outhouse
Atheistically
where is that proof?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Creationist - what is your understanding of TOE?
- Thread starter Big_TJ
- Start date
where is that proof?
evolved yet?
A Young Evolutionist
This type of thread has been done before, and I expect positive no results.
: an ancient pagan idea
Anaximander (c. 610–546 BC) taught that humans evolved from fish. Such evolutionary ideas were common in ancient pagan societies such as in Greece and Rome.
by Paul James-Griffiths
While studying ancient history at University, I came across the pagan beliefs about origins. It was this study that caused me first to question evolution and the vast ages given for the Universe. It was later, after many years of scientific investigation, that I finally broke free from a liberal understanding that sought to harmonise naturalism with biblical Christian faith.
The Greeks
As I read the works of the Greek philosophers, who lived between about 600–100BC, I was amazed to discover primitive evolutionary theory and vast ages long before Darwin and modern assumptions. The fragments of Anaximander (c. 610–546 BC) taught that ‘humans originally resembled another type of animal, namely fish.’1 There was Democritus (c.460–370BC) who taught that primitive people began to speak with ‘confused’ and ‘unintelligible’ sounds but ‘gradually they articulated words.’2 Epicurus (341–270BC) taught that there was no need of a God or gods, for the Universe came about by a chance movement of atoms.3
After them, the Roman naturalist Pliny the Elder (AD23–79) said, ‘ … we are so subject to chance that Chance herself takes the place of God; she proves that God is uncertain.’4 Concerning the great ages of the Universe, Plato and many Greek philosophers held to the view that this present Universe came about millions of years ago. Lactantius, writing in the fourth century AD, said:
‘Plato and many others of the philosophers, since they were ignorant of the origin of all things, and of that primal period at which the world was made, said that many thousands of ages had passed since this beautiful arrangement of the world was completed … ’.5 (An ‘age’ here is 1,000 years.)
Egyptians, Babylonians and Hindus
The Greeks borrowed some of these ideas from the Babylonians, Egyptians and Hindus, whose philosophies extended back centuries before. For example, one Hindu belief was that Brahman (the Universe) spontaneously evolved by itself like a seed, which expanded and formed all that exists about 4.3 billion years ago.6 These Hindus believed in an eternal Universe that had cycles of rebirth, destruction and dormancy, known as ‘kalpas’, rather like oscilla­ting big bang theories. We also read in the Hindu Bhagavad Gita that the god Krishna says, ‘I am the source from which all creatures evolve.’7
Concerning the great ages of the Universe, Plato and many Greek philosophers held to the view that this present Universe came about millions of years ago.
Some of the Babylonians claimed that they had astronomical inscriptions on clay tablets for 730,000 years; others, like Berosus, claimed 490,000 years for the inscriptions.4 The Egyptians claimed that they had understood astronomy for more than 100,000 years.8
The early Christian Church Fathers constantly argued with the pagans about the age of the earth, or about the age of civilization. They were unanimous that God had created the earth less than 6,000 years before they wrote.9 For example, one of the most influential, Augustine (AD354–430), in his most famous work, City of God, has a whole chapter, Of the Falseness of the History Which Allots Many Thousand Years to the World’s Past, where he says: Plato's symposium. Plato promoted a great age for the universe (deep time). ‘Let us, then, omit the conjectures of men who know not what they say, when they speak of the nature and origin of the human race. … They are deceived, too, by those highly mendacious documents which profess to give the history of many thousand years, though, reckoning by the sacred writings, we find that not 6000[9] years have yet passed.’10 Theophilus (AD115–181), Bishop of Antioch, wrote an apologetic work to the pagan magistrate Autolycus about the problem of the pagan long ages, mentioning Plato’s 200 million year period between the Flood and his time, and Apollonius the Egyptian’s claim of at least 155,625 years since creation.11 The ancient pagans may have calculated their vast ages through astrology because they regarded it as true science. Julius Africanus (AD200–245) wrote: ‘The Egyptians, indeed, with their boastful notions of their own antiquity, have put forth a sort of account of it by the hand of their astrologers in cycles and myriads of years … ’ [myriad = 10,000].12
End Part One
Last edited:
Modern pagans?
