It is always amazing to listen to a creationist delve into science. I must have missed that chapter somehow? I tried to do a review/discussion on the Christian series “Discovering Religion” but even the Christians wouldn’t try to defend the ‘exaggerations’ throughout the series. It would seem that the creationists themselves are the only people clueless of what that even means. I skipped to part 3 because I enjoy Kent Hovind give a scientific rendition in creation-speak. Remembering all the while that he taught science class for fifteen years???

 

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 3)   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BdEZTdOlGss&NR=1&feature=endscreen

Lula - Try muting the clip then and remove the offensive and distracting noise, hahaha. I didn't know I needed to add directions too???

Says it all for me Lula

That's OK...    Just keep 1St.Peter 3:13-15 in mind. 

 

FAITH

Clip making fun of Creationists....

I wouldn't call myself a "Creationist" per se, but I do believe in "Special Creation", that is, in the literal truth of Genesis 1-11 and in the traditional Catholic theology of Creation (Origins) developed by the Fathers and Doctors of the Church. 

 

BFTEss, you believe in Stellar and Darwinist Evolution....that something exploded from nothing and over bazillions of years evolved into the Universe and all that's in it including plant, animal, and human life.    

There is no, nada, zilch empirical scientific proof of any of this, so you believe it by faith.

Belief in Creation or Evolution has to be made on the basis of faith, either faith in Almighty God or faith in random chance.  

 

Lula what in the world makes you more virtuous than I?  I believe everything I say even if some of it could have been worded more delicately, at times.  The only point in the clip was the one thing you ignored and have never even commented on because you spent all your time and effort trashing the messenger as usual. That doesn’t diminish the message itself at all … just shows where your interests lay. If you no longer consider yourself a young earth creationist, then you have previously and willfully lied on many occasions. Whoa ... what in the world do you consider creationism to be if not Genesis … that you literally agree with??? I would say we are on the same page here; you just don’t seem to know it??? I know what you mean by Stellar and Darwinian evolution but by today’s standards you are talking about astrology and alchemy and I am talking about astronomy and modern chemistry. I am tired of you telling me  why and how and what I believe having repeatedly told you myself what that is.  I believe evolutionary theory is the only viable explanation for the formation of the universe and everything in it. We are not even in the same century on this one. My understanding of things is based on the 21st century whereas yours is the 1st. If you do not understand what that means, there is nothing I could tell you tell you to even tempt you to just use some common sense, reason and logic in evaluating things. Please stop trying to use science because IT doesn’t care if there is a god either, it just doesn’t work that way. The biggest mistake creationists make is trying to use numbers.

Why do people laugh at creationists? (part 4)   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vjFeVwuJB7I&feature=BFa&list=PLAC3481305829426D

I wish you would stop attributing your idea of faith to me, the atheist. I would never enter an elevator if the only assurance (lack of) I had for a safe ride was faith.

I am sorry but I have never heard a more ridiculous statement, and you know it. You sure do like that random chance nonsense don’t you???

 

 

 

 

Not going there. This discussion centers around ideas and beliefs, not personalities.

 

I disagree. Read my comments again.  I didn't trash the messenger. I specifically addressed her message beginning with the first word she used, "If".

At the end of the clip she tells us  "to think about it." Well, if one does think about it, one easily understands that the word "If" regulates the message. 

And these clips you post don't show where your interests lay?

On this one, it boils down to this... You posted the clip and touted it as having more truth in it than the entire Bible. I refuted the clip and your claim. 

..........

I've been participating in JU discussions for years and I may have called myself a "Creationist", don't know. It's just that as I read and study about our Origins, I've come to realize that "Creationist", "Creationism" is more of a construct and I'm not sure I agree with everything that's lumped into that and that's why I said I wouldn't call myself a "Creationist" per se. 

I do believe in a "young earth" and will not be intimidated into abandoning Biblical chronology and accepting speculations of modern astronomers concerning the age of the universe.  The conclusion that the Universe is a bazillion years old is not scientific certainity, even though many of them assert it to be. 

I believe in Special Creation because Genesis repeatedly states that each living creature was created "according to its kind." Genesis teaches God infuses each human soul in a special act of creation. 

