blackbird

You explain it one or two sentences then. No diversion, no obfiscation. Get right to the point.

Here is part of an interesting article, not evolution, but more to do with creation: Cosmology The reigning paradigm in cosmology is the Big Bang. Despite promising initial observations of an expanding universe and microwave background radiation, the idea of an explosive origin guided by no intelligent hand is increasingly proving problematic. In recent years it has become quite clear that there are many properties of our universe which, if they were slightly different, would make life impossible. In addition, it seems even our place in the galaxy is purposeful.i The odds of a happenchance Big Bang producing such a universe are incredibly small. Evolutionary cosmologists have responded by speculating about other universes unlike our universe (“multi-verse”), to improve the odds of such an ideal universe existing by chance. “Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible explanation: Our universe may be but one of perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multi-verse. Most of those universes are barren, but some, like ours, have conditions suitable for life.”ii Of course, all these other universes are forever beyond our detection. They are a metaphysical construction, a position of pure faith. Prominent in multi-verse models is “string theory,” a branch of theoretical physics that despite two decades of work has yet to produce any experimental confirmation. All the observable evidence indicates that our universe was purposefully designed. Big Bang Theory has run into other problems. The universe is far too lumpy. It doesn’t make sense that there would be vast empty spaces between galaxies with billions of stars. Scientists have postulated the existence of cold dark matter to solve this problem. There is no clear evidence for this matter; it is only a construct to save the theory. Moreover, the experimental evidence shows that the present universe has very a low geometrical curvature in its spacetime (it is nearly flat). Theoretical arguments that are well established suggest that this is a very unlikely result of the evolution of the universe from a Big Bang, unless the initial curvature is confined to an incredibly narrow range of possibilities. While this is not impossible, it does not seem very natural. Theorists have postulated “inflation” at the beginning of the Big Bang, but this is another ad hoc addition to try and solve the problems. For many years creationists have argued that the existence of comets in our solar system is an indication of a young earth.iii If the earth were billions of years old, all of the comets should have burned up long ago. Evolutionists responded by proposing a swarm of comets nuclei at the periphery of our solar system (the Oort Cloud) conveniently beyond our observation. This Oort Cloud is again a hypothesis with no empirical support. While critical of the supernatural (and scientifically unobservable) origin presented in Genesis 1, the evolutionists have, in the end, fallen back on metaphysical positions themselves. Paul Davies declares that The Big Bang “represents the instantaneous suspension of physical laws, the sudden abrupt flash of lawlessness that allowed something to come out of nothing. It represents a true miracle…”iv Here a truth is mentioned. Evolutionists have fallen back on metaphysical claims and abandoned scientific methods because they simply don't have answers.

Here is an interesting article: Evolutionists Retreating from the Arena of Science (As printed in Journal of Creationism, Vol. 23:3, December 2009, pp. 121-127.) This year, the bicentenary of Darwin’s birth and the 150th anniversary of his famous book’s publication, has seen a lot of reflection on the history of evolutionary theory. Indeed, it is difficult for a 21st century creationist to appreciate the giddy optimism that surrounded the evolutionism of a century ago. Direct scientific observations from the field had been formed into a cohesive argument for naturalistic origins over against supernatural creationism. This began with Charles Lyell traveling extensively in Europe and North America to gather geological facts in favor of his theories of uniformitarian gradualism. Charles Darwin’s insights came from his field work on his now famous voyage and observations as a naturalist. Within a few decades of Darwin’s writings a series of hominid fossil discoveries (like the Neanderthals, Java Man and Piltdown Man) appeared to confirm key predictions about human evolution. Haeckel’s embryology arguments were prominently presented. Huxley offered up Bathybius, the slime dredged from the ocean floor, as the link between nonliving chemicals and simplistic life. Creationists, on the other hand, were divided and unable to marshal an effective rebuttal. Unquote During the beginning of the 20th century some difficulties emerged in evolutionary theory, caused by biologist’s increased specialization and the concern that burgeoning genetic research would be difficult to reconcile with gradual evolution and the mechanism of natural selection. Through the decade of 1936 to 1947 the Darwinian Synthesis reconciled ideas from several branches of biology that had become separated, particularly genetics, systematics, morphology, and paleontology. In some ways, this time period was the scientific highpoint for evolutionism. The Darwinian Synthesis became the unquestioned reigning paradigm of the scientific community. Still today the scientific position of almost every large university and governmental institution remains unaltered. But since the middle of the 20th century an interesting new trend emerged. Evolutionary theorists were forced, step by step, to steadily retreat from the evidence in the field. Some of the evidences mentioned above were demonstrated to be frauds and hoaxes. Other discoveries have been a blow to the straightforward expectations and predictions of evolutionists. Increasingly, they have been forced to tack ad hoc mechanisms onto Darwin’s theory to accomodate the evidence. Their retreat to unfalsifiable positions is now evident in every arena where they once triumphed. Let us examine how Darwinian theorists have moved from concrhttp://discovermagazine.com/2008/dec/10-sciences-alternative-to-an-intelligent-creatorete predictions and scientifically observable supporting evidences to metaphysical positions in several key fields of research. For the rest of the story go to: http://www.genesispark.com/essays/retreat/