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA’s structure, proposed that aliens brought life to earth, a modern pagan idea.
Today scientists use far more complex ‘dating’ methods, e.g. radiometric techniques, to ‘prove’ vast ages. But, as Creation magazine has often shown, these methods are not measurements of time, but interpretations of measurements of such things as radioactive decay products, and such interpretations are based on faulty assumptions.13
More recently, scientists have been think­ing up ‘new’ theories to explain how life could have developed on Earth, given the vanishingly small probability of spontaneous evolution actually happening. The late Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA’s structure (along with James Watson and Maurice Wilkins), came to believe that aliens, and not God, were responsible for life on earth.14 The pagan gods have struck back with a vengeance!
More recently, much speculation has been made about the ‘multi-verse’, or ‘parallel Universe’ theory, such as a recent article in Scientific American by Max Tegmark.15,16 This fantasy is quite useful, because anything can now happen, as in the science fiction Matrix movies! However, such an idea is ancient. Augustine complained about it before AD430 when he said: ‘There are some, again, who, though they do not suppose that this world is eternal, are of opinion either that this is not the only world, but that there are numberless worlds or that indeed it is the only one, but that it dies, and is born again at fixed intervals, and this times without number.’17 ‘There is nothing new under the sun.’—King Solomon, Ecclesiastes 1:9–11 Solomon wrote about 3,000 years ago: ‘There is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which it may be said, “See, this is new”? It has already been in ancient times before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come by those who will come after’ (Ecclesiastes 1:9–11).
We should heed Theophilus’ words to Autolycus only about 150 years after Christ’s Resurrection: ‘For my purpose is not to furnish mere matter of much talk, but to throw light upon the number of years from the foundation of the world, and to condemn the empty labour and trifling of these authors, because there have neither been twenty thousand times ten thousand years from the flood to the present time, as Plato said, affirming that there had been so many years; nor yet 15 times 10,375 years, as we have already mentioned Apollonius the Egyptian gave out; nor is the world uncreated, nor is there a spontaneous production of all things, as Pythagoras and the rest dreamed; but, being indeed created, it is also governed by the providence of God, who made all things; and the whole course of time and the years are made plain to those who wish to obey the truth.’11 ‘From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. … All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698[9] years, and the odd months and days.’18,19
Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA’s structure, proposed that aliens brought life to earth, a modern pagan idea.
Today scientists use far more complex ‘dating’ methods, e.g. radiometric techniques, to ‘prove’ vast ages. But, as Creation magazine has often shown, these methods are not measurements of time, but interpretations of measurements of such things as radioactive decay products, and such interpretations are based on faulty assumptions.13
More recently, scientists have been think­ing up ‘new’ theories to explain how life could have developed on Earth, given the vanishingly small probability of spontaneous evolution actually happening. The late Francis Crick, the co-discoverer of DNA’s structure (along with James Watson and Maurice Wilkins), came to believe that aliens, and not God, were responsible for life on earth.14 The pagan gods have struck back with a vengeance!
More recently, much speculation has been made about the ‘multi-verse’, or ‘parallel Universe’ theory, such as a recent article in Scientific American by Max Tegmark.15,16 This fantasy is quite useful, because anything can now happen, as in the science fiction Matrix movies! However, such an idea is ancient. Augustine complained about it before AD430 when he said: ‘There are some, again, who, though they do not suppose that this world is eternal, are of opinion either that this is not the only world, but that there are numberless worlds or that indeed it is the only one, but that it dies, and is born again at fixed intervals, and this times without number.’17 ‘There is nothing new under the sun.’—King Solomon, Ecclesiastes 1:9–11 Solomon wrote about 3,000 years ago: ‘There is nothing new under the sun. Is there anything of which it may be said, “See, this is new”? It has already been in ancient times before us. There is no remembrance of former things, nor will there be any remembrance of things that are to come by those who will come after’ (Ecclesiastes 1:9–11).
