Free For all - Open Discussions and DebatesI am confusedReally? Then lets see the empirical proof the universe is 12 billion years old, or the earth is 4 billion year old. You see MatthewGS you accept this on faith that those scientists who have come up with these ages are correct in how they interpret manmade formulae. Now since all of these forumlae use "c" as a constant, which denies the observed data as Setterfield has shown your reliance on science is in fact a religion. As to my use of the phrase "weak minded", your whole attitude since your registered (when you concealed your real purpose) assumes those of us who accept Genesis 1 do not have the intellectual capacity to review the available literature and draw rational conclusions. The fact is your wrong. Have you taken the time to read any of the threads in the Science Forum? I suggest you do with special attention to what tuppence has posted. Her arguments against macroevolution are rational, based on observed experiments, and the scientific method. On the other hand evolutionary biology is based on assumptions that cannot be tested. I do not reject science, I reject what science cannot prove and science cannot prove the universe is expanding, the age of the universe, macroevolution, and etc. Science can attempt to mathematically explain motion, gravity, and the other physical laws and no creationist on this board denies the validity of these sciences. As you pointed out science cannot explain time, therefore if Setterfield et. al. are correct then the universe cannot be 12 billion years old and is somewhere between 6 and 10 thousand years old, which is not enough time for macroevolution to be a fact or even a viable theory. From our Forum Rules: You have consistently referred to those who disagree with you as being controlled by superstition. Your use the word "superstition" in a derogatory manner, which is name calling. People who pervert what Christianity teaches for personal gain do not represent Christianity and if you have actually read the whole Bible you would understand this to be true. The Bible was not written as a science text book so when you critique the Bible based on science you are being irrational. If you do not fear the Bible then why attack it using science as your criteria? |
🌈Pride🌈 goeth before Destruction
When 🌈Pride🌈 cometh, then cometh Shame