You also present the false dichotomy that is heard from many fundamentalists: that either the Bible is factually true, or it is entirely false and gets thrown out altogether. There are many people in the world -- the majority of Christians in fact -- who have no trouble reconciling faith in God with more of a metaphorical understanding of the Bible.
No, wrong. A Christian is someone who believes, truly in Jesus Christ. Do you want to explain how it is possible to be a Christian with a metaphorical view of the bible? A metaphorical Christian maybe.
And you keep using the word fundamentalist, but I am not sure you are even applying it correctly. Maybe you should explain. I am not a fundamentalist Christian by any definition of the word... neither is Russ by his professed statements, and Bex, well I really don't know. Bex is Catholic so she probably isn't a fundamentalist Christian either.
What you demand is that every word in it be taken literally. Unfortunately this means trying to shoehorn a lot of observable reality into this very narrow view, and forcing the facts to conform to your world view. This is what so-called creation "scientists" do and by doing so they invalidate themselves as scientists, because true scientists do not attempt to fit what they observe into a pre-determined idea.
funny, your statement describes evolutionists quite well. It even describes a lot of your own statements and ideas. there's plenty of proof right on this page.
SS, do you know how fossils are dated?
Yes indeed. we start with an assumed timeline of say, this item being 1 million years old, and we tie everything else in around that. No matter which method of dating is used.
Not very scientific. sorry. I am surprised you didn't know that.
You are now trying to claim that "evolutionists" are guilty of the same error -- that they want to shoehorn observable reality into a narrow predetermined view. Why?
Because they do not want people to believe that God spoke the world into existence, that God created man, that God is good, and that God is present. They do not want to discuss things like sin and hell. They would prefer people believed they are decended from animals. I am surprised you didn't know that either.
I have no "need" to "believe in" evolution.
yes you do. It invalidates God and the bible for you.
There are simply mountains of facts that point to the earth being old, and life having evolved.
So, why on earth are you taking so long to present all these facts? You spend days and days arguing here but never present facts. It's a big problem with your argument Linda.
If you are going to claim that radioisotope dating is wrong, then can you explain how so? Can you explain how fossils are found in undisturbed layers of rock, volcanic ash, etc, that are underneath other layers of rock that are millions of years old?
I addressed that above.
You do understand that by its very nature (of being rock), a fossil does not decompose?
You do understand that by it's very nature of being a fossil it is subject to erosion, corrosion, wear and tear, compression and upheaval just like any other rock? Can you logically explain how certain rocks are deemed to have been static in position and protected when the earth and rocks in every other place are constantly moving and shifting and eroding?
Evolutionists don't paste 10-million year old dates on everything. If they did, they would not be studying how the human race evolved in the past few million years would they?
No they would not. So in order to study how the human race evolved in the past few million years they had to first paste dates of 10 million years on dinosaur bones and other things.
(my husband, an amateur photographer, will tell you how very easy it is to fake a picture)
tell your husband to fake a picture then, submit as evidence of something to say, oh some UFO guys, scientists somewhere, whatever, and see if he gets away with it. there is always a seam in a faked photo. Always. Your husband is very much an amatuer if he made that comment.
Though remember, it's entirely possible for creatures to survive relatively unchanged in ecological niches.
well hallalujah, it that acknowledgment of a sort? It's not difficult to see to why people would want to kill every pterosaur or raptor in sight is it? they are very dangerous creatures.
SS I do not fear the idea of a god. I just decided that the belief in an anthropomorphic single creator of everything doesn't fit my world view.
whatever.
And I'll remind you that I told you I would not engage in discussions with you if you make personal comments. Accusing me of being unstable, needing counselling, relying on psych meds, etc is again beyond the pale.
No. it's not. Since you do not ever ever provide any real evidence of anything, but only personal comment, your comments must be judged in the same way you judge others, whether they are here at this board today, or whether it is information, evidence or science presented by someone else that is posted here. Your comments and opinions Linda, are in no way less subject to the same scrutiny that you offer to others. I suggest you look again at your very first post in this thread.
I don't give a damn what else you have to say about anything but you leave personal matters out of it, understand?
oooh huffy.
I don't come on here making pot-shots at your personality but you seem to think it's OK to do this to others.
Yes you do. And then you email your friends to be your little pitbulls for you too. oooh scarwy.
BTW attacking your opponent, rather than their argument, is a logical fallacy called ad hominem. People often resort to it when they can't find a way to address the argument itself.
I know. I suggest you take a look at your very first post in this thread again. And the other threads. and then read some of your comments over again. Because you do an awful lot of name calling.
Most sincerely, I am not sure I am talking to a sane person here. And sincerely, i do question your sanity and am trying to figure out exactly where your mind is at. There is a disconnect somewhere. A reasonable person would have admitted long ago to making insults if they had done it as often as you do.
I know I have is insulted you a few times linda. But only after you have taken a few too many cheap potshots yourself.
You deserved the insults. You begged for them.
And... If you continue calling me SS, that's fine but I will also continue calling you Lindaloution. I am not stupid Linda. And if you think i don't understand the dig, which you and Elvis have been at for months I might remind you, mostly simply because I am a professed Christian so you find that nickname amusing... , I have been quite patient.....well like I said there is a disconnect in your mentality that sees only the wrong doing or perceived wrong doing of others. You are quite an angel in your own eyes aren't you?
I have told you alreday... and it should not be difficult to understand... when you insult and call people names whose beliefs are relatively the same as mine, something you are well aware of, you may as well be calling me those names. Your excuses are nonsense. You know exactly what you are doing when you make those types of comments. And, if you truly do not know what you are doing when you make those comments, you might well be a sociopath. I am not sure which of the above you are, because by your own statements here, you are actually a sociopath or psychopath who does not recognize when you do harm to others. I would rather prefer that were not true but you keep insisting it is.
