wescotdowns

People have commented that God killed babies during the flood because He was angry and thus He is evil. God also gets angry because He is jealous. But does God kill just anybody when He is angry or does He rid the world of evil? Is His jealousy over some petty hurt feelings or because He wants the best for us? So do we measure God's anger by the same way we measure human anger?

at the same time they say the facts of science change all the time?

The way that science works, according to atheist, etc., is that new information is gathered all the time and then what they know is adjusted to fit the theory. This mean one can't really "know" if evolution is true because scientists can not ever know everything, so therefore it is probable that the theory of evolution becomes out dated and completely false, (according to scientific method).

So wouldn't it be more honest to say that according to the evidence that I believe, the theory of evolution is the most likely to explain how life came about?

For example, they say one of the ways to verify the ages is by ice cores, each layer equals a year. But I know by living in a northern environ that it can snow starting in Sept and melt down and snow again several time in a year.

I have seen it snow 2 or 3 times before January, then get really hot like summer then have 2 or 3 more snow falls February through April. Any of these layers could be confused as one layer and therefore one year could be counted as 6.

I have seen pictures of these ice cores and that seems to be the case. So if the scientists have messed up on this point then could other things they do be doubtful?

And if you say they have a way to tell the difference, then you are claiming blind faith in scientists, because the descriptions I have read don't indicate that they do or they are intentionally lying.

Eyewitness testimony is considered direct evidence, which has to be relied upon because it is the most prevalent. Check this website: http://www.wisegeek.com/what-are-the-different-typ...

Even DNA evidence has only one use as direct evidence and then it can be refuted as in all testimony. Such as: "Did you conduct the test?," "Was the test conducted properly?"

So even physical evidence has to have a witness to present it.

So how can atheists honestly call themselves logical when they deny eyewitness testimony as irrelevant when courts count it as direct, ie reliable?

Variation in a species is brought about by the dominant and non-dominant genes in species. Example: One can breed a large or small dog by isolating large or small dogs when breeding, but this isolation causes a "loss" of information not "new" information.

In order for to transition from one kind to another there must be new information formed. This has never been observed, even fruit fly mutation are a loss or duplication of information, then RNA will make correction on the next generation if it lives.

In order for variation evidence to work for kind to kind generation then the first cell had to have the information for all things living including plants and animals. And this information had to be formed from inorganic material.

So can you see how proving variation does not prove transition from kind to kind?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DNA_mutations

This dutch scientist was a rising star in the science community and was caught faking his papers, and they were published.

http://www.the-scientist.com/?articles.view/articl...

This isn't an isolated event with all the money available for evolutionary science.

http://news.medill.northwestern.edu/chicago/news.a...

So is this the kind of evidence and peer review you put your "faith" in?

In some since everything is psych ops. but do people really understand what it is in the religion community?

The basis of psych ops is to hide want is true so people can be manipulated. They way this is done is by making up several stories that are similar to the true story but distorted and at least one story that is the opposite of the truth.

So the way to find what is the true story is to find the one story that doesn't change or looks like the one that is being changed. One hint is when the true story is told, someone calls it a lie without offering a reason.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

So can you see past the psych ops so you won't be manipulated?

Let me explain. In the early years the U.S. went through great growth. We had the industrial age. Made slavery illegal. We spread the wealth throughout the world. Other countries had a place to sale the goods as well as improve their lives with our industry. There was ups and downs but over all, the U.S. had growth and prosperity.

It was in 1913 that a major changed occurred. We turned more toward money, because we got the federal reserve system. Then later on we took God out of the schools. This trend brought us two world wars, a great depression. And now look at us, the economy over all is getting worse and worse. What happened to our prosperity?

Could it be, the less Christian we are, the less prosperous we are becoming?

... that source is called invalid by other evolutionists?

In some previous questions, I have shown where scientists say that fact to them is not absolute. A large majority of answers agreed with that including what appeared to be evolutionists. But some of the atheists/evolutionists said that is what makes the scientific method greater than the belief in God. Some even claimed God was a myth.

