when one looks at the entire subject as it weaves through it. Animals and animal life are in a different category. Genesis orininally speaks of man having animals to eat AFTER the fall. It doesn't speak to animals eating each other. God was speaking specifically to man about man when he spoke of sin entering into the world and death by sin. Animals were effected as part of the curse. I'm pretty darn sure that there was nothing about Adam's sin that made an animal hungry, like on the 8th day.

That's what I'm talkin' about Garth. I just wasn't sure what YOU meant by what you said. I can get with your feeling that its not a simple answer thing. I can get with your experiences, as they ARE YOURS. I have similar ones & can understand yours to an extent; as they relate to mine. Where the experiences are divergent; my understanding of YOUR experiences diminshes. I do believe it is unintelligent to summarily dismiss any point of view without hearing it. I believe God is big enough, and loves us enough to accept us as we are. I believe TWI's gestapo like position on "rightly dividing the word of truth" went WAY overboard an anyone who subscribes to that type of position "doesn't get it" as far as "true" Christianity is concerned. I can get with that. I simply didn't couldn't tell WHY, or THAT you were relating characteristics you do or don't identify with. MY life experiences include, when people do that they MAY be referring to whom they are speaking to ALSO, as in "these are things YOU believe that I may or may not identify with. Asked and answered Garth I had a qualifier in my remarks that I though would indicate that "I'm simply looking at the shoe." I'm barefoot. I've come to believe that "Bible believing people" who act like that really AREN'T Bible believing people. My experiences, pre- - during - - and post TWI, are that the list of people you mentioned usually are MORE knowledgable of the Bible and certainly have more common sense and usually are more intelligent than MOST Christians. Frankly I'd rather discuss Bible matters with a free-thinking atheist than a "christian" any day of the week. A LOT of christians make me sick to my stomach. My POV is that I believe that God has always existed and the Bible is true. I don't believe you have to take the Bible on faith. I do believe that If one is to receive anything from God he must first believe that He is and that He is a rewarder to them who diligently seek Him. I haven't overtly rejected PFAL in my posts because I treat EVERYTHING with a "prove all things hold fast to the good attitude." PFAL is part of ALL things. I believe that most of the rejection of PFAL is people speaking out of their pain. Nothing is unclean of itself. VP is one of many, many teachers who've taught me stuff. I don't revere him any more than any other person who gave of their time and life to try and teach me something. However, I've come to resent him a lot more than anyone who falls in that category. Its a short list of teachers that I resent. I can't think of any who are not part of TWI. MY M.O. is that I don't give any of my time to people or things I don't like. In my book, If I'm arguing with you its because I have some respect for you. NO. Blind faith has nothing to do with any conclusion I make. In recent years I've taken on "For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse" Romans 1:20 as a sort of mantra. I read the Bible with a totally different POV than I used to. In TWI we read so many things INTO the Bible when we read it we were not actually READing it. I no longer believe in the entire concept of "blind faith." I believe the whole "doubting Thomas" thing is religious rhetoric designed to put people into bondage and suck money out of people's wallets. I believe it indoctrinates people into being comfortable with things happening that they can't see, so much so that they STOP LOOKING for things they SHOULD see. I believe than in the record known as "Doubting Thomas" Jesus problem with Thomas was not with him wanting to see for himself, but that he couldn't believe people who were not lying to him. Later on in the NT God says that believers SHOULDN'T just take what they were taught on "blind faith," but that they SHOULD SEARCH the scriptures EVERY DAY at to whether the things they were taught fit with what the scriptures said. JC said to Thomas, You believe because you see me, The time is coming when people will be blessed who can't see me then. He wasn't saying "You screwed up cause you can't take in by blind faith brother." I never said I think you ARE calling me stupid, I said I think it could, or might be woven into what you're saying.... so I asked, Overall I wasn't aiming at you. I don't have a problem with you Garth. I thought you knew that.