 

 

 

It has come to my attention that all I have to do is say something and you will refute it regardless of content. I have no Idea what you expect of me particularly when you go off and start quoting YOUR internal documentation as if it should weigh heavy on me somehow. There is only one point behind most of what I say … neither you or I can prove the existence of any god, or not. This is a given and not debatable regardless of how we may feel about it. Were it possible wouldn’t it have been done by now, really. Incidentally, I believe you are confusing my confidence that the elevator won’t fall with your hope and faith it will function correctly. You seemingly do not know of the engineering and safety features built into all of them. You do not seem to understand what a ‘fail safe’ is or what ‘tamper proof’ means nor does the word redundant seem to mean anything to you. These kinds of things are mandatory where public safety is concerned. You chose a very bad example here is all (not that there is a good one mind you).

In Creationism, special creation is a theological doctrine which states that the universe and all life in it originated in its present form by unconditional fiat or divine decree [you have repeatedly stated this]. Roman Catholicism uses the phrase in a different sense: to refer to the doctrine of immediate or special creation of each human soul, whatever. I am not here to play semantics with you

This is the cop out of the Institute for Creation Research: “We do not know how the Creator created, [or] what processes He used, for He used processes which are not now operating anywhere in the natural universe. This is why we refer to creation as special creation. We cannot discover by scientific investigation anything about the creative processes used by the Creator.” Keeping this in mind, how and through what undetectable by science medium are Christians communing with their god to this day?

Top Ten (Failed) Proofs for God's Existence: Part 1   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qzEbpcUf7rE&feature=g-all-lik

Warning - First law of thermodynamics inside, beware … as simply put as one can. Just know this before you tell me why it is all wrong: There is not a HS science student that would have any difficulty understanding this simple stuff. Whether he believes it or not has nothing to do with the material, he will understand it.

 When I get into an elevator I have the very same confidence that it won't fall as you do. But why do we both believe, have confidence and trust that the elevator won't fail and indeed function correctly? Because of faith...we both have human faith as does the rest of humanity.

Earlier, I explained that we believe things by faith and argued it isn't only belief in religious things. The dictionary definition of "faith" is a believing; trust or confidence. We confidently step in an elevator without fear it will fall down because we have faith in the architectural designer, the builder and the construction materials used, etc.

The late Dr. Timothy Mitchell wrote an article entitled, The Marvelous Gift of Faith, in Pro Ecclesia magazine that addresses points made in your article, what we've been discussing and completely refutes the video skeptic.  Here's some of it.

He starts by describing faith and that it takes human faith to walk under a make-shift passageway beneath one of Manhattan's high rises. 

"Faith, simply put, is the believing in something on the testimony and authority of another, whether it is religious faith, historical faith, scientific faith, or faith in the theory of evolution. For example, I believe in God who told me He is, and because it can be verified. I believe that certain events in the past, which I cannot verify, happened, precisely because I have faith in historians who tell me so. I believe that atoms exist and can be subdivided, although I can verify neither, because I have faith in scientists who say so. And I would believe in evolution (which I don't ) because I would have faith (which I don't) in the presence of the missing links, whose existence has not been verified. 

In all, as Claire Booth Luce said to her trendy friends of years gone by, most of what we believe is through faith and most of it is considered sophisticated except the most sophisticated belief of all: belief in the Author of sophistication. And herein lies the paradox. For faith in God is backed by reason whereas faith in Atheism is not. That is, the existence of God can be logically demonstrated: His non-existence cannot. 

The men of faith who believe in history, science, and evolution all hold one thing in common with the men of faith who believe in God, namely, that the world exists---it is no longer sophisticated to argue otherwise, else there would be no high-rises. Now, if the world exists, there must be an explanation that is quite sophisticated indeed.

There are only 3 possible explanations. Either the world always existed or it hasn't. Now, if it has; that is the first possibility. If it hasn't, there are two other possibilities; either it caused itself or it was caused by another.

Those who have faith in history knew there are causes and effects and that no thing causes itself. For this is a contradiction in terms, which posits existence before existence. Thus they know that either the world always existed or was caused by somethings other than itself. 

Those who have faith in science know that the world is composed of matter and for that reason could not have always existed. For the Second Law of Thermodynamics dictates to them all matter tends toward dissolution. Thus if matter always existed, it would have already dissolved.