We should heed Theophilus’ words to Autolycus only about 150 years after Christ’s Resurrection: ‘For my purpose is not to furnish mere matter of much talk, but to throw light upon the number of years from the foundation of the world, and to condemn the empty labour and trifling of these authors, because there have neither been twenty thousand times ten thousand years from the flood to the present time, as Plato said, affirming that there had been so many years; nor yet 15 times 10,375 years, as we have already mentioned Apollonius the Egyptian gave out; nor is the world uncreated, nor is there a spontaneous production of all things, as Pythagoras and the rest dreamed; but, being indeed created, it is also governed by the providence of God, who made all things; and the whole course of time and the years are made plain to those who wish to obey the truth.’11 ‘From the creation of the world to the deluge were 2242 years. … All the years from the creation of the world amount to a total of 5698[9] years, and the odd months and days.’18,19
Last edited:
References and notes
1. Barnes, J., Early Greek Philosophy, Penguin Books, London, England, p. 72, 1987. Return to text.
2. Cartledge, P., Democritus, Phoenix, London, England, pp. 2021, 1998. Return to text.
3. The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia, translated and edited by Brad Inwood and L.P. Gerson, introduction by D.S. Hutchinson, Hackett Publishing Company, 1994. Return to text.
4. Pliny the Elder, Natural history, translated with an introduction and notes by John F. Healy, Penguin Books, London, England, p. 13, 1991. Return to text.
5. Lactantius, The Divine Institutes 7:14, Of the first and last times of the world, <www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.ii.vii.xiv.html>. Return to text.
6. From The Mundaka Upanishad, Understanding Hinduism, pp. 59, <www.hinduism.org.za/creation.htm>. Return to text.
7. The Bhagavad Gita, translation and introduction by Eknath Easwaran, Penguin, Arkana, p. 142, 1985. Return to text.
8. Augustine of Hippo, City of God18:40, About the most mendacious vanity of the Egyptians, in which they ascribe to their science an antiquity of a hundred thousand years, AD>410, <www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVIII.40.html>. Return to text.
9. These figures are based on the Greek Septuagint translation (ca. 250 BC), while our English Bibles are mainly translated from the standard Hebrew (Masoretic) text. Dr Pete Williams shows why the Masoretic Text is likely to be closer to the original Hebrew in Some remarks preliminary to a Biblical chronology, Journal of Creation 12(1):98106, 1998; <creation.com/chronology>. Return to text.
10. Augustine, ref. 8, 12:10, <www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XII.10.html>. Return to text.
11. Theophilus, To Autolycus 3:26, Contrast between Hebrew and Greek Writings, AD 181, <www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.iii.xxvi.html>. Return to text.
12. The Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus 3(1), On the mythical chronology of the Egyptians and Chaldeans, <www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.v.v.i.html>. Return to text.
13. Walker, T., The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating, Creation 24(4):2023, 2002; Radiometric Dating Q&A <creation.com/dating>. Return to text.
14. Bates, G., Designed by aliens? Discoverers of DNAs structure attack Christianity, Creation 25(4):5455, 2003; <creation.com/aliens>. Return to text.
15. Tegmark, M., Parallel Universes, Scientific American 288(5):3141, May 2003. Return to text.
16. But it is unscientific and special pleading. See Sarfati, J., Multiverses: Parallel Universes, in: Refuting Compromise, pp. 187189, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, 2004. Return to text.
17. Augustine, ref. 8, 12:11, Of those who suppose that this world indeed is not eternal, but that either there are numberless worlds, or that one and the same world is perpetually resolved into its elements, and renewed at the conclusion of fixed cycles, <www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XII.11.html>. Return to text.
18. Theophilus, ref. 11, 3:28, Leading chronological epochs, <www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.iii.xxviii.html>. Return to text.
19. An exact date for the age of the Universe cannot be ascertained, but we know from Scripture that it is somewhat less than 7,000 yearssee Freeman, T.R., The Genesis 5 and 11 fluidity question, Journal of Creation 19(2):8390, 2005; Sarfati, J., Biblical chronogenealogies, Journal of Creation 17(3):1418,2003. Return to text.
END
1. Barnes, J., Early Greek Philosophy, Penguin Books, London, England, p. 72, 1987. Return to text.
2. Cartledge, P., Democritus, Phoenix, London, England, pp. 2021, 1998. Return to text.
3. The Epicurus Reader: Selected Writings and Testimonia, translated and edited by Brad Inwood and L.P. Gerson, introduction by D.S. Hutchinson, Hackett Publishing Company, 1994. Return to text.