I'm not coming up with anything. My pov is that we can read the Bible. Vp was right about some things wrong about others. Even when I was with TWI, I only believed what VP said if I found what he said in the Bible. Of Course I wasn't as good at that as I thought at the time. Mostly, I think because he did a better job at indoctrinating us in what HE believed than we did at resisting. Nowadays I challenge EVERYTHING he taught and feel that "Any similarity between my current Bible beliefs and TWI's positions is purely coincidental. I DO believe that when Adam ate, as God instructed him not to, he died. Actually, more intriguing to me these days that the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is the tree of life. What was that?

Theory: ...a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation. Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, pg. 1200 usage #5a. 5b. is an unproved assumption: CONJECTURE. I know what a theory is Long Gone. I know what a claim is. I know what MY intent is by what I type and I also know that YOU don't know WHAT I'M doing. I know enough about law to know that Hovind's attorneys approved his challenge as air tight before he posted it. I also know enough about law to know how he PROBABLY "financed" it, in a similar way as do state lotteries, as an insurance claim against the alternative proof that he has worded as carefully as Bill Clinton's, "I did not have sex with that woman, Monica Lewinsky." Its all in how one defines it. I define what I said as MY theory. YOU define it as a "claim." You define Hovind's challenge as bogus, then TELL me I said it was fraud. I didn't define it all I pointed it out. When did I say it was fraud? Oh, when YOU said I said it when YOU were saying I was wrong about saying it. I define what I wrote as I threw out some "bait" & you fell for it. YOU define what I did as didn't throw it out. THEREFORE if nothing was thrown (that YOU didn't throw) then YOU couldn't have fallen for it. (Sure to include "nobody" so as to subliminally NOT include ANYBODY else. Or maybe you DID subliminally include EVERYBODY else in YOUR nobody...???) You define what I KNOW in MY brain about science as LITTLE, then you include my knowledge of law as LITTLE. Because YOU say that my TOTAL knowledge of at least these two things, law and science, is APPARENT to you. Gee. All that started because I posted a couple of links about stuff YOU don't agree with. YOU seem to think you're dialoging with me. Ok, if YOUR definition of dialog begins and ends with YOU telling the other party what THEY think and know. You see Long Gone, I'm pointing out what YOU did here, in this "dialog." "Apparently" YOUR definition of theory is limited to Webster's #4. "a plausible or scientifically acceptable general principle or body of principles offered to explain phenomena." I guess since I haven't applied to the "science god's" to have my above mentioned theory (that I declared to be as it is, same as YOU declared MY knowledge to be as YOU say it is) accepted by "the scientific community;" I CAN'T say its a theory.... Because YOU say I don't know what a theory IS. Hey, that's not FAIR! How come YOU get to declare anything YOU want, but I CAN'T. Its MY theory and I'M stickin' to it! Apparently YOU fall into the category of GS poster who resorts to insults when somebody says something you don't like; and when insults fail, you "take you ball & go home." You insinuate whatever you wish and get upset because you missed my point. :P--> Oh, Ok, You're not upset. I almost forgot. My FURTHER point is that YOU don't maintain ownership over anything beyond YOURSELF. YOU cannot tell me what I know or what MY intent was. YOU cannot DECLARE something bogus, just because you don't like the position of the author, then speak out about how you know how legally precise it is, when challenged to make move according to YOUR declaration. Disagree, sure. Call me a liar even but don't be such a FOOL (Biblical definition, not necessarily Webster's) that you pretend to know what I know. I'll just ask you something like, "Hey can you add a foot to your height by whatyou think too?" BTW. Your position: YES it DOES. First of all; man's fall is NOT a Biblical doctrine (maybe YOU don't know the difference...) it is a simple historical FACT. Second; if man evolved from "lower" forms into his current evolutionary position, there would be NO ADAM of Genesis. The BIBLE clearly states that there was ONE man, whom God took his rib to make the first woman and THEY were the mother and father of human life as we know it. There was also at least one other form of man, "giants" who resulted from the "sons of God" mating with women, "daughters of men." No FIRST Adam, no fall of mankind, no fall, no seed of the woman. No seed of the woman, no CHRIST, therefore NO Christianity, because, historically speaking, "They were first called Christ-in's at Antioc." That may be a little disturbing to people who believe Christ to be, the messiah, the savior of a race of humans, who were born dead because of his direct predecessor's "sin." Also. Where is GOD if man evolved from "apes?" What is the creation story? Prose? What of the recently accepted, as scientific fact, that all mankind is genetically connected to ONE woman said to have lived, "coincidentally," about 6000 years ago? There is a natural end in any belief system. Things ultimately ARE what they are and we cannot change what they are simply by what WE say or think. The natural end of what I know of man's supposed evolutionary cycle from one celled organism to the complex homosapiens of today rules the God of the Bible completely out of the picture. The never ending argument is that the NATURE of the two positions CAN'T mesh. The people on both sides won't agree. Evolution completely wipes out the siritual aspect of life. Man becomes the highest life form on the planet and each man becomes his own god and "master" of his "universe." Then people start thinking they, in themselves, retain the knowledge of good and evil and they can know what other people think and know. I AM a believer. I DO have a "sour attitude" about religion, I really don't like all of the crap people dream up & say this is God's Word. I am not ANTI anything though; I believe man cannot function well, mentally, when he is in an "anti" position. I believe the Bible is the revealed Word of God. From what I've read in the Bible, it IS science. It IS history, it IS infallable and perfect in its perfection. "Take it by faith" is a man-made religious concept. The only thing God says mankind can't see about Him is His face, personally. He only asks us to believe what others of mankind HAVE seen when we read what HE told them to write about it. He, God, sees mankind as ONE, man-kind, therefore if YOU saw something, I SHOULD be able to believe YOU when you say what you saw. Problem comes in when we LIE about what we saw or know. Science tells us that man is not evolving, he is deteriorating. Lastly. I know, since I've experienced it myself, that TWI had a LOT of viewpoints on the Bible that were entirely false. I do NOT subscribe to ANY of them. Most notably in this case that "mankind" lived before Adam. I also no longer believe their version of "The Gap Theory." When I was involved w/ TWI I could never find ONE bit of scriptural evidence that supported that the earth, which had already been created and inhabited with animals and lower forms of man became "tahoo va bahoo" - - without form and void. If you want to actually BE Long Gone, that's your privilege, of course. Bogus and fraud are synonyms.

