ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

New Creationism Museum

There is a new Creation Museum that has brought up lots of questions to lots of people. I was just wondering how everyone feels about it? I think that it is about time that there is a museume out there that is based on the Bible and not just science! how do you feel about this?

Join Our Free Singles and Take The Creationism Quiz
 ---Missy on 5/27/07
     Helpful Blog Vote (10)

Post a New Blog



liam: I looked up the cat wings. Most recent ones were from China. I can forsee a market for spicy cat wings there if they could just get the little buggers to be a bit more prolific. I saw documentation of some specimens over 150 years old, so I don't think they're evolving into anything. Their offspring don't seem to exhibit the same wing formations, so it can't be in the genes unless it is extremely recessive. I'd go for an environmentally-induced mutation, disease or the like, as there is some correlation to extreme heat, and in the case of the Chinese kitties, and earthquake. Who knows?
---jerry6593 on 9/6/08


Jerry, you should lookup articles about cats growing "wings" (not *really* wings, but that's the word the journalists are using). They're not the greatest of articles (news doesn't report on science very well) but I'm curious how the theory of "kinds" would explain these things? I'm not asking to try to poke holes in the theory, I'm legitimately curious as to what this implies in the construct of the theory of "kinds". Thanks!
---liam on 8/28/08


Jerry, so your claim is that lynx and bobcat and lions and tigers are the same "kind" since they may produce offspring? Same with the plum and the apricot? That's all I wanted to know. This would fit your theory nicely.

Didn't I just say "[evolution] would only expect an iota of characteristics to be changed [via mutations] while the remainder is determined by gene expression."?

Why would we expect "superhumans" from Chernobyl? If you change a 0 to a 1 in any software, what happens? crashes/defects/nothing? What are the chances you would get a beneficial change in the program? pretty slim, right? I'm not saying this is evidence for evolution (its not), I'm pointing out how ridiculous your claim is.
---liam on 8/28/08


jerry6593, are you misspelling my blog name intentionally or is that a mistake?
---liam on 8/28/08


jerry6593: Wow. My prophet? You are more ignorant than I first thought.

That statement was not about evolution Darwin made anyway. Just because Darwin said something speculative, it doesn't mean that statement is a part of evolutionary theory. Most scientists WILL NOT agree with that statement anyway, but it doesn't matter because we have very little evidence to think one way or another about abiogenesis. We can only speculate until we have evidence that corroborates a theory.

I'm sure Darwin said a lot of stupid things. One man doesn't make or break the theory Jerry, please understand that.
---liam on 8/28/08




liem: "Evolution is unrelated to abiogenesis."

Your prophet seems to disagree!

"But if (and oh! what a big if!) we could concieve in some little warm pond, with all sorts of ammonia and phosphoric salts, light, heat, electricity etc., present, that a protein compound was chemically formed ready to undergo still more complex changes." - Darwin, Life & Letters, 1887 ed., p. 202.
---jerry6593 on 8/28/08


liem: Variation and Hybrids ARE mendelian genetics! Mutations NEVER produce improvements in the scion. Thousands of generations of fruit fly mutations prove this. If mutations created improvements in a species, where are all the superhumans that came from Hiroshima and Chernobyl?
---jerry6593 on 8/28/08


Jerry, in regards to my statement about DNA: are you aware of the computer science terminology Turing complete? I don't know much about the specifics of the paper, but the mechanics of protein generation is provably Turing complete in the quaternary language of DNA, this basically means that any protein is able to be generated with the correct (yet finite) sequence of DNA. If DNA can be arbitrarily altered due to mistakes or radiation, then any possible protein may be generated with enough time. This can lead to prionlike diseases (mad cow) or it can lead to a lizard developing organs that weren't originally coded in the system. We would only expect an iota of characteristics to be changed while the remainder is determined by gene expression.
---liam on 8/26/08


jerry6593, I also asked you and Warwick specific questions that never got answers.

How does variation explain hybrids? Does the variation and the "limits of DNA" as you put it in conjunction with hybrid species say that Lions/Tigers/Bobcats/Lynx are all the same species? Same with Buffalo/Cattle? If they are the same species, what did the common ancestor of these animals look like after the flood and is ~4000 years enough time to generate the variation we see in these species? I'm honestly curious because no one has given me an answer yet. Feel free to call me ignorant about this because its true.