4. Pliny the Elder, Natural history, translated with an introduction and notes by John F. Healy, Penguin Books, London, England, p. 13, 1991. Return to text.
5. Lactantius, The Divine Institutes 7:14, Of the first and last times of the world, <www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf07.iii.ii.vii.xiv.html>. Return to text.
6. From The Mundaka Upanishad, Understanding Hinduism, pp. 59, <www.hinduism.org.za/creation.htm>. Return to text.
7. The Bhagavad Gita, translation and introduction by Eknath Easwaran, Penguin, Arkana, p. 142, 1985. Return to text.
8. Augustine of Hippo, City of God18:40, About the most mendacious vanity of the Egyptians, in which they ascribe to their science an antiquity of a hundred thousand years, AD>410, <www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XVIII.40.html>. Return to text.
9. These figures are based on the Greek Septuagint translation (ca. 250 BC), while our English Bibles are mainly translated from the standard Hebrew (Masoretic) text. Dr Pete Williams shows why the Masoretic Text is likely to be closer to the original Hebrew in Some remarks preliminary to a Biblical chronology, Journal of Creation 12(1):98106, 1998; <creation.com/chronology>. Return to text.
10. Augustine, ref. 8, 12:10, <www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XII.10.html>. Return to text.
11. Theophilus, To Autolycus 3:26, Contrast between Hebrew and Greek Writings, AD 181, <www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.iii.xxvi.html>. Return to text.
12. The Extant Fragments of the Five Books of the Chronography of Julius Africanus 3(1), On the mythical chronology of the Egyptians and Chaldeans, <www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf06.v.v.i.html>. Return to text.
13. Walker, T., The way it really is: little-known facts about radiometric dating, Creation 24(4):2023, 2002; Radiometric Dating Q&A <creation.com/dating>. Return to text.
14. Bates, G., Designed by aliens? Discoverers of DNAs structure attack Christianity, Creation 25(4):5455, 2003; <creation.com/aliens>. Return to text.
15. Tegmark, M., Parallel Universes, Scientific American 288(5):3141, May 2003. Return to text.
16. But it is unscientific and special pleading. See Sarfati, J., Multiverses: Parallel Universes, in: Refuting Compromise, pp. 187189, Master Books, Arkansas, USA, 2004. Return to text.
17. Augustine, ref. 8, 12:11, Of those who suppose that this world indeed is not eternal, but that either there are numberless worlds, or that one and the same world is perpetually resolved into its elements, and renewed at the conclusion of fixed cycles, <www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf102.iv.XII.11.html>. Return to text.
18. Theophilus, ref. 11, 3:28, Leading chronological epochs, <www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf02.iv.ii.iii.xxviii.html>. Return to text.
19. An exact date for the age of the Universe cannot be ascertained, but we know from Scripture that it is somewhat less than 7,000 yearssee Freeman, T.R., The Genesis 5 and 11 fluidity question, Journal of Creation 19(2):8390, 2005; Sarfati, J., Biblical chronogenealogies, Journal of Creation 17(3):1418,2003. Return to text.
END
Evolution ancient pagan idea
thats the site you use?
have you actually looked at the sources that you gave?
please, get a grip of what science really is.
and even if they are reliable (which they are not) what conclusion that you are deriving from it?
thats the site you use?
have you actually looked at the sources that you gave?
please, get a grip of what science really is.
and even if they are reliable (which they are not) what conclusion that you are deriving from it?
The conclusion I have derived from this inane post of yours is that you are becoming problematic harrasing and rude. Not to mention truculant and vacuous.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
From a topic thread I wrote a long time ago.....I quote myself.
"As I was viewing, I came upon a situation wherein....someone claims...
Theory is a trump card over Law.
I did ask....are you sure?....as I did hold a contrary belief.
I viewed the link offered, and found that a theory EXPLAINS a phenomenon.
And the same text holds does hold Law as a lesser item.
So I ventured further and find that Theory EXPLAINS and Law DESCRIBES.
Weighing the differences, I prefer Law as the heavier item.
Law is definitive and repeatable description.
Law is predictable.
With Law I can describe the event, and have no doubt.