Those who have faith in evolution know that they cannot explain --within their limited scope of observation--the origin of matter. Matter, for them, is a given with no questions asked as to whom the giver might be, as they go about trying to explain the origin of the species. But since matter could not have always existed or could not have caused its own existence, it must have gotten that existence from another source---a source not subject to dissolution, i.e. a spiritual source. And the evolutionists realize this. For when they stop looking at little things to consider larger things, it becomes evident to them that their given was given. They refer to this phenomenon as the big bang or some such appellation. But it is God about whom they are talking, the same God whom the ancients heard thundering in the skies and in whom men of faith believe. 

In conclusion, then, the faith of the men who believe in God can be verified; for theirs is the only explanation of the world (a given) which is possible. And since it is sophisticated to believe that which can be verified, it is sophisticated--more sophisticated than fearlessly walking under a makeshift passageway in Manhattan --to believe in the existence of God. 

 

Seems, supports, indicates ... can be concluded, must be true ... so we can know the truth, attributed to Jesus, suggests to us etc. These are hardly the words to use when referencing the absolutely correct relevance of biblical scriptures. I have never understood how anyone could be so abjectly naïve as to use the ‘bible scriptures’ to justify those very same ‘biblical scriptures’ whoa … and think some reasonable conclusion can come from that. As bad as that is, they insist on hamstringing humanity by the exclusion of anything un-biblical (such as someone else’s unproven bible) as un-creditable which must include the whole planetary database outside the Vatican and Co. That is the most ridiculous ass-backwards thinking possible. In effect what biblical realists insist they actually believe in a completely unfounded fantasy where their magic (not anyone else’s magic) is the only thing real and true and that the real world, the one we all can see, influence and actually experience, is nothing but a fantasy because life really begins after death.

Is the New Testament Reliable?   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C92_JrS-ZPs&feature=watch_response

The whole debate is listed below and I recommend you watch it just see Craig Evans squirm as he uses the same exact same circular logic stated above. The same circular logic all religions have used throughout time for the same reasons and purpose.

Does The Bible Misquote Jesus? (Debate, 2010)   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U2BNwZk6Wi4

Lula, I will respond to your post soon, but if you wish to discuss mine on the first law of thermodynamics, I suggest you at least watch the clip first.

It doesn’t matter how many times or ways you try to pin me down with your kind of ‘faith’ it will not change the fact that I do not have any in any religious or philosophical or scientific sense. You could get a petition signed by every member of your church to no avail; you cannot just give me faith any more than you can give me a deity or a religion. The best you could do is present your case as you seem to think you have (I guess) but quite poorly indeed if you ask me. I have no idea what you believe from time to time because I do not trust your only source of information and I have no idea what parts you are ‘going to believe’ or when you are going to believe them or change your infallible mind based on the infallible book, or not (?).

I am sure the late Dr. T Mitchel was a grand religious figure and that Pro Ecclesia magazine is as unbiased as he was, but neither is meaningful to me. Thinking about it more, there is one thing I suppose one could call my faith and that would be faith in me of course. As in all creatures, I have a conscience that provides all that I need to decide right from wrong and good from bad, beyond that is just educating myself. If I don’t understand something I keep researching it for at least as long as it takes for me to understand it, decide it is too complex for me or I dismiss it as unsupportable as I did with the bible. Everything of consequence falls into the first or third part with the middle reserved for the cutting edge of science or where my level of expertise is inadequate. I don’t as a rule talk about medicine because I am not qualified to discuss it, and I refuse to memorize their lexicon which would be required just to converse with them. I don’t think that anyone having access to medical attention (except for religious reasons of course) gives any thought of going elsewhere, particularly not to a church as prescribed. You should really try to get some grip on the scientific terminology if you are going to pretend you understand it because when you don’t … it is that obvious.

I don’t know how many times I have told you and in no uncertain words that I do not believe in the scriptures from which every scrap of knowledge you think you understand comes from. I have repeatedly asked you to relate your beliefs to me as well as your explanations in your own words. You do this sometimes in small measures but, it invariable comes with someone else’s pedigree (in theology) or references to previous wisdoms of your own (or theirs) where you somehow think you proved a point but haven’t … and you just continue to assume on as if you had … from topic to topic to topic. It is as if you need to try and prove to yourself that you are just the parrot, not the babbler … or you have that little confidence in your own ability to speak your own mind or even describe and justify this god of yours ... without guidance. If one has a propensity for telling the truth then there shouldn’t be any reason to resort to deceit.