Also, why are there limits to DNA when radiation and copy errors can cause spontaneous changes in DNA from cell to cell?
---liam on 8/26/08


jerry6593: I wasn't referring to the statement about dogs---of course there are different breeds of dogs.

Evolution is unrelated to abiogenesis. This is the statement that what I was referring to. If you say those two are the same thing, or one is the basis of the other, you are simply mistaken. So many people are ignorant of this fact and I'm sorry I didn't specify to what I was referring. I apologize Samuel---that came out harsher than I intended and I had no reason to say it like that. Although, If it was Jerry that said it, I would have intended it to be that harsh :)

Jerry, I won't divulge specific information about my degrees.
---liam on 8/26/08




liem: You are ignorant in the ways and history of science. The variation of which you speak is called mendelian genetics. It is true science. It is consistent with the biblical definition of "basic kinds" of animals as opposed to man's rather arbitrary assignment of "species." It confirms both the wide range of offspring variation, and the absolute boundaries beyond which genetic [DNA] variation cannot extend (such as intermediate forms).

You seem pompous in your scientific knowledge. What are your academic credentials (what degrees)?
---jerry6593 on 8/25/08


Samuel, you are ignorant in the ways and history of science.
---liam on 8/21/08


Yes variations occur. We many different breeds of dogs. But they are all dogs.

The basis of Evolution starts with Biogenesis. That nonliving matter became alive. Spontaneous Generation. But that was disproved generations ago. Yet millions are being spent in labs all over the world for the last three years I know for sure trying to get it to happen on purpose. So far failure.
---Samuel on 8/21/08


Oh good, Warwick! I was wondering if you would bring up evolution not being falsifiable and you already did here. *Falsifiability only works with predictions* (Another clue that you do not understand science) I stated in another blog that evolution necessitates micro-evolution or at least, in your words, variation. This was theorized way before it could be tested. It was tested by many people and shown to be true. You even admit that variation occurs. 1 point for evolution withstanding falsification. It's too bad that design theory does not necessitate variation, otherwise the "withstanding falsification" score would be even. Where is the equivalent test for design? What necessary predictions are there that can be tested for in design?
---liam on 8/21/08


Oh yea, No true Christian believes in evolution. I do not care what anyone claims, In order to be a true Christian you must believe in God as our Creator.
---catherine on 8/20/08


1MikeM forensic science is based in the 'front yard' of the scientific method, unlike evolutionary belief.

We've been through this before & you had no answers then.

To be considered scientific fact an idea must be testable, repeatable, observable. If it passes this stringent test it can be considered proven. In forensic science samples are tested & a result achieved. If contested it can be tested again & again. Rigorous testing in the present.
---Warwick on 7/28/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Lasik Surgery


2
You may believe reptiles evolved into birds some millions of years ago but how can we test your belief in the laboratory? How can it be proven or falsified? It can't therefore it is outside the realm of empirically proven fact & into the area of belief. The evolutionary fairy-tale comes from speculation about the past when no scientist was there to observe.

Believe what you like but don't try to sell it as fact!
---Warwick on 7/28/07


Mikie: Yeh, I know why. Because your posts never address the real issues. You cannot address the hard questions as Warwick and I do. You turn instead to the "belittle the opponent with pseudoscientific jargon until he gives up" ploy. Guess what. We're not giving up.

I realize that Darwinism is an integral part of your religion (reincarnation-Mormonism), but if you would open your mind just a small crack, you might just learn something.
---jerry6593 on 7/28/07


Once again, MikeMocker begs the question. He falsely accuses creationists of disbelief in science, but this presupposes that goo-to-you evolution and uniformitarian geology are science at all. Fact is, all discoveries and benefits of science make no use of bacteria-to-biologists evolution. And the founders of most branches of science were creationists.
---Ktisophilos on 7/27/07


Police forensics, human gnomne project, and DNA Blueprinting are only beliefs based on faith based assumptions! If arrested law enforcement is not using real science, they must let you go! Do not serve on a jury where DNA evidence is offered, its only a Presupposition, not science! Dont be fooled!
(I gave detailed posts on the subject, the content was wholly avoided, and I think I know why)
---MikeM on 7/27/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Bullion


What do I think the Big Bang is? My argument for God is ontological. This has little to do with my posts of 7/25-Again, you are creating a false dictonomy. you, fundamentalist create this big monolithic entity called 'evolution' to encompass the entire story of creation beyond the hard sciences- thats nonsence.