That is what I call a package statement Garth. On the one hand, I'd say that POV is not Christian. Although it IS "Christian," or should I say CAN be Christian to belive that God exists. I still don't know if you feel you are Christian... There are valid things in the Dictionary, the daily newspaper, lots of book have valid things. Acknowledging "valid things" being found in the bible has little to nothing to do with determining wheter of not you're Christian. I can't determine from your quote above if your no means: No, I'm not a fundamentalist. No, I don't believe in "It is Written" No, I don't believe God exists. I'm guessing you don't believe in "take it by faith brother." Not sure what you meant by "bvecause of the aforementioned scriptures." Or if the No was to "all of the above." It sounds to me like you're saying "Yes and/or no, depending on what you meant by the above quote. Sorry but that tells me nothing. I find this question: ...a little on the insulting side. Why? To me that statement carries as much of an assumption as a question. I feel it makes room the the assumption that I may be a "fundamentalist, "it is written," God exists and you need to take it on faith because of the aforementioned scriptures authority standpoint" believin' kinda guy and therefore for would summarily reject your viewpoint, just because its not mine.... and my fundamentalist "Christian" values require me to do so. From my seat, there is insult woven in there because of the inherent lack of basic intelligence involved with summarily rejecting ANY viewpoint. In other words, it looks to me like you MAY be calling me stupid, or at least illogical because, "Rational logic cannot have blind faith as one of its foundations."