This is about the last time I am going to give such a lengthy reply to you because you do not deserve one and because you would usually just waste spend your time picking out this little tidbit or that and ignore the complete topic as you try to redirect it. If we were to sit down with a pen and piece of paper, I would have no problem repeating my arguments to you (need at least a slide-rule for the math [and yes I have one and remember]) but I do not think you could do the same. I think it fundamentally obvious that if you cannot even prove the existence of your god or the inexistence of another one in any substantive manor, then you are just blowing smoke and we both know it. I find it quite improbable that an American HS educated human being could be as devoid of scientific understanding as you appear to be and actually survive in America … even as you pretend to know what you are talking about, but don’t ??? I am not going to continue playing this game of yours where I am somehow supposed to be on the defensive … because I am not.

PS – I do not think I copied and pasted anything here … hint … hint!

PSS - I don't care why you get into an elevator???

 

 

 

How many people were tortured and put to death because of delusional beliefs concerning witches and whatnot where the only way to prove your innocence was by dying properly? How many religious folk still to this day believe in witches with all their mystical powers? How many 'heretics, homosexuals, Christians and Muslims (to name a few)' have met the same fate because of delusional beliefs? It doesn't matter what Hitler was, it was his delusional beliefs that decimated the Jews and destroyed much of Europe. The Pope doesn’t kill anyone with his ‘god speak’ but his delusion belief concerning condoms does. But of all delusional beliefs nothing tops the delusional belief of the Jewish god such that his perfect creation wasn’t … and this delusion belief is what got the Jews started.

Delusional beliefs and their harm to humanity … seems like a good topic to me (but of course hahaha)??? Delusional (having false or unrealistic beliefs or opinions not based on proof) beliefs (psychological state in which an individual holds a proposition or premise to be true even if it isn’t) … seems important if the truth is of concern to all. I don’t know how to measure ‘faith or beliefs’ other than with a 1 or 0 nor do I find a useful purpose for them beyond propaganda, to shore up the troops so to speak … but not for everyone else. There is no higher authority in my life above myself because I do not rely on anyone to decide for me. I am free to come and go as I please. I decide to follow societal dictates at my discretion but hold myself responsible for the results. I don’t find it difficult at all to be good alone, in the family or in the society where I chose to live. Belief and faith in that belief is just too good a combination not to be exploited by everyone. Wonder how many presidents we have already had claiming to be Christians, just like BO, but weren’t? Lies hurt everyone but faith in them hurts the most.

 

Very well said. Now, if you would only take what you say here and apply that to your  belief and faith in Cosmic and Darwin Evolution which are both unrealistic and most certainly not based on proof, then you'll truly be on to something.

 

 

Lula I cannot discuss solar or Darwinian evolution with you for what should be obvious reasons. First of all you do not believe understand them which makes anything constructive an impossibility. That and the fact that you do not know anything about them makes your opinions useless (to me anyway) in such matters. Evolutionary theory (what you should be discussing) persistes in a myriad of fields all of which don't work without it. With your casual rejection of 'Darwinian evolution' you are in effect trashing such things as biology, chemistry, mathematics, physics, medicine, archeology, forensics, common sense, reason, paleontology, tectonic plate theory,  genetics etc. But because you do not understand the scientific process or the particular sciences involved, all you can do is denounce everything under the lump you call “Darwinian evolution” and that tells everyone else how clueless you actually are. And when you bring ‘stellar evolution’ into the mix so casually well that goes without need of further comment. Now I guess we need to add astronomy, nuclear physics, astrophysics, string theory, Galilei (the telescope still), Copernicus (the center still), Hubble the accurate etc. to the list of things that don’t work for you too. And all this because you personally HAVE to believe in a 6,000 year old earth just to set up your Alice in Wonderland motif to go totally south at the first opportunity. I have evidence, understanding and knowledge on my side and have no use for your magic, your mysticism or your kind of faith … just the facts mam. There is nothing wrong with admitting that you just don’t understand something (like science) … it is the secular thing to do in such situations. It is called being honest to oneself because it is obvious to everyone else (except Jythier).