Supernatural events are in the rhelm of the philosophical/religious.

College 101.
---MikeM on 7/27/07


MikeM knows that neither creation belief or evolutionary belief can be tested in the laboratory so he writes much trying to hide this fact.

He has been asked to show how his belief about the past can be tested by the scientific method but he has not answered the question. Why? Obviously because he knows he cannot answer. Deep down he knows that both our beliefs are ultimately held by faith. Ours being faith in Scripture, his in the opinions of sinful, falible man.

Don't be fooled!
---Warwick on 7/26/07


Mikie: You were asked to define "Science" and you ramble on and on without ever getting there. You did a good job of showing that evolution is not science.

"Sudden creation "from nothing" is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law" What do you think the Big Bang and Abiogenesis are? The two foundation stones of Evolution are "supernatural events!!!!"
---jerry6593 on 7/26/07


Mikie: And one other thing. It's time you were called on your sophomoric "mitochondrial DNA" gambit. The mtDNA theory has at its core the
endosymbiotic theory. That is, mtDNA was not produced by the cell's nuclear DNA, but was "evolved" from a distant bacterial ancestor. So mtDNA theory assumes evolution in order to prove evolution. Sounds like circular reasoning to me.
---jerry6593 on 7/26/07


Send a Free Jesus Ecard


I get the Creation magazine and it is very scientific. The Creation museum's whole purpose is to show that the Bible is scientific - I have a degree in Science and I love the Creation mag - great for kids and adults. I am planning a vacation from NJ to go to the museum it looks like it will be worth the effort.
---Andrea on 7/25/07


1. I agree with Fudge Overtons ruling in McLean v. Arkansas which concluded, "creation-science" as defined in Arkansas Act 590 "is simply not science". The judgement defined the essential characteristics of science as being:

It is guided by natural law,
It has to be explanatory by reference to nature law,
It is testable against the empirical world,
Its conclusions are tentative, i.e. are not necessarily the final word, and
It is falsifiable.
---MikeM on 7/25/07


2. "creation science" fails to meet essential characteristics of 'science' for the following reasons.

Sudden creation "from nothing" is not science because it depends upon a supernatural intervention which is not guided by natural law, is not explanatory by reference to natural law, is not testable and is not falsifiable.
"insufficiency of mutation and natural selection" is an incomplete negative generalization.

---MikeM on 7/25/07


3.'changes only within fixed limits of originally created kinds' fails- there is no scientific definition of "kinds" assertion appears to be an effort to establish outer limits of changes within species but there is no scientific explanation for these limits which is guided by natural law and the limitations whatever they are cannot be explained by natural law. "separate ancestry of man and apes" is a bald assertion which explains nothing and refers to no scientific fact or theory.
---MikeM on 7/25/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Menopause


4. Genesis Flood depends upon supernatural intervention and cannot be explained by natural law. "Relatively recent inception" has no scientific meaning is not the product of natural law, not explainable by natural law, nor is it tentative. NO recognized scientific journal has published an article espousing the creationism as credible though some suggest the scientific community IS "close-minded" no one has produced any credible scientific article for which publication has been refused.
---MikeM on 7/25/07


5. scientific theory must be tentative and always subject to revision or abandonment in light of facts that are inconsistent with, or falsify, the theory. A theory that by its own terms is dogmatic, absolutist, and NOT subject to revision is NOT scientific theory! One may approach a scientific inquiry in any fashion they choose, but they cannot describe the methodology as scientific if they start with the conclusion and refuse to change it regardless of the evidence developed during investigation.
---MikeM on 7/25/07