Gee wiz Long Gone! My point was that the guy who is behind the site that George posted as an alternative to the AiG is a lying jerk who really would like to get rid of Christianiry and anyone who believes the same. Do ya REALLY think his POV is BALANCED and scientific? Rutgers University IS: 1. a university 2. they have museums 3. devoted to scientific learning. MY THEORY is that the link I posted above was a link to a 23 page ARTICLE that was posted on the Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion. The article was certainly reputable. I think it was pretty scientific, so I think I'm right & YOU'RE wrong. You came in and presented information you felt was EVIDENCE contrary to my theory. I feel my evidence proves me right and YOU wrong. Its MY theory and I'm sticking to it. This is the point at which absolute truth would make a determination in this "discussion" of opposing viewpoints. It is clear to me that some of you aren't really approaching this issue as a scientist would. Whereas I may amaze easily, I don't insult easily. I simply threw some bait out while attempting to make a point. I never once said I believed the "arch idiot Kent Hovind." I never said his $250K thing wasn't bogus. I simply pointed out that it exists in such a way the suggested that if the guy who felt he was "whatever" enough to take on AiG he could certainly take Hovind up on his offer and (forgive my TWI'ness) PREVAIL!!! I even offered to go with him and split the bucks. This is also the point at which I'll revert to my former identity as K.I.S.S. If the shoe fits wear it, If you want. If it doesn't fit, don't cram it on... It DON'T fit! You fell for the bait. If I knew of an IDIOT who was offering $250 THOUSand DOOLLars in a BOGUS claim challenge thing. I'd CHALLENGE him.... He's a freakin' IDIOT, dammit! If HE's an IDIOT and YOU're smart enough to realize that, WHY aren't you smart enough to go get his f,freakin' MONEY! If you can PROVE its bogus, as you SAY it is... AND he doesn't give you the bucks you can SUE him! Then he'll settle out of court for about 25% of the $250K! IF he's an idiot, then "a FOOL and his money are soon parted." Go part him from some of it! But oh yeah, You might have to believe the Bible to think that would work for you. We wouldn't want to do THAT, now would we....???

Or maybe you missed my point completely? The greatness of believeing there is no absolute truth is that you can absolutely say anything YOU think and then think that THAT, absolutely, is true. Absolutely... (throw in Sly Stallone accent).

Therefore, to the extent and in the proportion that your two sentences are shorter than my several paragraphs, you are that much smarter than me, right Long Gone?

Thanks Jerry. -->

So Garth I guess all that means you're NOT Christian?

You really should read this link or at least skim it Before you allow George's new hero to debunk ANYTHING. If you're Chistian, this guy is out to debunk YOU, as in literally...as in get rid of you.

It never ceases to amaze me, the things that people choose to point out & discuss. Do you actually think I DIDN'T know the link I mentioned was from the Rutgers School of Law? I can't speak difinitively for the creator of the universe at times but I certainly can read. Sometimes I post stuff "fishing" to see what will get a bite. I'm finding there is a VERY consistent pattern of what people bite on here at GS Cafe. I just KNEW someone might bite on the Law School thing. I guess it ISN'T a direct link to Rutgers University website, at least the part of the University devoted to science. The link goes to the Rutgers Journal of Law & Religion. Therefore, the guy ranting on the alternative site George so graciously provided us with WASN'T techinically lying when he said AiG's site didn't have even "ONE link on the AiG site to a reputable scientific site - no museums, no universities or other sites devoted to scientific learning." Or... was the ranting guy spinning his point into propaganda to keep someone from even looking at the AiG site? I chose to pick up on the adjective he used, "reputable." How "reputable" However, there ARE thousands of links to articles, books, lectures, and PEOPLE who are SCIENTISTS and their works and comments on every topic one could think of around the ENTIRE subject. Said subject being the Bible IS true and it can be upheld, from the very FIRST verse and throughout. I could have picked a subject from the AiG site that was more purely scientific. I stuck with that one because I was absolutely AMAZED to find out from Answers in Genesis how Hitler's Nazi thinking relates to Darwin and his evolutionary hypotheses, which do not even qualify as THEORY. I was hoping people might also be intrigued by how much info AiG actually covers and read some of it. Instead, rather than point out something positive, rather than discuss the topical stuff, you say, "That link you say is to a reputable scientific site is not... Kent Hovind is a fraud. His offer is bogus." Oh well, even if he IS a fraud, he's right about "the hypothesis of evolution is nothing more than a religious belief." Seeing as you KNOW beyond a reasonable doubt that Hovind IS a fraud, lets say WE get together and expose him? I'll split the bucks with you "fitty-fitty." We can sue him for fraud. All religion doesn't involve the God & Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. I'm not saying I support Kent Hovind, but how fraudulent is this? "People believe in evolution; they do not know that it is true. While beliefs are certainly fine to have, it is not fair to force on the students in our public school system the teaching of one belief, at taxpayers’ expense. It is my (Hovind's) contention that evolutionism is a religious worldview that is not supported by science, Scripture, popular opinion, or common sense." Here's a couple of links fer ya... Creation Compromises This one includes the "Gap Theory" which IS the scientifically accepted name for part of TWI's view on life/death before Adam. ... AND this link about the guy who was ranting about Aig's lack of links to reputable science sites, etc. Fot those of you who don't want to link out of here, the ranting guy is "John Stear. His beloved Australian Skeptic journal describes him as a “retired public servant” or “retired bureaucrat.”... although he pontificates about science, he is not a scientist himself?" Pick a link, decide for yourself. Sheesh!