In the bigger scheme of things the Christian views have no more influence on reality than mine do, but I actually have an explanation that is backed by the evidence, but what matter that? I suppose the world could be just about anything one wanted to 'imagine' because the mind is a very splendorous thing … besides brainwashing has worked for centuries ... except for these last two. They have changed everything and that is why Christian apologists do everything they can to avoid them. They battle Darwinism and Copernicusism as if they were our ‘scientific (bibles (???))’ … instead of engaging biology-anything or stellar-anything??? The following clip is a rebuttal to the orthodox claims that dinos lived alongside humans. I am tired of the deceit and misrepresentations of actual science that creationists bustardize to meet their unfounded theological desires. Why does the Christian truth require deceit and deception allthewhile they consider the sciences are designed through deceitful and deceptive means? This nonsense gets tiresome! Manipulating numbers only works for the ignorant or the willingly deceived.

Dinosaur blood and polystrate trees debunked   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fgpSrUWQplE&list=PL9C430C88DA30B30D

 

Aside from the right to believe whatever we like, none of us are capable of doing anything besides helping, ignoring or harming others in the here-and-now no matter who we interact with. I don't have any problem with the Jew, the Christian or the Muslim ... whether they have a problem with me (and they usually do) or not. I try to take people at face value until I decide they are being unnecessarily deceptive or they appeal in blind faith to one dogma or another (take your pick, they are all the same). If creationists gave a little thought to the changes in attitude and understanding in the last fifty years it would help them. The new sciences we have the empirical data and the biological ties between the flora and fauna to name a few. What do they expect is going to happen in the next fifty years ... the regression of society to a first century worldview or further away from it than we are now? How are the creationist's children going to survive in a society that is becoming ever more advanced is beyond me ... but their parents know best huh.

 

Creationism Is Not Appropriate For Children   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gHbYJfwFgOU

 

The discovery of soft tissue with its nucleated blood cells in the carcass of a T-Rex has evolutionists in a dithering dither. But because evolution must fit all pastevents in a pre-arranged timetable, it has always insisted it can't be less than 68 millions of years old. Hogwash! Modern biological science that has no Evolution timetable to bow before says, even with the best efforts of preservation, nucleated blood cells couldn't survive even 7,000 years must less 10,000 times that age. 

Evolutionists use Dinosaurs the most to indoctrinate children and adults (you) into believing the fallacies of Darwin Evolution. Dinosaur displays are exhibited in museums as a proof of evolution. There very extinction which they dogmatically claim occurred 60 some millions of years ago is supposed to establish it as fact.  Extinction is not evolution and provides no evidence of it. The Great Flood of Noah is the reason why most of them disappeared and became fossils.

Dinos are large reptiles that did live alongside humans, then and now. Dinosaurs are still here...they roamed the earth then, some were small and some were big lizards and now they are smaller than they were 6,000 or so years ago. There are lizards, crocodiles, alligators, and komodo dragons, etc.

There is empirical evidence that dinosaurs lived with humans...there are Petroglyphs, rock drawings and carvings in caves and dragon legends told from people all over the world. There are also fossils of dinosaur and human foot prints together.  

Anyhow...You're tired and so am I.

We see that modern science has no proofs for Darwin's biological Evolution...but it does for Special Creation. 

There are two paths of life before us. There is either the Christian path where we worship and acknowledge God and His view of life or the Secular and Atheistic Humanist path where man worships himself and his moral relativistic view of life. Both views influence the culture.  

If Secular and Atheistic Humanism hold sway and continue choosing against God, the Natural or moral Law, and continue being hell bent in pursuing the culture of death, we will descend into the gutter of chaos, where disorder of every sort reigns. It isn't fun or pretty.

I think not, you just do not even bother to read the scientific literature preferring to enlighten yourself through sites like 'Answer in Genesis so you don't do any of your own research, you just copy and paste. As in all things biblical and seeming all creationists junk science are infallible as if hahaha. You were probably too busy generically badmouthing evolutionists to look at this clip sorry to say but I will not waste my time trying to add more proof where no more is needed. (Reference clip in post 88) All you offered was speculation without any source at all to back up what you have said. Just as you are free to believe what you like, you are also free to say whatever you want to say and you don’t feel obligated at all to prove anything because the church says so. You don’t trust the scientist but you attempt to use that same funky science to disprove, well itself … somehow (does not compute)? You aren’t trying to prove anything; you just continuously try to break the natural world to suit your mental fantasy in spite of your own senses … somehow, well good luck with that one.