But if a Christian has experienced absolute truth, then how can he change to non-absolute theory?

In a court of law a witness to the event is given priority over other evidence. In fact any scientific evidence is presented to the court by a witness that can be cross examined. Of course the primary witnesses to the event are subject to cross examination. But in order to cross examine a witness one must first hear the full testimony.

The questions that are being asked against the Biblical case have already been asked and answered over hundreds of years. The questions are only being asked in different forms.

Also the people asking these questions and/or making statements of unbelief are people that claim to believe in things where the facts are not absolute.

So how can one expect someone to change from believing in something that is absolute fact to something that is not absolute fact?

If a scientist says "'fact' does not mean 'absolute certainty'" doesn't that taint anything else that's said?

I was shown an article (http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-... where Stephen Jay Gould stated "'fact' does not mean 'absolute certainty.'" He also stated "Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts."

If the fact to scientists are not absolute, then the theories, which is their speculation of the facts, are based on speculation. And if their facts aren't absolute does that mean their experiments can't produce absolutes?

In a court of law, if a witness lies then anything else that he says can be ignored. So if a top evolutionist scientist (which this is) says that the facts are not absolute, then how can you know that anything else he says is true or correct?

I asked in an earlier question for someone to show me a scientist saying evolution is fact. This is the article they pointed out: http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_fact-...

Here is what they say is a fact: "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact." And later "Moreover, 'fact' does not mean 'absolute certainty.'"

A dictionary definition of fact would be this: 3. Reality; actuality; truth; as, he, in fact, excelled all the rest; the fact is, he was beaten.

This is the definition that I believe is would be used by creationists. So a difference between evolutionists and creationists is how they view facts. Scientist say it is not "absolute certainty" and creationists would say facts are absolute.

If the definition of fact is different for each side, how does this effect the debate?

Here is what I mean: The law of gravity. You drop something. It falls. It hits the ground. You have the beginning, the middle and the end. That is a fact.

Evolution has a probable beginning, possible middle and no end.

Christianity has Genesis, Many books explaining who God is and Revelation (the end).

I don't know of any scientists who say that evolution is a fact, they say they believe it is true. But to claim it is a fact would be unscientific because then there would be no changes.

So help me out here and name a scientists, that has actually done some work, explain to me how evolution can be a fact as opposed to a theory.

In the theory of evolution there is no rules of good or evil, the only rule is survival of the fittest. So no God, no morals, no good or evil. So atheists can not claim to be moral, right?

A lot of times I see answers about evolution that say the evidence is great then they say science isn't perfect. So how can you believe in something can change tomorrow and call it good evidence? It does not make since to believe in something that isn't consistent.

It takes two witnesses to show something is true or could be true. Science is only one witnesses. It is physical evidence.

For example if you were to find someone's DNA at a crime scene, one could conclude that that person committed the crime. But if there is a witness that said the person was some where else at the time of the crime then the conclusion would have to be different.

What most people don't understand is that DNA at a crime scene just means a person was at that place at sometime. There may be great and many test for DNA but it only says a person was there at sometime.

So to rely on science as the only witness is to remain ignorant of the other evidence and have a closed mind.

So is science the only evidence?

Things such as cars, houses and plenty of food.

For example is all Pb206 the result of the decay of U238 or could some Pb206 already be in the sample? If so what would be the ratio?

after it dies?

In other words: a land animal dies and then is covered by a mud slide, could the carbon of the water soak in before it begins to rot?

Or maybe a land animal gets hit by a flash flood while crossing a river and is buried, could the carbon of the water effect the original carbon in the animal or even a plant covered by flash flood?

What about a land animal that eats fish, could the effect the amount of original carbon for radiometric dating?

Like transitional fossils. Some fossils may look transitional but are only presumed as such by those that want to believe in evolution. Many fossils only means you have many fossils. There is no experiment that can prove they are transitional. This is only a matter of belief in the theory of evolution.

So do atheist actually reason out what they have been told or do they just believe in what men have written in a book?