Actually, no it isn't; "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned." Romans 5:12 How much more clear does it need to be than that? Death entered into the world by the sin of one man, Adam, and death passed on to all other men, because we all sin.

Cellular "death" and the whole person or animal dying MUST be two different things, else when one cell died the whole person would die. If your're gonna be logical...?? Cellular death thas nothing to do with sin. Also, whatever LIFE actually is inhabits the entire being, not just the cells. Nobody would argue that when a body dies the cells remain, otherwise we'd disappear when we die. Plus. The degredation in human beings over the past six thousand years is not all that much seeing as some people live to be over 100 years old and God said in Genesis that man would live 120 years.

The reason I even mentioned the Answers in Genesis website is that their foundational approach is NOT religious. Religion, generally speaking, says, "Take it by faith." with no proof. Answers in Genesis takes the Bible from this point of view. "If the Bible IS true there MUST be proof." Their presentations are hours and hours of them presenting the proof. Its not just read this scripture and believe it. Its more like, "Here, look at this. Now look at this scripture. This scripture describes this. You can believe it if you want to." They do stuff like this, that I've seen them do. The show a photograph of a skull that evolutionists say is a (well, they show photos of ALL of them) lets just say "Neanderthal man" from the evolutionary chart. Then they show side by side a photo of a living person, "today." They will even say, "Excuse me sir. Would you stand up please?" I've seen them do this and show that EVERY skull type on the evolutionary chart can be found on a person living TODAY. They get a nice chuckle when they say, 'You sir, are a Neanderthal...." The Answers in Genesis site has thousands of articles, studies, etc and BOTH sides of the issues. This noted persons says this, that one that. It is hardly about blind acceptance. I would bet that you, George, did a search and found your alternative site just BECAUSE of the link to the AiG site. Why do I say that? Blind acceptance? Blind attack? No. Evidence. You act like that. SOmebody else above said it, I don't need to repeat it. AND... your alternative site... says, Oh, yes there is.... right here it is. Not only do they link to this website, they even went so far as to download the article from the site AND archive it ON their server as a PDF file. I would saym just in cae the OTHER site pulled it down. AND they give you this message, I found that link to Rutgers University on AiG in less than 30 seconds by going to AiG's questions & answer section and randomly choosing a topic I thought was interesting. If I'm to believe your guy, I must believe that Rutgers University is either not a university, nor are they reputable, nor are they devoted to scientific learning. Hmmm. I have evidence to the contrary. Rutgers University sent my daughter information trying to get her to do her college work there; in their dept of SCIENCE. I think I'll listen to YOU and your guy from his website and refuse to allow my little girl to go there. Perhaps I can sue them for fraud? Would you testify? Huh George? WOULD you? I don't think you even read the website you listed the URL to. He's obviously LYING about AiG, wheter you believe in God or not, or believe a single word AiG says; I don't think one should LIE about them. Your guy's website also speaks of an "arch idiot Kent Hovind. If Hovind is such an idiot, why doesn't your guy take him down and collect the $250 THOUSand DOOLlars he offers "to anyone who can give any empirical evidence (scientific proof) for evolution." If he doesn't wanna do it, tell your guy to give me a call & email his evidence to me. I'll go get the bucks. This one was low, even for YOU, George.