 

One Fact to Refute Creationism   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TjxZ6MrBl9E&feature=youtu.be

PS – The reason I post these clips is because I do not believe you consider anything I say as valid … a picture can be worth a thousand words after all.

You seem to have missed a few other available paths if one is looking for a belief in something that is undetectable, impotent and fictitious by all reckoning. The Muslims, Jews, Buddhists, Polytheists and so many others have found the exact escape from reality as you have. From my perspective … they all have equal ‘footing’ in mythology.  There is only one path to follow through life with plenty of options available. It is the options we decide to take that determine our course (not where we started it) and we can blame nobody else for our decisions. There is only one path between birth and death, I just like to make my own choices instead of having them made for me by illiterate nomads from the 1^st century. We have come a long way since them and we know a thing or two they were incapable of even comprehending, like just about everything.  

PS - I wish you would stop attaching your labels to me ... I follow no banner and trumpet no cause and care little for the things others believe in or not, particularly if they cannot prove themselves in any real way. Talk to me please ... not about me or my many different kinds (all of your choice).

GFT, are you saying there were no soft tissues found or that the ones that were found don't prove anything? 

For what it's worth, I don't use the Internet, Wiki, or sites like Answer in Genesis in any of my responses.

I've argued against the indoctrination of Darwin Evolution as scientifically true for many years since my children were in junior high school and my youngest is now 24. I know what they are taught. I have their text books on my library shelf.

So when an important news story comes out, like finding blood tissue in a T-Rex, I pay attention. On this, the scientists so inordinately influenced by Evolution are the dissemblers and the truth is on the Special Creation side. Truth is Dr. Schweitzer saw not only blood cells but the veins and arteries that carry them that were soft, pliable and resilient, empirical evidence of a much younger dinosaur than 63 millions years old that refutes the evolutionist status quo.  But she was told by her superiors to prove that they weren't what they really were.

I got the info from reading an article in the Jan. 2012, Culture Wars. There was an article written about it in Scientific American, December 2010 issue with the title, Blood from Stone. I cited it the first time I brought the finding of the blood tissue up either earlier in this article or in one of the other blogs in which we debated Darwin Evolution.

Now if you plan to check them out and attack the messenger, like you did Robert Gentry and Jonathan Wells in Icons of Evolution, have at it, but I won't participate.

...................

RE; the clip of Dawkins.

We agree, a picture is worth a thousand words.

But what Dawkin's said on that clip was worth zilch. Why? because it doesn't mean anything. His one fact doesn't refute Special Creation.

Please. All that hype and he still plays the fool.

Sure there are similiarities or resemblances of genes in unrelated species, but so what? Similiarities or resemblances are not Darwin Evolution, change beyond kind. We've already covered this. They may be similar in structure but they are not in function..the DNA takes care of that. The genetic instructions are similar, but the order in which they are expressed makes all the difference and will not allow Darwin Evolution's change beyond kind to occur.  

Quite so!

I am talking to YOU....about belief systems and how they differ and what that all means.

 

Oops. This is true there are many different paths out there...many, many different religions and religions differ just as men do! the way you describe them shows you are being true to the atheist line by lumping all religions as an escape from reality.

Anyway, at this point, it goes without saying the Catholic and the CC draws the line in different place from that perspective chosen by you.

And you know I have an explanation of that otherwise, it would not be me!

This is kind of a half-truth. We can't each choose our own path because man's destiny is to go to God because man comes from God and belongs entirely to God. Our reason tells us that Someone made us. That Someone is God. Nothing can proceed from nothing. If there had ever been a moment when nothing existed, nothing would ever have existed. Therefore because we exist, we know Someone who made us also exists; that Someone is God.

We can't choose our own path to God because it is for God to say by what path we will come to Him and not for man to tell God to be content with whatever men choose to do.

If as Christians believe, God has revealed a religion, people are obliged to accept that religion and no other.  They are no longer entitled to their own path once God has dictated what they must believe.