If it's wrong, how would you explain it in layman's language? Isn't it the scientific method that scientists use to reach a hard and fast conclusion about something? The problem with old earth age and evolution is it is impossible to go back through that long period of time to see what happened. There is no way to replicate it in a lab. So all you have is scientists who come up with various assumptions upon which to try to reach conclusions. But conclusions reaches by making assumptions is not the scientific method. It is completely fallible and falls more into the category of the theoretical.

First I must declare my personal non-interest. I am not a sports fan of any kind I noticed from time to time, as recently, a hockey player is what would appear, to receive serious brain injury. This occurred the other day and was caused by a hit by another player. As a kind of outside observer, my question is should this really be an acceptable part of the "sport" in Canada? It seems kind of like the ancient gladiators who went into the Roman coliseum to fight lions with a sword or the bull fights that take place today in Spain or the bare-fist boxing that is done possibly illegally, with bets taken. Although the consequences of the injuries in hockey might not be as serious as in the coliseum or bare-fist boxing match. There seems to be a macho mentality that supports this industry and pays to watch it. Should it be considered as barbaric rather than a legitimate "sport"? Is it possible to even play without these kinds of injuries?

The difference between a theory and a fact is quite simple. A fact can be proven by what scientists call the scientific method. A theory is simply speculation that has not been proven by the scientific method.

Don't think they want to dominate science. Atheists often ridicule christianity by pointing to science saying blah blah blah. So there are some Bible-believing scientists who wish to set the record straight about some things like evolution that many have fallen down to worship as absolute fact. Evolution has not been proven and creation scientists find it interesting to investigate the subject and point out where some widely accepted theories are flawed. It is impossible to prove something which it is claimed happened over a long period of time because that time is gone and we cannot re-create it in a laboratory. Here is an interesting article on the age of the earth. https://creation.com/age-of-the-earth

I don't believe in the claims of evolution. As far as I know, it has never been proven and is impossible to prove. Many creation scientists have examined it and dismissed the claims of evolution for different reasons. Professor Philip Stott has shown with the mathematical theory of probability that evolution is impossible. He said there is not enough time for creation to occur by random chance processes. Some good articles on creation.org

Jesus has been used as some kind of football for all kinds of doubtful things. It has often been claimed Jesus was some kind of socialist or Marxist, but that is false. He said his kingdom is not of this world. I don't know the details about what you claim so won't comment on it. All I can tell you, most people in the world don't understand the western concept of democracy. Before that would work, the people would have to understand it and accept it.

Nobody can force a country to adopt western style democracy because that's not how they think. It would require most of the population to change their thinking which they are not capable or willing to do. You're beating a dead horse.

The heading for this thread is The Evidence for God. The best website I have seen which makes the case for the existence of God is: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html There is a page that reviews some of the most famous scientists who believed in God. There are many other pages and links to various related topics. One of them discusses the gap theory. This is the modern atheist theory that there is a gap in science which when gradually filled will allegedly show why the atheists are correct. This is another good article. Some scientists today do believe in God. Many are vehemently opposed. These various articles deal with a lot of that. One interesting scientist who is mentioned is: Sir Francis Bacon (1561-1627) Bacon was a philosopher who is known for establishing the scientific method of inquiry based on experimentation and inductive reasoning. In De Interpretatione Naturae Prooemium, Bacon established his goals as being the discovery of truth, service to his country, and service to the church. Although his work was based upon experimentation and reasoning, he rejected atheism as being the result of insufficient depth of philosophy, stating, "It is true, that a little philosophy inclineth man’s mind to atheism, but depth in philosophy bringeth men's minds about to religion; for while the mind of man looketh upon second causes scattered, it may sometimes rest in them, and go no further; but when it beholdeth the chain of them confederate, and linked together, it must needs fly to Providence and Deity." (Of Atheism)

South Africa was a systemic racist country with laws against blacks. Israel is not a racist country. The laws are not systematically against non-Jews. Israel does what it does only to defend it's existence in a sea of hostile neighbours, who deny it's right to exist.

