betsy

Belief in God requires belief in the eternal existence of God. God always was and always will be. This isn't a leap of faith by any standards. Scientists believed, before the Big Bang Theory (ie The beginning of the universe), that the universe has always existed. So it will be difficult for the scientific community to criticize Christians' belief in an eternal God when they (scientists) believed until recently in an eternal universe. The difference is belief in an eternal God accounts for the Big Bang. Without it, where is cause and effect?

I was talking about institutions. All students whether they become scientists or not, are taught in our public schools the theory of evolution without any consideration of alternative theories, including of course, creationism. I'm not saying that those who became scientist were not taught proper scientific methodology. I'm just saying that they were indoctrinated with a specific theory to the exclusion of others.

http://www.greatcom.org/resources/areadyde...h20/default.htm

Christianity has no need to throw anything away. It was true when it was Spoken. It's true now. I know....I know...this happened.....that happened....they burned witches....blah-blah-blah. But that wasn't Christianity. Christianity has no need to throw anything away. It was true when it was Spoken. It's true now. Science, on the other hand, is only true as long as no one proves it false. Since the theories come from the human mind, the likelihood of them being universal or long-lived is remote. You verify that by your statement.

Good! That explains your statement. For a while I suspected you were a groupie hanging out at scientific conferences. Btw, my husband was a meteorological technician. So there. Suzuki....okay I won't go there. But I'm glad to hear you don't know him. Your statement (which I quoted). Read it. With all due respect, none of those scientists mentioned even remotely is qualified to be answering any of these issues in an objective way. Unless of course, he has been published or has an unbiased interest in the area. We know of the ordinary scientific communities' opinion of the theories of evolution...as they've evolved. What we're looking for is someone with some substantive evidence to support or refute this orthodoxy. Same back to you. The zealots are the secularists, atheists and run-of-the-mill scientists who have nothing to contribute so continually trying to regurgitate the ludicrous theories of the 19th century. Perhaps it's the floundering ship that makes them feel this way. It seems to me that Behe is the only scientist you know that has an opinion contrary to evolutionists and in support of creationism. I can find many more for you....but we don't need that. All we need is an admission by evolutionists that they're wrong. If they can come up with a better theory, good show! We'll listen. But this isn't just an academic problem. This is an institutionalized hoax being perpetrated on our unsuspecting youth. Don't be honest with them about creationism if you can't understand it yourself....but at least be honest with your own children about the ridiculous theory that you've allowed our society to dwell under for a hundred and fifty years.

When did I attack personally?

I'll accept under protest your assertion that virtually all biologists accept the theory of evolution. Of course, declaring does not a truth make. The fact is every scientists in the western world was educated in institutions that insisted against all opposition....from the mid 19th century to this day....that the theory of evolution is fact. It's the followers in science community that are perpetuating this myth, not the leaders. The most brilliant minds are leading the way. In 50 years, the theory of evolution will be a curious , historical embarrassment. (scientist to other scientists: "remember those funny diagrams in biology 101...the gradual changes from a sea creature crawling on to land, to the 4-legged reptile, to the slopy forheaded guy walking on his hind legs, to the white guy strutting on campus?") There's still some who believe that the earth is flat, inspite of all the evidence to the contrary. The photos from outer space to the flat-earth people should be the equivalent of fossil records to the evolutionists.

Yeah but it doesn't mean it does either. Of course ludicrous theories won't be followed by the majority (other than the theory of evolution ). The point was the desperation.... their theory of pre-biotic soup was beginning to stink. Knowing that life must come from other life, they assume other life must exists. It begs the question doesn't it. Since it didn't exist here, it must've exist there. I wonder who created that extra-terrestial life. Or what pre-biotic chef created that pre-biotic soup on his planet. If you can't create life from non-life....time isn't a factor. Neither is harsh. Okay. Whatever. Try...try...try again.

The surprising thing about your statistics is that they're so low. For a hundred years or more public educations in this country has insisted to its students that evolution and the origin of man being the ape, that it's amazing that 59% of Canadians were bright enough to see the truth even though alternative to the theories were suppressed by the institutions that were granted the privilege of training them. Btw, did Can West mention that while 31% of people who believe in God believe in evolution, we must assume that 69% don't.

Just for the moment imagine that I don't care what you conclude about creationism (I really do care because I believe that finding the truth will be good for the path of your life)...but just imagine for the moment. All that is expected of science is to admit when its theory falls through. Overwhelming evidence (including Scorpio, the fossil record), shows that Darwin was wrong. Period. Take it like a man. All we ask is that you come up with an alternative! Or not. But don't tell others they're wrong when the evidence against YOUR theories (evolutionism, darwinism etc..) support another point of view. What are these scientists afraid of? Do they think others will expose the truth? Something they don't like? Why do they want to hush up oppositions to their beliefs if they believe they're right?

Darwin's theories have been de-bunked! Scientists are desperately searching for ways to resuscitate his primitive hypotheses. Failing to breathe life back into his theories, they resort to institutionally silencing the opposition.

Some people are easily offended when they have no case.

How sure are you? Your proof, scientist?

