> General Discussions

Question

<< < (4/4)

Dave in Tenn:
Hi Robin.  Obviously watch, listen, or read the materials as nobody is going to be able to explain what Ray said better than Ray.  From my chair, what Ray did was scripturally separate Gen. 1:1-2 from the rest of the narrative.  These verses describe different events than what follows in the 'days' account.

What he didn't do was create a scientific theory based on scripture, as the young earth creationists have done.  He did show, with scripture, that hard science and scripture are not and will never be at odds.  That's my take.

aqrinc:
Sirach,

From all the information i have read on both 1. Big Bang and 2. Evolution:
Number 1. is not only plausible but has evidence to support it all over in the Scriptures, History & Science.
Number 2. does not pass the test when using any sane science without major lapses in testing methods.

My understanding of the Theory; not Any basis in fact of evolution is that it starts with a hypothesis
(assumption taken to be true for the purpose of argument or investigation) and goes on to build up a
case with sketchy data points and circumstantial evidence backed up by non observable conclusions.

Mutations do happen in species, my understanding is that these mutations end up killing the affected
species and does not carry on in later generations. It is a battle daily to get GOD acknowledged as
Creator; no problem to sell the mighty amoeba.

Over 40 years of reading research on the Creation; Evolution controversy has shown me God is in
Total Control. I am not a lawyer or scientist but:Yes i would Take My Lord Jesus Christ's Case Anytime.

George


--- Quote from: Sirach on October 02, 2008, 02:41:15 AM ---Just for my information (and i did not see the conference video's yet), but do i understand correctly that it is said here that the big bang theory is valid ? Is also the macro evolution theory valid  ???

--- End quote ---

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page