Yes the whole world hates Jews with a few exceptions. They have been persecuting them for nearly 2000 years in Europe and various places. However, unless one is prepared to accept the Bible as God's word, I doubt if we will get anywhere.

"so that they could die"??? not sure what that means. Nothing wrong with Zionists. If I understand it, Zionism was a movement for the return of the Jews to their historic land of Israel. Christian Zionists would be those christians who believe this is a reasonable idea. Most of the world hates Israel because they don't accept the God of the Bible or the Bible. So they don't accept the concept that God gave the land of Israel to them for perpetuity as the Bible states. No surprise. We can see the hostility of Iran and other Arab nations toward Israel. Some of these countries are not terribly friendly toward the west either. I don't see any benefit in siding with them against Israel. Kind of like shooting yourself in the foot. To be opposed to Israel puts one on the losing side as far as I can see, even if 95% of the nations are against Israel. They always have been so nothing new there. The Jews have been persecuted for 2000 years.

What denomination were you going to if I might ask? I'm not familiar with all of them, but know a little about some.

Some churches oppose divorce on any grounds. I have been in churches like that and abhor that attitude. Our present minister is the same. I don't agree but no use arguing with them. My view is if there is any mental or physical abuse, and it can't be stopped (because as you pointed out some people are incapable of changing), then there is no solution for the marriage. It must end. Sometimes that is the best thing for the individuals. I would be considered as a kind of rebel in most churches.

Yes, being in a christian marriage requires both understand their roles and responsibilities. Otherwise it won't work. I am talking about Bible believers, not "religious" people. There are many "religious" people in the world, even in churches. Using religion as a cloak for some other agenda will only backfire. It doesn't work that way. It seems like the devil has a hand in a lot of things and is probably the first one in the church on Sunday morning. Don't underestimate his power and influence on people.

Nobody said you should be robbed of the opportunity to be involved in the raising of your children. Not sure where you got that idea. Nobody is forcing you to do anything. It's a free country. One can believe whatever he/she wishes.

The way you describe it is a problem. But that is not how it is supposed to be. Such a couple need to find a good church and a good minister to discuss their problems with. That's about all I can say. I don't agree with the master-slave situation that you described. That not what the Bible endorses. There's definitely something wrong in a situation like that and the people involved need help or may end up getting separated and divorced. In some cases if there is physical or mental abuse, that may be the only solution.

Here are a dozen or so scientists who believed in God in the period from the 15th century up into the 20th century, with some information about each of them. I realize the Church of Rome ruled with an iron fist for centuries and dealt harshly and cruelly with heretics. Apart from that, many people still believed in God. http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/sciencefaith.html

You will have to read ch5 verses 22 to 33 to get a complete understanding of the relationship between a christian husband wife. It is not a master-slave relationship which might be implied by taking one verse out of context. It also says concerning believers "Submitting yourselves one to another in the fear of God." Ephesians ch5:21 This is speaking about the relationship between ordinary believers, not just between a husband and wife. Further down it says "Husband, love your wives, even as Christ also loved the church, and gave himself for it;" Ephesians ch5:25 It is a special relationship where the husband is the head of the wife and home, but must love his wife as his own body. This of course goes against women's liberation ideology, but this is not women's lib. This might not make much sense to a non-believer but it is the way God created men and women. Each has his or her own role in the family.

Why would you say God using his Son to create the universe is inconsistent with what the Bible says? Don't forget God the Son is part of the trinity and is therefore God.

Sorry, I don't really follow your point. The Bible teaching is that Jesus always existed and the incarnation was when he came to earth and took on a human body.

Why would you quote the Bible if you don't believe it and think it is all fairy tales? The explanation is based on what the Bible teaches, which you don't accept from the get go.

So would you say some of the greatest scientists in the last eight hundred years, like Sir Isaac Newton, who believed in God and the Bible, were not scientists? Why, because they believed in God and the Bible they are not real scientists? You have a strange criteria for determining who is a scientist and who isn't.