So, it does matter what path we travel though this valley of tears called the world. It must matter or Christ would not have taught a new and very definite religion. the Jews were aiming at the same destination, eternal salvation and happiness with God. And when Christ came He offered His path (saying He is the Life, the Truth and the Way), and some accepted while others rejected Him. So God not only appoints the destination, but also the path by which we must travel and we can't say that any other path is just as good.

The CC declares hers to be the only right path and has been declaring that ever since 33AD when she was sent out to all nations to preach, teach and sanctify.   

Well, it's true we have only one life to live and we must make our own choices. Which brings us to truth and the infallibility of the Church. I believe that Christ meant His Church to be infallible. You do not. We can't both be right.

But I'm talking about sublime truths. Jesus said the humble see important truths more easily than the super educated and the proud.

In the story of the Emperor's New clothes, it was a child who saw reality more clearly than the adults and said the emperor had no clothes.

 

 

Oh my, this will have to wait, I am watching a good Robin Hood movie I hadn't seen before but tomorrow is another day

Not a problem, I already know the limits of your 'scientific' prowess so I read everything you post through many different filters. Because you are little more than a copy and paste' expert I look for your sources. And this as in most of your arguements, your 'deductions' do not match the material sited. Robert Gentry and Jonathan Wells are verifiable creationist frauds ... so if you side with them well I guess that makes you one too. You need to become more discerning over your bedfellows because their labels will follow.

Lula it doesn’t matter where you get your information, if you are not getting it from the actual sources you are not getting the correct story. You argue against science with your every word which is fine … the sciences can take care of themselves because the sciences are auto-correcting. Nobody can claim that about your bible can they? It remains demonstrably barbaric and lacking in useful knowledge unless one is interested in groveling forever without asking any questions except of long dead cavemen to guide your way, not my cup of tea for sure. Maybe you could reread the article and indicate how you drew the conclusions you claim to have made on your own? I don’t think the scientist (paleontologist) herself agrees with your analysis … but that doesn’t matter to you at all does it?

Blood from Stone: How Fossils Can Preserve Soft Tissue   http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=blood-from-stone

You might want to recount her thoughts on the matter: The following exert I thought you might enjoy, or not.

Q: Many creationists claim that the Earth is much younger than the evolutionists claim. Is there any possibility that your discoveries should make experts on both sides of the argument reevaluate the methods of established dating used in the field? Carl Baker, Billings, Montana

Schweitzer:  Actually, my work doesn't say anything at all about the age of the Earth. As a scientist I can only speak to the data that exist. Having reviewed a great deal of data from many different disciplines, I see no reason at all to doubt the general scientific consensus that the Earth is about five or six billion years old. We deal with testable hypotheses in science, and many of the arguments made for a young Earth are not testable, nor is there any valid data to support a young Earth that stands up to peer review or scientific scrutiny. However, the fields of geology, nuclear physics, astronomy, paleontology, genetics, and evolutionary biology all speak to an ancient Earth. Our discoveries may make people reevaluate the longevity of molecules and the presumed pathways of molecular degradation, but they do not really deal at all with the age of the Earth.

T. Rex Blood? Expert Q&A   http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/nature/schweitzer-qa.html

Complete and absolute bollock ... there is nothing in this prattle worth commenting on. I suggest you read a book on how evolution actually works ... you don't have to believe any of it, but you need to do this if you ever hope to discuss it rationally.

The earth isn't younger, things just last longer than we ever believed...

Sorry Jythier but there isn't enough for me to work with here as usual and I never know when you are being 'funny' or not. If you want to discuss something, you need to clarify it because I am only versed in things which creationists seem to consider the corrupted sciences ... which doesn’t compute for me. I am planning one more article considering the myth of creation and I am tired of trying to find simplistic videos in the hopes of conveying the arguments simply because that didn't work at all ... so these won't be that simple. Following is an example of my intentions ... too bad you refuse to even look at them, not my problem for sure. Foundational Falsehood of Creationism 1, Evolution does not mean atheism and it never has. I have shown several clips of Christians who believe in evolution but it seems that they are just considered fallen too ... what a compassionate lot Creationists are, go figure.  

 

1st Foundational Falsehood of Creationism   http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnJX68ELbAY&list=PL126AFB53A6F002CC&index=1