You got it right it cannot be dis-proven! But you're wrong because it has been proven! Like I said, the RESURRECTION is the very foundation of Christianity! One named Frank Morrison (whom I think was an atheist) had set out once and for all to disprove the Resurrection. So he gathered all evidences and did his study ....and guess what His findings were so compelling that he ended up converting to Christianity! Morrison is not the first and only atheist who ended up believing after investigative studies and evidence-gatherings! I have to go....out of time. Check out the site below and we'll discuss it. http://.greatcom.org/resources/areadydefense/ch20/default.htm

Sorry, I have to revise. In Acts 5, after the death of Jesus, a passage spoke of Apostles healing people "vexed with unclean spirits." I guess they did perform exorcisms.

And speaking of rolling eyes, One of the dilemmas of science, since they cannot find credence in the pre-biotic soup theory because of the indisputable theory of bio-genesis...so they turned to the theory of panspermia. Of course that doesn't explain how the life from outer space arose in the first place. Just imagine the collective rolling of eyes heavenward in churches across the land!

Scientist to Molly: "Hey, I had a heavy sigh the other day. The others rolled their eyes again at another creationist." Are you a science groupie? ooo-OOO! Scaaaarr-EEE! Btw, how many scientists do you know? no, no....David Suzuki doesn't count.

You're saying we should do away with the justice system? Aren't you going to extreme here? Anyway, why should you be taken seriously? The article you gave didn't even say what you claimed it said. You're ranting. Almost incoherent. Without meaning to be unkind, sound to me you just described yourself above.

Hey, you were the one who brought on Jesus to this topic. I played along with your little joke. How do I know you're going to latch on to it? This isn't about Jesus. Boy, we're not even on the Religion site....we're on Politics (United States). You thirst. You are looking for the Messiah....you just don't know it yet. Okay, back on topic now. Enough!

It only shows you that the advancement of technology since Darwin still hadn't come up with anything to fully back-up Darwin's evolution theory! Darwin thought proof was within reach. It still remains elusive. Even now when these scientist can discover and simulate practically almost anything.... Why would some scientist reluctantly admit to Intelligent Design and Intentional Design? Reluctant...because they come up with these fancy words, avoiding using the word: G O D! Why would the ID camp stick out their necks and reputation over a God whom obviously they don't really believe in that's why they can't even bring themselves to say His name...instead they come up with this "Intelligent Design"....Intentional Design" names! Division....two camps intensely at one another! ID camp finding weak spots....when there shouldn't be any at all if we're to swallow the evolution theory that's being forced on us! The fact that they're finding weak spots says the evolution theory stands on shakey ground! So why is the search for this simple question caused only a bitter division....and becoming more complex?

excerpt from: INTELLIGENT DESIGN: DAWKIN’S BASSET HOUND? By Benjamin Langer Science Creative Quarterly "ID is very often maligned for being an entirely unscientific enterprise because it makes no testable hypotheses. This is not exactly true. It makes one, a hypothesis popularized by Michael Behe as the irreducible complexity hypothesis. The idea, however, is not new and was even made explicit by Darwin at the very beginning. He said, “If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” To someone who has a vested interest in Darwin’s theory breaking down, this sounds like a tantalizing challenge. As the field of evolution has expanded and engulfed newer and more complex fields like biochemistry and development, the processes that constitute life seem more bafflingly complex than ever. Instead of the eye, nowadays one would more likely hear "ID is very often maligned for being an entirely unscientific enterprise because it makes no testable hypotheses. This is about the cilia or the blood-clotting pathway as the ultimate example of an answer to Darwin’s challenge. For many in both camps, Richard Dawkins’ flippant answer of “we’re working on it,” just doesn’t cut it. Looking at the Dynein and Kinesin proteins that tightrope walk along 30 nanometer microtubules with their special deliveries between two organelles in a cell, even the most secure evolutionist wipes sweat from his or her brow and thinks I sure hope the Discovery Institute hasn’t seen this." http://www.scq.ubc.ca/intelligent-design-d...ns-basset-hound

For you perhaps. But I'm talking about scientists! Those who managed to discover and create all sorts of things....those who even managed to bring a few dead people back to life! Those who can even create new life! It's not as if this simple question came up only yesterday. It's been asked for eons of ages ago! Over time, finding the answer became even more complex for these folks. They don't even agree with one another anymore! They bring to mind the mythological gods on Mt Olympus.

Over centuries numerous attempts to de-bunk Creation were made. Attempts are still being made. Science had greatly advanced to the point that its powers are god-like....and yet up to now, it remains completely stumped as it was all the way to the very distant past. Why can't they prove a simple question: Where did it all begin?

Yes. And Satan comes in different forms and wiles....and uses every and any means and instruments....to sow confusion and draw people away from Christ. I won't elaborate further on this thread. It will become out of topic (again) - my apology to the original poster. However, you may use the threads that I've created, "Upon THis Rock" or "Rejoice" if you want to reply. It's so appropriate, since your question is about faith. Or perhaps you wish to start your own thread. NOTE: I've edited and added some more on my explanation of Christian "death".

Is the handle "EYEBALL," a combination of: The Third EYE and Crystal BALL? ha-ha-ha ha-ha-ha