CANADIEN

The existence of Santa Claus isn't a secret either.

Remember, you cannot say the verb is actually stretch out. It's stretch.

Strangely, most people here seem to think the same about you.

So now, the National Post is an ally of the CBC?

Of course, someone who has no job has no interest in choices that may affect job creation. A single parent has not interest in an education system that is actually working. Yeah right.

And anything short of one adult citizen one vote is not democracy, no matter how you cut (except of course when we talk about prisoners).

Same here.

God created the Universe, and created life. The Bible, which comes from God, is clear on this. ARE YOU DEYING THIS? (of course you're not, but keep this question in mind when you read the rest) Science comes from God. ARE YOU DENYING THIS? God can do whatever He wants, however He wants it. Including, using macro-evolution in the way He created life. ARE YOU DENYING THIS? Some known scientific facts, such as the facts the Earth is a sphere and it moves through space, do not appear in the Bible, yet clearly they have been proven. Therefore, there are scientific facts (including theories) not contained in the Bible, and saying that they are not mentioned in the Bible (or that there is nothing in the Bible that says those facts are not incompatible with the Bible) is insufficent to invalide a scientific theory. ARE YOU DENYING THIS? Evolution, or more specifically, since you want to play with words, macro-evolution (defined in the Oxford Dictionary as "major evolutionary change, especially with regard to the evolution of whole taxonomic groups over long periods of time") is a scientific theory. Since you reject it, DO YOU HAVE A SCIENTIFIC THEORY TO REPLACE IT? Since God created the Universe, and created life, since God can do whatever He wants, since science comes from God, since macro-(evolution) is a valid scientific theory, and since there are scientifically known facts not mentioned in the Bible, there is no basis for a claim the macro-evolution is incompatible with Creation by God. Now, your turn... Since you do not accept (macro)-evolution, do you have a scientific theory that provides another explanation of the relationship between dinosaurs and birds, between pre-humanoids and Homo Sapiens Sapiens, or the similarities (and differences) in the genomes of all forms of life?

You are not trying to venture into a discussion on Sola Scriptura, are you (just asking)? Because if this were the case, I'd wait until there's an actual theologian who starts the discussion - and one who is capable of misrepresentating and misrepresentating what I say every second line.

Now, on some of the non-sense said about me Thanks for providing, again, wih evidence you don't have a clue on what I am saying. On the other hand, one may be forgiven for getting theimpressing from reading your postings that only one translation is actually valid. My argument is that the Bible is not to be taken as scientifically accurate. A point that YOU admitted to. So, I should not be litteral when trying to understand certain passages in the Bible, just take them as litteral? Actually, I am the one correcting a misconception - namely, that certain passages talking about the spreading out and spreading forth of the Heavens have to be taken litterally. I never said, and wouldn't say, that those passages are falsehoods. Since they come from God, they are not false - they are not to be taken litterally, quite a difference. Speaking of which. If one is to take them litterally, then they should provide an accurate description of the Universe, don't you agree? If so, it would be easy to pick up descriptions of the Universe where scientists use the word stretch and demonstrate that they match what is meant by stretch in those Bible passages. It is not enough to just exclaim: "they're using the same word". It has to mean the same THING. The image used in the Bible is that of a tent being spread over the Earth. Is that an accurate descrption of the Universe? Is that what a scientist means when he states that the Universe is spreading? Do you even KNOW, or have you even CHECKED, what they mean by that?

Something you are an expert at, as we see next. actually, that's not the claim I made. But then, less we forgot, you know what I claim better than I do, don't you? The Bible doesn't mention anything about evolution. What I said, the claim I am ACTUALLY making, is that there is nothing incompatible between evolution and CREATION (the fact, known to Christians through FAITH, that God created the Universe and life). Now, I fully expect you to make a fool of yourself (again) by claiming I was wrong to claim something I actually never claimed. well, you are anything but unpredictable. In the meantime... Evolution is not mentioned in the Bible. Is that your basis for rejecting this SCIENTIFIC theory? This SCIENCE? Interesting, if that's the case. Let's just take another example. Nowhere in the Bible is the FACTthe Earth moves through space mentioned - nowhere does it says that this FACT is compatible with the Bible (in fact, it is stated in Psaulm 93, verse 1, that "the world also is stablished, that it cannot be moved" . Should I conclude, then, that the Earth is not moving through space? And If I should not conclude this, why? Which brings me to my next question: if (macro-)evolution is not a valid, proven, scientific theory, do you have a scientific theory that explains the changes in the forms of life between the time God created life and today? And if so, you have scientifically measurable evidence to back it up?

Good one

Just for the fun of it, I was about to do it... actually later this week, to give myself the time to do it right. But then, i read this... In other words, the KJV translation of the Bible is the only one, in any language, that has betsy's seal of approval because that's the only one betsy can use to further her claims. Any other translation, or even the original texts, are irrelevant because, well, they don't have what betsy wants. Now, this may not be what you actually hink, but it certainly sounds like it it. Since, obviously, I wouold be waisting my time looking at another translation of the Bible, I won't. Feel free to misrepresent this anyway you want.

So now you are a better biblical expert than Billy Graham? Which, as you know well, is not what I argue.