Theory as an explanation is not proof."
(and then...as a response further in that discussion)
"I also noticed that unless your having a science discussion...with a scientist...the word theory is used to explain....but does not seek to prove.
Observing an event, some notion for the cause might come up in the discussion. The explanation is not accepted until proven.
According to Webster's...theory is...imaginative contemplation of reality.
The list goes on....something taken for granted.... on trivial or inadequate grounds.
Now....seeing an event that repeats reliably, one might raise his theory to the notion it is proven.....such as evolution.
And you could expect me to go along with it...I do....but evolution remains a theory....a strong explanation.
Law, however, has been sorted out. It is considered firmly rooted in experimentation and observation, and the results are going to repeat.
Discoveries have been known to tweak the law, to a better understanding."
( and then again)
"So when you offer to me a theory, I could say it's just a theory.
It could be wrong tomorrow.
And if theory is the new trump card...then reciting a law...even though it is currently held as true....is also an item to be disputed.
Because tomorrow it too could be wrong."
From another thread and this morning's handiwork I quote myself....
" Day Six....Man is a species....all to his own.
Go forth, be fruitful and multiply, dominate all things....
no names, no law, no restrictions, freewill......
Day Seven....God rests. No more will be created.
THEN Chapter Two....which has all the earmarks of a science experiment.
Isolated living conditions.
A chosen specimen.
Anesthesia and surgery.
Cloning.
Genetic engineering.
Adam was given his twin sister for a bride.
Eve had no navel.
Chapter Two in not a story of creation.
It is a report of manipulation.
There's a difference.
That God is behind it all....doesn't bother me."
"As I was viewing, I came upon a situation wherein....someone claims...
Theory is a trump card over Law.
I did ask....are you sure?....as I did hold a contrary belief.
I viewed the link offered, and found that a theory EXPLAINS a phenomenon.
And the same text holds does hold Law as a lesser item.
So I ventured further and find that Theory EXPLAINS and Law DESCRIBES.
Weighing the differences, I prefer Law as the heavier item.
Law is definitive and repeatable description.
Law is predictable.
With Law I can describe the event, and have no doubt.
Theory as an explanation is not proof."
(and then...as a response further in that discussion)
"I also noticed that unless your having a science discussion...with a scientist...the word theory is used to explain....but does not seek to prove.
Observing an event, some notion for the cause might come up in the discussion. The explanation is not accepted until proven.
According to Webster's...theory is...imaginative contemplation of reality.
The list goes on....something taken for granted.... on trivial or inadequate grounds.
Now....seeing an event that repeats reliably, one might raise his theory to the notion it is proven.....such as evolution.
And you could expect me to go along with it...I do....but evolution remains a theory....a strong explanation.
Law, however, has been sorted out. It is considered firmly rooted in experimentation and observation, and the results are going to repeat.
Discoveries have been known to tweak the law, to a better understanding."
( and then again)
"So when you offer to me a theory, I could say it's just a theory.
It could be wrong tomorrow.
And if theory is the new trump card...then reciting a law...even though it is currently held as true....is also an item to be disputed.
Because tomorrow it too could be wrong."
From another thread and this morning's handiwork I quote myself....
" Day Six....Man is a species....all to his own.
Go forth, be fruitful and multiply, dominate all things....
no names, no law, no restrictions, freewill......
Day Seven....God rests. No more will be created.
THEN Chapter Two....which has all the earmarks of a science experiment.
Isolated living conditions.
A chosen specimen.
Anesthesia and surgery.
Cloning.
Genetic engineering.
Adam was given his twin sister for a bride.
Eve had no navel.
Chapter Two in not a story of creation.
It is a report of manipulation.
There's a difference.
That God is behind it all....doesn't bother me."
Last edited:
David M
Well-Known Member
So was heliocentrism, that turned out to be right as well (as a concept rather than with the specific details the ancients described).
What is the point to this screed? That some ideas have existed in slighlty different forms in ancient times?
Last edited:
Let's not forget atomic theory...
I wonder that too. If it turns out that the ToE is similar to ancient beliefs from some people, fine.
The Theory of Evolution is still not reliant on those ancient beliefs, but instead on the century-plus of research and experimentation since Darwin. So what is the point?
