blackbird

Churches I went to had nothing to say about science. They don't deny science except they might not agree with evolution.

Well, professor Stott said it has not always been followed as it should have been. Sometimes claims have been made without clear proof and using the scientific method.

I am not ignoring anything. I have not used the word metalicity. Can you explain it?

No, of course not. Professor Philip Stott explained that the scientific method was actually abandoned by many scientists. He explained the importance of the scientific method. Some theories in science have been abandoned as new knowledge is discovered.

Some but it was a long time ago. I had a chemistry lab in the basement when I was a kid. Had quite a collection of chemicals. Passed chemistry in high school but can't remember much now. I know a little about chemical reactions. What about metalicity?

When a scientist sees a star, he might say that light has been traveling a million light years, which is a phenomenal distance. But it was probably created around six thousand years ago.

The same reason the earth was created with a certain age. The whole universe would have been created with an apparent age. In an instant the universe would have been created with galaxies, stars, etc. Even with the light from stars giving the impression it has been traveling for billions of years, when in fact, it must have been created to appear that way.

No. I was convinced the account in Genesis is true before I heard his slide presentation. He went into all kinds of things that were very fascinating. The universe I believe was created at the same time as the earth. So all the planets, starts, galaxies, black holes, etc. must have been created at the same time. Prior to that, perhaps there was nothing.

He believe the earth could have been struck by a giant meteor that caused a huge tidal wave to rush around the earth several kilometers in height. There may be some evidence for the earth being struck by a giant meteor because the earth could have been knocked off of it's axis. There is scientific evidence based upon the amount of the wobble and they have calculated when it was hit by the meteor.

Professor Stott also showed the Geological Time Charts with the life forms allegedly at different times. It is full of gaps that can't be properly explained.

If you gave a monkey a typewriter and allowed him to keep typing until he typed out the complete works of Shakespeare, how long would it take? That is like the theory of evolution. Statistically there is not enough time in the universe for evolution to occur because the random chance processes don't have enough time to create an evolving life. He said mathematically it is not possible.

The theory of evolution is built on something called random chance processes. Professor Stott, who is a mathematician among other things explained that the mathematical theories of probability are against evolution.

Yes. I believe the King James Bible. I was fortunate to be able to hear a series of lectures by a scientist Professor Philip Stott for four evening on the subject of creation and evolution. It was a slide presentation. He showed how from a scientific point of view the theory of evolution doesn't hold up and many other things.

Theologians have estimated from the events in the Bible that it is possibly six thousand years old. I think they get that from a timeline of events recorded in the Bible.

If you think about it, it makes sense that when the earth was created, everything had an apparent age even though it was just created.

Fossils must have been created as well at the time of creation. I found some fossils long ago.

That makes sense. According to scientists, doesn't it take millions of years to convert plants into coal? So the coal you see today must have been created with the earth.

It says God created the earth. Some theologians think it was created six to ten thousand years ago. All that coal would have likely been in the earth at the time it was created. IN other words in my humble opinion the earth was created with an apparent age built into it. If you think about, when the trees and plants were created, they must have had an age at the time of creation.

I for one wouldn't want to be in your shoes.

God sent the flood to wipe out everything except Noah, his family, and animals on the Ark. God created everything so who is to question what God does? Does God owe anyone anything? I think not. We are kept alive on this earth only because God allows it to be so. Some people die of cancer young, babies dies at birth, people of all kinds are killed in wars. We can't explain everything. The world is not an equal opportunity job. We can't understand everything, but God is good and merciful.

I am ready also, but it might be better to give the NDP and Green some time to show the voters what they are like. It the election is too soon, the result might not change much. Giving it some time might convince a lot of people to vote them out.

You are incorrect with your assumptions. As I recall, God destroyed everyone except Noah and his family because the thoughts and intents of their hearts were only evil continually. They didn't believe Noah and mocked him when he said there was going to be a flood.

No, I do not speak Ancient Greek, Coptic, Ancient Hebrew, or Aramaic. I know what you are driving at with that question though. I have heard that type of argument made by a minister I had as a kind of response to my claim that the KJV was the only completely accurate and true version. He claimed he had studied Greek in seminary. What he didn't say but I have read is that ministerial students study some Greek but they don't speak the language. Apparently ancient Greek was primarily a spoken language. So people who hang their hat on that argument have missed the point entirely. The point is God promised to preserve his WRITTEN word. That means not in some obscure ancient language that 99.9 percent of people do not know, but in the a language they can understand. In the west that is English. KJV only people, such as myself, are talking about the translation in English. We realize other translations in other languages could be very accurate as well. However, to go to church today in the town I live, I must go where they use a modern version. There is no KJV church here. I doubt the claim of mistranslations in the KJV. I have never heard of the "sea of reeds". I accept the wording "the Red Sea was parted" if that is what it says in the KJV. There are many verses or phrases that I do not understand but that is human shortcomings or lack of knowledge, not the fault of the Bible. When you mention "modern" biblical scholars, I am immediately on guard. In many cases those are the people who have adopted the modern versions and do not believe in the inspiration and inerrancy of today's KJV. Right there I would be on my guard about anything they say. I can't comment much on Catholic versions or their history as I haven't studied that. Would have to spend a lot of time researching that. Not sure if I have time for that right at the moment. Maybe later. I have studied quite a bit about Roman Catholicism over the years and have some good references. I grew up in the RCC and left it about 37 years ago. I believe much of their core doctrines are unbiblical.

Sometimes you can be polite and still evoke a rude response. So the rudeness is not always equally shared. But that's the nature of these sites. If one wants to comment, he/she must be ready for receive, sometimes more than one dishes out. I accept that.

I have been on another news comment forum which is dominated by progressives and liberals and I can tell you they are not open-minded at all. There is a group of maybe a dozen or so regulars that frequent that website who will be very rude and hostile to any conservative or especially a social conservative who expresses an opinion. There is one guy who even wants other people to contact their MP to make it a hate crime to speak against man-made climate change. Others are rude in different ways. At least this website allows one to have a reasonably rational discussion. That other site is a news comment site where there is no rational discussion if you differ with the progressives.