Asking... err I mean demanding that I prove a negative... Nice try... every time you keep arguing "those passages say that God stretch the Univers and that's what scientists say is happening", it is about how the Universe works. The expending nature of the Universe is part of how God make it work. Anyway, whether or not those infamous passages you misread are a description of the Universe or a description of how the Universe works, the fact remains that they are not scientifically accurate, nor, in my opinion, were they meant to be. The how is to be answered through FAITH, the knowledge of God, wouldn't you agree. Interesting isn't it that for someone who keep saying that science comes from God, you keep rejecting science that doesn't fit your reading of the Bible. And that's what macro-evolution is, a confirmed, solid scientific theory, in other words SCIENCE. If you have another scientific model that explains the changing of life from from the moment God created it to today, feel free to explain it. Sorry, but repeating somehing any Christian knows (God created life) and harping on the fact macro-evolution doesn't discuss something that it is not about (how the first life appeared) won't cut it.

As for as I concerned, betsy is no less, or more, of a Christian because of the way she interprets the Bible. And she is perfectly free to interpret it anyway it suits her. I happen to think her interpretation is wrong, and I haven't read anything that would convince me otherwise. Now, I won't claim I'm the best at putting my opinions in words. But I believe I am not bad to the point one persn, ONE person, constantly misinterpret and misrepresent my opinions.

Don't worry. I was not under the impression I was ask to justify my faith.

Faith. And perhaps I should clarify what I mean... God is unprovable through science. Since what is beyond the measurable is not measurable, how could one measure how it affects the natural world? How can one measure how love, hatred, contempt, other human emotions that are not measurable, yet exist, affect the natural world? It cannot be measured. Doesn't mean the natural word is not affected. Noone can measure hatred, for example, and thus no one can measure its effect. But it affects us all right. Same with God. Not that I see wars, for example, as "punishment" from God. But wars, are the result of choices we made that are contrary to what God wants from us. Now, I don't expect this will make sense to you. Mostly because, quite frankly, I am no theologian, and have no claim to be one. I am sure there are people who can explain what I said far better than I do.

The existence of God, and the fact He created the Universe and life, are not provable by scientific methods. This doesn't disprove (or prove) that He does not exist and that He did not create. There is a reality beyond what can be found and measured through science. By this, I don't mean the "God is the the gaps" stuff. I mean faith and science are two forms of knowledge, which are not incompatible.

I never said it couldn't be. God can do whatever He wants. He IS, after all. I said it isn't. Which is different. God could have made the Earth to be a cube. He hasn't. God is the sole Judge of what He should do or not do, of what He should say or not say. Since I have stated that science is part of the intellectual gifts God give to us, and He can do whatever He wants, it is clear that the so called problem I have is only in YOUR mind. YOU get confused because I will not extend my understanding of the relationship between God, sicence and us to conclude that the Bible contains scientifically accurate descriptions of the way the Universe is expending. What God tells us about Him and His Creation in the Bible is not nothing. I tried that,but then sensbile equals approved by betsy. You won't, but that's OK with me. And you have given me MY points so many times, after I have said something different. You demand? Who do you think you are? This is not what I claim. Your confusion about it, your problem. I will be happy to provide the passages of the Bible de Jérusalem (hope you don't mind that I pray using a Catholic Bible... just asking), and the definition of the verbs from the Robert (one of the two main French-language dictionaries). Provided that you understand French enough to follow. Considering your problems with English verbs, you'll forgive me if I am my doubts.

Thank you for reminding me, as usual, that I don't know what I disagree with. News to you. Having faith and having it reflected in one's actions and words is not the same as interpreting things the way YOU do. What can I say... The verbs "to stretch", "to stretch out" and "to stretch forth" are not the same in YOUR language (whhich I seem to understand better than you do). skate as much as you want around it, the Oxford Dictionary will not change to acommodate you. Actually, what I said it is not incompatible with Creation. On this, since you like quotes so much. Here's one from a person who likely knows the Bible more than you or I: Billy Graham: Personal Thoughts of a Public Man, 1997. p. 72-74 I decide what I criticize and don't criticize, thank you very much.

Indeed, God is telling us through the Bible that He is the Creator. I never said otherwise, despite your best attempts at confusing yourself otherwise. What I have said all along is that God's message in the Bible is not about how the Universe works. That it doesn't include a description of how the Universe is expending, that this is not the point of His message. You talk of confusion. You are the one who is confused about what I say. And it is not just because I am not the best at explaining myself. They must have hoodwinked you all right, since the theory of evolution is not about the origins of life... it is about the evolution of life after it first appeared. And now, you decide what I can and cannot talk about. Oh surprise.

OK now, how long have I been on MapleLeafweb? On and off, five six years? Many on my postings here have been on language rights issues. And you don't know yet? Even the way I write the name I chose to use here isn't a clue? Rolling of drums... My first language is... Albanian Banjar Cantonese Dogrib German Hiligaynon Inuktitut Jalaltec Kannada Lunda Manx Nyoro Ojibwe Punjabi Quechua Ruthenian Sidamo Tatar Udite Vietnamese Walloon Xhoxa Yoma Zapotec English FRENCH Which makes it even more ironic, BTW, that I understand some aspects of the English language (such as the difference between "stretch" and "stretch out") better than you. And right there, your argument met a stumbling block - the fact, that the stechtching meant in the word natah is the stretching out of a hand. YOU wrote it, so it must be right. The stretching out of a hand is not the type of stretching evoked when scientists talk about the Universe expending.

In this instance, replace God with faith, and you will (for once) get relatively close with what I think. Faith is knowledge of God and who He is. Science is the discovery of how His creation works.

Since I only think I know, then you tell why I have a problem I don't have. You think I was comparing God to Elvis? And I am the one who is confused?