CANADIEN

Actually, he is not debating. As to why, must have something to do with what killed the mammouths.

First, let's define science, shall we? From the Merriam-Webster online dictionary: With hat understanding in mind, and since God has given humans the capacity to know and to seek knowledge of His creation, science has been given by God. This is not to say, though, that your so called "facts" about the Bible containing scientific knowledge (gravity, the expending universe, atoms being three examples that come to mind) are to be accepted. Sure, some practices (laws regarding hygiene) described in the Bible are still in use today, but biblical-time Jews were not the only ones with that knowledge. many of the locations and individuals mentioned in the Bbible have been confirmed through archeological findings, but the Bbile is not the only early text in that situation. In both cases, the constant droning of "her's another fact" does little to advance understanding that the Bible is the word of God, and in fact reduces it to a level of a historic or mythological fiction. As for the reminder of your facts, g_bambino has explained it a lot better than me on another thread 9even though it is fair to conclude he doesn't believe in God of the Bible). To conclude that the Bible describes gravity, for example, one must have a fairly poor understanding of what gravity is in the first place, coupled with the capacity to interpret non-existing sense out of a text. The Bible is the Word of God, and it talks about His creation. It is where a person of faith can find truth about God, the fact He created, and our relationship with Him. But it is not where people will find the turth about how He created and how His creation works. That's not the point of the Bible.

I have been very clear on my belief regarding the Creator God. Feel free to call him whatever you want, I will call by His one name: GOD. I also been very clear on what I think of the fraudulent pseudo-science that seeks to undermine real and sound scientific knowledge, namely the evolution of life from early life forms to the current ones, including humans. But just in case... `The "Intelligent Design" movement's premise, that life forms are essentially the same today as they were in the beginning, is scientifically unsound. Its claim that life is too complex to have evolved is scientifically unsound. Its methods have nothing do with science, and its claim there is a huge controversy among scientitists regarding evolution, is false. Less and less Christians are buying this little trick of passing knwoledge gained through faith (the creator God) as scientifc knowledge in order to undermine scientific knowledge some don't like.

Care to expend on that statement of yours that Eve is a supposition?

Care to expend on that statement of yours that Eve is a supposition.

The duty to spread the Gospel includes includes a duty to the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. Including not propagating falsehoods about what science has found about the Universe created by God - including evolution. And including not making false claims that the Bible talks about scientific facts that are not found in it.

Why wouldn't it be OK for people believe in religious ideas, as long as they don't try to force you to share them, or discriminate against you because you don't share them? There are plenty of people of faith who have not, do not, and will not condone atrocities committed in the name of their or other's religious faiths. I know, I am one of them. The same ads they are many people who do not believe there is a God and who have not, do not and will not coondone atrocities committed in the name of getting the world rid of the idea there is a God. As for the idea that religious faith is irrational belief,, it is no more irrational in my book than the idea that Universe, and life, are the product of chance. You have the absolute right to think that the absence of a scientific evidence for the object of faith makes it irraltional. I beg to differ.

He IS.

They can. Most Christians, including myself, have done exactly that, which is why we know that science's theory of evolution is valid, and doesn't contradict the existence of the creating God. Time YOU start following the evidence.

Aboriginals are Canadians like the rest of us... except that they are tolerated... BTW, as a French-speaking Canadian... I am also just tolerated by you?

I was awqare of the cargo cult. You'll notice that those cults do not view planes as Gods, but as the mean their Gods would use to return. In more technologically advanced socieites, you will not find many people of faith who mistake unexplained physical phenomenum for deities.

Really... how many times do you hear people say an airplane is God?

Thank God I'm not one.

Don't forget, we are talking about a person whose idea of logic is to go everywhere scientific evidence will lead will rejecting scientific evidence that doesn't support her literalist view of the word of God. As for myself, I am more than ready to go where scientific evidence leads. After all, scietific evidence validates the theory of evolution, despite claims to the contrary.

Thank you for once again misrepresentating what I say, and for outright lying about me. May God forgive you.

Obviously, betsy is not the only person around here who lacks the capacity to understand it when someone openly mocks her. Go find out what killed the mammouth, or how toargue something, then come back to tell me how i should make fun of you.

kimmy: 1+1 = 2 betsy: define equals kimmy: here's an example: 1+1 = 2 betsy: See, you go hiding again. 1+1 = 7. I am right again.

There is one God, God, and Dr. Craig is His Prophet. betsy: Evolution proves that God exists. Dr. Craig has spoken. me: First he says it doesn't exist, then he says that it's existence would be a miracle. Then he says it proves the existence of God. Doesn't make sense. betsy: Evolution doesn't exist. Dr. Craig has spoken. me: In that case, how could it prove that God exist. betsy: He doesn't say it proves god exists. me: That's not what you first said. betsy: See. You're arguing against yourself. I am right again.

wrong from he get go, but a good imitation of betsy.

A person with no home and who has to go through garbage cans to find something to eat doesn't care whether or not evolution is science. No interest there.

It is evident to about anyone that I am taking your position and your way of arguing them as the joke they are. It is also evident that you do not, and will never understand that. betsy: I know everything others: You don't know everyone is laughing at you betsy: I am not talking to you. You are not laughing at me. I don't know what you're talking about. I am right again.

Be nice to betsy. Yousee, unlike she and I, you have better things to do in life than being here and that, like so many other things, is something she doesn't understand.

betsy; People who don't agree with me are this, and this, and that and all kind of bad or silly things. And 1+1=5 others; 1+1=2 betsy: You are this and this and that and all kind of bad and silly things. others: That's an an ad hominem attack. betsy: See, you are this and this and that and all kin of bad and silly things. And you don't know what ad hominem means. I am right again.

Not quite... It's OK for Christians to have a interpretation that differs from betsy's, but anyone whose interpretation differs from her is not a Christian.

Uncanny how attributes she claims belong to others match HER so perfectly.