The Theory of Evolution is still not reliant on those ancient beliefs, but instead on the century-plus of research and experimentation since Darwin. So what is the point?
I Onley replied on this because you ware giving me the idea that you wanted me to.
alright, first of all, you said that religion came first on a different OP, TO SCIENCE IT DOESN'T. science does not concern itself with religion, science will not concern itself with any of the thousands of religionsin the world, it will certainly not take christianity into special concideration. what science is, is decided by SCIENTISTS, not by religions. and science does not need to conform itsself with religion. If scientists say that ToE is exepted as a scientific theory, than it is a scientific theory. you are allowed to chose weather or not you believe science, but you are not allowed to say that ToE isn't science. therefore the term evolutionist is revolting to me. ToE has already been proven time and again, and I am almost positive that I can give you more Proof of evolution by onley using the suborder of the snakes ( an order of 3000 animals that look almost identicly the same)than that you can provide proof of your religion, and if you really want to get the ToE out of the science, bring an interesting arguement on the table that i evidenca against the ToE. saying that a theory is not conclusive because it is onley a theory is a fallacy, A theory is more conclusive than a fact because a fact is onley supported by itself while a theory is supported by lots of facts! scientists call it a theory because they do not believe in absolute certainty, If you believe that you are absolutely certain of what you believe in, not onley would you require sences that are better than supermans, you would need an intelligence just as large as the supposid god you believe in. calling it a theory is an act of selfhumility by scientists, it does not make the theory any les certain. gravity is also a theory, why is no one questioning that?
seriously? why is no one questioning the theory of gravity?
isnt it just a theory?
the ToE has passed the scientific scrutany for the past 150 years. IT IS A SCIENCE! if you dont accept it, atleast dont accept it in a way that it is still a science. don't denounce it to a point of view because it is no such thing! do not call a person who accept ToE an evolutianist, there is no sutch thing as an evolutionist! I don hear you calling anyone a gravitationist. Now im gonna repeat part of what I said because its so Important. science doesn't care what your belief is, scientists try to persue the truth free from any religious presumptions.
ToE is scientificly exepted
ToE has more than enough proof
ToE is not a religion and not a worldview
you asked me if i assumed that religion cannot accept science.
there are alot of religions that accept science, the religious view you present here however, will not be accepted by science. science will not except that god made the earth seem older than it is, NO, to science the earth is 4.6 billion years old. science will not except that a god made it so it looked like animals are the result of millions of years of evolution. there is no need for science to cram a god in there, no, to science animals are the result of millions of years of evolution.
If you do not accept ToE, than either have the guts to say that you dont accept science, or give a compelling reason why ToE is not possible.
but saying things like "its a theory", "its a lie", "theres no proof", "it doesn't fit with the bible" doesn't work. it does not convince any one, and if it didn't convince anyone in the past, than why would it convince some one in the future.
there, i think that its all out of my system now.
Last edited:
RedOne77
Active Member
While were on the point of ideas existing throughout time. I feel that creationists are modern Vitalists. Vitalism is the belief that life has special properties and cannot be possible by purely naturalistic means. This is most evident when they talk about abiogenesis I think. Although I've noticed that when I've pressed creationists before regarding the 2LoT their responses indicate they accept concepts of vitalism.
outhouse
Atheistically
I dont believe this will ever apply for a second.
your talking about taking a modern civilization with well a well recorded history
And one that just started writing on something else besides stones who worshipped mythical beings
there is absolutely no comparison
Thief
Rogue Theologian
Not quite.
I do accept the concept of evolution.
It was described by verse in Day Six of Genesis.
And Chapter Two is a science experiment.
Science is not the prove all of everything.
Science is discovery of how God did it.
And theory is theory until proven.
That I don't press for proof, doesn't mean I don't believe.
Do I require proof of gravity?....no.
I can see the effect...that's enough for me.
I don't need equations.
How about a new thread?...dark matter....dark energy...
All theory....no proof....do you believe it?
(just viewed a one hour documentary....showing the struggle to
make it believable)
And the terms of that discussion sound like scientists substituting
'terms' ....instead of using the word.... 'God'.
And I doubt mind at all.
God did it.