6.The creationists methods do not take data, weigh it against the opposing scientific data, and thereafter reach the conclusions. Instead, they take the literal wording of the Book of Genesis and attempt to find scientific support for it. This is NOT SCIENCE
---MikeM on 7/25/07


Conclusion, ICR, in their own writings (can quote source)'assumes' only two explanations for the origins of life it was either the work of a creator AS THEY ENVISION IT or it was not. Fundamentalist take this to mean that all scientific evidence which fails to support the theory of evolution is necessarily scientific evidence in support of THEIR creationism. This is simply a contrived dualism which has NO scientific factual basis or legitimate educational worth.
---MikeM on 7/25/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Penpals


MikeM please define what you mean by the word science.Unless we know we each have the same definition of a word it is difficult to understand anothers point of view.

Different people mean different things by evolution-in one car advertisement they talk about the evolution of the car but that isn't what Dawkins means by evolution.

When you talk of 'science' it seems you are talking of something differnt to what I studied. So please define the word Science.
---Warwick on 7/25/07


MaryG the word day as you quoted it means daylight- as in I spent the day gardening. However when used with a number it is always a 24 hour day- as in come back in 3 days.

In Genesis other than just using a number God described each of his days of creation as being daylight & dark- 'there was evening & there was morning the second day.'etc

No contradiction here.
---Warwick on 7/24/07


This 'creation' musium has nothing to do with science, it is religion, it is fundamentalist religion. Mitochondrial dna is not conjecture. Objective reality-be it physical or otherwise is only a irratation to the creation musium and its supporters-one can call it a musium, but do NOT CALL IT SCIENCE.
---MikeM on 7/24/07


One problem with creationists is that they believe the length of a day to be 24 hours, but Christ tells us otherwise.

John 11:9 Jesus answered, Are there not twelve hours in the day? If any man walk in the day, he stumbleth not, because he seeth the light of this world.
---MaryG on 7/24/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Accounting


I don't understand why some people have objections to creationist museums. Cretionists, to my knowledge, haven't made loud objections to the many "natural history" museums we see everywhere. This, even in the face of the completely fraudulent displays of "monkey people" found there which represent only the imagination of an artist's mind and not anything based on true science. These museums are documented proof that evolution is based solely on fraud and conjecture.
---jerry6593 on 7/24/07


My family and I have been to the new Creation Museum twice now. We have enjoyed our visit in fact, we have taken a group of children ages 8-13 with us. They were excited to go and they want to go back. The Museum has generous and dedicated people working there. I feel that it is a very upbeat and positive atmosphere to be in. The Creation Museum has helped us explain the word of God to our children. The museum has emotionally moved us.
---Tisha on 7/19/07


If we are just matter, then we are no different than BUGS. It means nothing to squash human beings if you have such a view of man. Government and leaders throughout history have had this view and have squashed many. In the twentieth century alone SECULAR GOVERNMENTS killed well over 100 Million of their own citizens, and thought nothing of it. >>>Now, are you ready to be squashed? I am not.
---catherine on 7/19/07


It really doesn't matter how old the earth is these things or no more than interesting trivia. We have a book of knowledge so let them dig around in the earth if that is what makes them happy
---Richard on 7/16/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Fundraisers


This is the first I heard of a creation museum. As for me I will not have our children exposed to secular atheist science, this is why we sent them to Christian school. Science is a gateway to unbelief, and its better, as our pastor put it, for our youth to dig into scripture than dig in the earth. Its too far to travel to see this museum, but I am glad for its existence. If you do not accept Genesis and the 6,000 year earth it CLEARLY teaches you are not Christian.
---John on 7/16/07


Mike the Heretic continues to demean the late Henry Morris for an off-the-cuff comment made decades ago. And like the God-hater he admires, Eugenie Scott (who is an anthropologist not a real scientist), uses this to demean creationists in general, NONE of whom agree with Morris' ancient comment.
---Ktisophilos on 7/13/07


God created the trees. It did not happen by some great BOOM. He created the trees FOR shade, for birds to nest in, for little children to climb in, and for us people to look at and to appreciate, so we can get some free outdoor exercise at rakeing leaves and to also, hang food in for the birds. Man I can make a sermon out of anything. It's a gift. And I will give God all the glory and credit for creating the trees and for my gifts.
---catherine on 7/10/07


I think that it is wonderful. If Satan can have his museums, God can have His Museums.
---catherine on 7/2/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Ecommerce


Most readers (other than misunderstanding MikeM) will know I wrote about Nebraska man to illustrate mistakes abound when people of a particular mind-set are left to build a story from scant evidence. Whole edifices are built upon nothing. Surely mistakes occur in real science but as results are checkable these are more easily seen, & corrected. The Piltdown Man hoax fooled evolutionists for 50yrs though an obvious fraud. Why did they believe such nonsense? Because they saw what they wanted to see.
---warwick on 6/26/07


'No product, discovery,medical proceedure, or advance has come out of evolutionary theory. Without evolutionary theory practical biology would stand just as it is. No major corporation has a 'Department of Evolution' because scientists who have to produce results don't use it' Avraham Sonenthal, 'The Scientist' 11(14):10, 1997

I agree & offer a challenge: If he is wrong please explain where & how. What product, discovery, medical proceedure etc has come out of evolutionary theory?
---Warwick on 6/26/07


Forensics similar to origins deals with past events that must be interpreted. DNA blueprinting is a science, used in court as in origins as you call it.

We all know of Nebraska and Java man, past foibles of pseudo-scientist. In the past mistakes were made in all the sciences, we dont abandoned immunization because of some deadly past mistakes, do we? Science has been flawed in many instances, like Nebraska man. Do we throw out the baby with the bathwater? Your point is mute.
---MikeM on 6/25/07


Now Ktisofellow; While I do not agree with Eugene Scotts atheism she makes a valid point;"it would be unfair to tell students that there is a serious dispute going on among scientists whether evolution took place because there is no such debate between scientists" She also said," "a lot of the time creationists search through scientific journals and try to pull out something they think demonstrates evolution doesn't work." cont;
---MikeM on 6/25/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Jewelry


continue, Eugense Scott; fundamentalist theology is such that if one thing is wrong with the Bible you have to throw it all out so that's why Genesis has to be interpreted literally. They look at science the same way. If one little piece of the evolutionary puzzle doesn't fit the whole thing has to go.that's not the way science is done."

As to H Morris; yes context is everything, but claiming demons, angels created craters on the moon........
---MikeM on 6/25/07


MikeM Science can't be 'held hostage' as it proceeds, developing better & new products by the method of testability, repeatability, observability. This science has given wonderful gains in medicines & items we use daily. Forensics is part of this.

But origins science is about interpreting evidence. We can't laboratory test this evidence so it's science of a different level. When we draw opinions from observation regular & quite entertaining mistakes are made. Cont
---Warwick on 6/24/07


Cont1
A tooth was found in Nebraska & evolutionists were quick to say it was from Nebraska Man(Hespereopithicus Harold Cookii more technically). Drawings of Mr & Mrs Nebraska were produced- stooped, hairy, low-browed, one step from primates. Lo & behold it turned out to be a pigs tooth! The pig just wasnt impressed.

Given room I could recount numerous such observations which evolved into fact only to be quietly shelved later. One field of science produces facts the other is speculation.
---Warwick on 6/24/07


Warwick- As said, fundamentalist hold science hostage to a very unique interpretation of the Bible. Placing science into 'divisions' is capricious, example, the Human Gnomne Project, based on DNA blueprinting, is the results which confirm haploid types, confirming evolution, is it in total to be dismissed? The science of police forensics, etc? It also to be dismissed as well? Your divisions are fundamentalist dogma, pick and choose, or ignore (like my posts on Enoch)
---MikeM on 6/24/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Furniture


MikeMocker lies about a "creationist" belief that craters were formed by a war between demons. This lie has been fostered by Eugenie Scott, a rabid antitheist (no wonder Mocker likes her) based on an off-the-cuff comment in a small book by Henry Morris.
---Ktisophilos on 6/24/07


.

Creationist Ph.D. and full professor of astronomer Danny Faulkner has proposed that the impact basins were formed by a narrow, intense swarm of meteoroids, travelling on parallel paths, that hit the moon during the year of the Flood on Earth. The fact that 11 of the 12 maria are in one quadrant indicates that the major impacts occurred before the moon had even moved far enough in one orbit (month) to show a different face to the swarm.
---Ktisophilos on 6/24/07


MikeM has ignored what I wrote about the difference between observation & operational science. He knows he has no answer.

Mike which particular point in your 3 blogs of 20/6 haven't I addressed? Please let me know & I will endeavour to answer.

You say: The fossil record is simply full of examples of sorting that creationists can't explain but which they continue to ignore.'

What is it that creationiosts can't explain & ignore?
---Warwick on 6/22/07


I note Warwick has not addressed my post from 6/20 but has engagued on non sequitur issues, that is a fallacy.

The fossil record is simply full of examples of sorting that creationists can't explain but which they continue to ignore. Fundamentalist creationism can't deal with the flaws present in its 'theory',it has no claim to being a theory, or suitable alternative to evolution by natural selection. That musium is religion, nothing more.
---MikeM on 6/22/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Laptops


MikeM is entertaining-claiming to be trained in science he tries to tell us evidence is the same as proof, but it isnt

A simple experiment; heat lead to find its melting point- result-melting point 327.5 deg C. Do it again & again & and it will be the same-proven. No opinion or belief involved.

Then lets inspect the Grand Canyon:
Evolutionist- look what a little bit of water (Colorado River) has done over vast periods of time. Cont.
---Warwick on 6/21/07


Cont1
Grand Canyon
Creationist-'look what a large amount of water (Noah's Flood) did over a short period of time.'

Can we run the erosion again to see who is correct? No, we can only look at the evidence which both evolutionist & creationist will evaluate via their beliefs.

Conclusion1: Evidence is interpreted & proof is fact.

No one argues about leads melting point or the weight of a cubic metre of rock as we can prove it.
Conclusion2- MikeM is wrong
---Warwick on 6/21/07


Ashley you're no fool but this is a foolish comment.

I have been involved in developing diagnostic pharmaceuticals which were a great step forward in detecting cancer. These products were created by the scientific method of testing, observation & retesting. In the same development group was a Christian, a Jew & a Muslim-whether they believed in evolution didn't come into it as beliefs are not involved in laboratory testing.

Dragging women by the hair-havn't done it for ages-hurt my back.
---Warwick on 6/20/07


Seperating 'operational science' from origins science is somehig important to fundamentaist as I am seeing. Creationist 'definition' of science is different from what scientists use, as they hold science hostage to a very unique interpretation of the Bible. the most galling statement they make is that fundamentalist Christians have a responsibility to 'defend the truth' This is the height of hypocrisy. Literalist intrapretation of the Bible 'is' science, period.
---MikeM on 6/20/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Lawyer


Sciences in history operates the same as other sciences. Look at at evidence, derive a conclusion, and compare conclusions to more evidence when available.

Warwicks 'faith' in 'non-operational science' must include astronomy, as we can trace back astronomical events back tens of 1000's of years. That would include history as well, forensics, all history, therefore non-science. Thats the idiosyncratic 'reality' of fundamentalist creationism.
---MikeM on 6/20/07


"No apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the Scriptural record."
-Answers in Genesis' Statement of Faith, The scientific method at work.

Cratere on the moon the result of demons and angels fighting it out, The scientific method at work.

i will stick with field work with qualified scientist, ones whose 'faith' in God is bigger than Creationism.
---MikeM on 6/20/07


It is replies like Warwicks that make people say why bother trying to explain things so others can learn from our knowledge. Why don't you all just go back to living in caves, carry your clubs and drag women by the hair each day. you have the caveman mentality. if it wasn't for scientists exploring the unknown, nothing would exist today in technology, medicine or inventions. scientists prove things correct through science, including the bible. I guess many don't believe that either.
---ashley on 6/20/07


MikeM persists with nonsense knowing the scientific method has been explained many times here. People aren't silly & can see the difference between evidence & scientific facts shown by operational science. Fossils exist but we cannot reverse time to see the true situation. We can only look at them now.

I remember reading about Nebraska Man, long believed to be a link between apes & humans-turned out to be a pigs tooth! This is his 'science.' Cont.
---Warwick on 6/19/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Dedicated Hosting


Cont1
All evidence is understood in the light of theory- if you believe in evolution you will view this evidence via that mind-sat & voila it supports your belief!

Operational science (which MikeM rejects) isnt about opinions or world views but about cold hard facts. Just like fingerprints or DNA evidence-opinion & beliefs do not come in. The DNA or fingerprints either match or they dont.

MikeM actually rejects science preferring opinion over fact.
---Warwick on 6/19/07


greetings.Perfection is by the highest comperhension of the word something that is without fault.Perfection cannot degrade to imperfection. If so, God is considered having potential for imperfection.Truly, God is absolute in perfection.A&E's misconduct was via adultry.They are not perfect terrestrials as we are not.If they was then we may call A&E Gods whom we worship.Jesus and God are the two who are Perfect in the true sense of the word.
---earl on 6/19/07


Warwick sadly on 6/19 only offered a rhetorical response. I am in the field in Oregon. This site is real sifting screens, tools of all types. Most of the 'digging, sorting is done by undergrads. In this late Pleistocene dig are various fossils of man, and late ice age animals. Everyone here, and the supervising scientist would be surprised to know this site, as Warwick says, really has nothing to do with science. These tools, various devices remove materials. No rhetorical device will make them disappear
---MikeM on 6/19/07


greetings.The indicators for early man are worship,primitive ways or intelligently.Worship is Godlike.The spirit in man .Man ,without divinity,cannot comprehend spiritual presence and react to impressions spirit sends to the mind.Without spirit influence to function in mind ,man can hardly be classed as man.God places his image of himself in terrestrial beings as a pattern for development and then such is identified as mankind.Wisdom ,common to man but not animal is then present to transform the soul
---earl on 6/19/07


Read These Insightful Articles About Online Marketing


The concept of early man being primitive isnt Biblical but evolutionary which claims the first humans, once removed from animals, werent as intelligent as we.

God created man in His image, from dust, not from animals. Adam conversed with his creator, therefore wasn't primitive, needing to develop language.

Some define primitive as lacking modern technology however this is false cont.
---Warwick on 6/19/07


Cont1 Isaac Newton (Christian)considered the most intelligent person ever lacked modern technology, but had towering intellect not seen today.

Man was always intelligent & because of the fall we're almost certainly less intelligent than our ancestors, created perfect by God. The human genome is riddled with genetic diseases - we're definitely on the decline.

When man turns from the one Creator God he becomes primitive in the sense of technology & behaviour but not in intellect.
---Warwick on 6/19/07


in eastern Oregon and throughout the Great Basin there are pliesticine sites where man hunted bison, and mammoths during the Ice Age, unless one denies these sites exist, where I do field work. The managing scientist would be suprised to find out this is all not real science.
---MikeM on 6/18/07


Warwick says man was never primative. A cave site in south Oregon produced human remains, threads. Human remains, identified by 'DNA analysis'indicated these early Americans were consuming bison. Late Ice Age mammals that were found associated with the human evidence. In addition to bison bones, camels, horses, bighorn sheep, and pronghorn antelope were recovered. These and smaller vertebrates provide evidence of the climatic conditions when the first Americans arrived on the continent.
---MikeM on 6/18/07


Read These Insightful Articles About VoIP Service


I like nougat.
---Jim on 6/18/07


greetings.warwick.p2.These previously mentioned are indicators that there is observable problems with the biblical genisis of man.In the equatorial regions,because of their isolation, there remains some tribes,not long ago discovered, who have advanced little if any in their culture development.They may be considered as man that time forgot.The american indian;man who met whites for the first time ever in the 1500's lived 'as they were' until that day.They never knew or heard of Adam
---earl on 6/17/07


greetings.warwick.p1.Most of mankind, at his best today in comparrison to the spiritual ideal living Jesus taught remains primitive,simple and uncivilized.At this point in time the proof you ask for is unrealistic to give.There will never be enough evidence to convince you.The proof known to me is both physical(observable) and spiritual(revelatory) yet the tattle tales are A&E's enmity between his seed and her seed.The land of Nod.Cain's wife.The sons of God who took wives.Photosynthesis.
---earl on 6/17/07


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.