Don't tell me there's any proof for creationism.

If you were going to write an authoritative religious work, would you prohibit behaviors that you might want to engage in?

Lots of no-no's listed in the Bible that go cross-wise to man's natural tendency to want to do them.

. . . These are things your loving God approves of. . .

xingu wrote:

. . . These are things your loving God approves of. . .

If they were part of God's plan, they would have been reiterated by Jesus. Instead, as Paul explains in Galatians 3:24, that the law, with all its severity, was given to lead the way to Christ. Christ instituted a new law (covenant, testament) whereby his followers can be identified by his words at John 13:35: "By this all will know that YOU are my disciples, if YOU have love among yourselves."

Why would you quote Paul. He's a heretic.

. . . I may point out the "severity" is still in place in Revelation. Same idea; kill anything you don't like; kill people for their religious beliefs. . .

. . . One may talk about love all they want but killing is not an act of love.

Sorry for getting off topic.

I wonder what sort of empirical test one might design to 'prove' creation.

Shall we fill a beaker with dirt and invoke God to create a spider?

Perhaps would could consign Wilso to wait in the lab for a zillion years or so and let us know when it happens, whether God did it or if it just "happened". Try to stay awake, OK, Wilso?

xingu wrote:

Why would you quote Paul. He's a heretic.

Off topic again.

You have failed to demonstrate that Paul was a heretic.

xingu wrote:

. . . I may point out the "severity" is still in place in Revelation. Same idea; kill anything you don't like; kill people for their religious beliefs. . .

You may point, but that is not what Revelation is about.

xingu wrote:

. . . One may talk about love all they want but killing is not an act of love.

The killing of those who would harm the innocent is one main result of the book of Revelation. In the end, even death will be destroyed.

Real Life- don't you know they will believe in Evolution no matter WHAT you show them?

theMadJW wrote:

Real Life- don't you know they will believe in Evolution no matter WHAT you show them?

Well, that's probably true in most cases. Evolution is a philosophy as least as old as ancient Greece and possibly older.

Darwin's grandpa wrote about his belief in evolution many years before Charlie sailed on the Beagle. (Some say, 'well, he didn't postulate the same mechanism'. So what?)

And evolution was a trendy idea in the late 18th and earlier 19th centuries.

Many evolutionists have the idea that Darwin went out, observed nature and had a 'lightbulb' experience --- 'hey wait a minute, maybe these critters all descended from one another.......' and then formulated his theory.

Didn't happen that way. Darwin had a theory in search of evidence.

Same thing they trash creationists for. Go figure.

theMadJW wrote:

Real Life- don't you know they will believe in Evolution no matter WHAT you show them?

Well, that's probably true in most cases. Evolution is a philosophy as least as old as ancient Greece and possibly older.

Darwin's grandpa wrote about his belief in evolution many years before Charlie sailed on the Beagle. (Some say, 'well, he didn't postulate the same mechanism'. So what? So what? is right.)

And evolution was a trendy idea in the late 18th and earlier 19th centuries.

Many evolutionists have the idea that Darwin went out, observed nature and had a 'lightbulb' experience --- 'hey wait a minute, maybe these critters all descended from one another.......' and then formulated his theory.

Didn't happen that way. Darwin had a theory in search of evidence.

Same thing they trash creationists for. Go figure.

where are the people that believe in evolution -and- creation to make this more interesting? of the people i meet in person, they make up a larger group than the ones that only believe in one or the other...

real life wrote:

theMadJW wrote:

Real Life- don't you know they will believe in Evolution no matter WHAT you show them?

Well, that's probably true in most cases. Evolution is a philosophy as least as old as ancient Greece and possibly older.

Darwin's grandpa wrote about his belief in evolution many years before Charlie sailed on the Beagle. (Some say, 'well, he didn't postulate the same mechanism'. So what? So what? is right.)

And evolution was a trendy idea in the late 18th and earlier 19th centuries.

Many evolutionists have the idea that Darwin went out, observed nature and had a 'lightbulb' experience --- 'hey wait a minute, maybe these critters all descended from one another.......' and then formulated his theory.

Didn't happen that way. Darwin had a theory in search of evidence.

Same thing they trash creationists for. Go figure.

Darwin had a hypothesis in search of evidence. This is exactly how science works. He found evidence that supported his hypothesis and created a theory supported by this evidence. I know you're not this dumb....are you intentionally LYING to all of us again?

And really, who cares who thought of it first?

Well, truly, evolution is little more than a hypothesis now, even though it is widely regarded as a theory, and often referred to as a fact.

But evolution has never been observed, cannot be falsified, nor tested or repeated and is not the only possible explanation for the question it addresses.

Closed systems: a light bulb, a tank of oxygen, a beaker of water with a stopper in it, a freaking fertilizer plant. ANYTHING that has a fully defined input, output and process is a closed system. A closed system doesn't mean physically closed off from the universe. You can arbitrarily assume anything as a closed system and analyze it as such as long as you have know I/O and process.

I can understand that not everyone had or could understand graduate level thermodynamics but I would have assumed that, those not from a third world country, took 9th grade science.