Science, Creation & EvolutionAge of the EarthRev wrote: not necessarily. abundant INTERPRETATIONS of the evidence, built upon the ideas of geological uniformitarianism, has done that. not the evidence itself. no, what we deny is the false interpretations of the evidence and the false extrapolations that are drawn from those false interpretations. conversely, most "old-earthers" reject the plain evidence of a young earth, and most importantly, they refuse to understand God's Word (what should be the main authority on these matters anyway) as He has given it to us. they often reject His Word and instead, substitute the false ideas of men. Paul warns against this (Colossians 2:8 ). really? you're saying that there are plenty of examples of information INCREASING mutations or evolutionary processes that don't simply involve a sorting or loss of ALREADY EXISTING genetic information? even the most knowledgable sceintists know better than to make such claims. two false assumptions are made here: 1) that this IS actually evidence, as opposed to false interpretations of that evidence; and 2) that we have misunderstood the plain meaning of Genesis. which is perfectly within the bounds of properly understood creation. we agree that the animals we see today came from their own common ancestors. they came from their own distinctive kind, and have gone through thousands of years of genetic changes and adaptation. what we reject is your idea that over time the genetic information has somehow increased, as opposed to the correct and demonstrable view that it has actually decreased. not at all. we don't deny facts. we deny the false interpretations derived from those facts. such as the ones you just mentioned. i'm new to this topic, so i haven't been able to read all the posts. what is it you believe Rev? do you profess to be a Christian, or are you a Naturalist or of some other persuasion? just wonderin'. thanks. |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame