Have at it.
I won't reciprocate your insults Kendall, I am done with that. Did you ever consider people can look at the same information and come to a different conclusion than you do? I bet not
"You have not a shred of actual evidence of climate change or global warming other than what a small group of well paid people tell you."
No, unlike you...we actually think and are not sheep. As for me, I take in all viewpoints I can from all sides and think which makes the most sense.
You fail at making your viewpoint on climate change relevant.
Not comfortable being devils advocate for too long, my point remains and is valid.
I am not interested in arguing against the existence of God, the point I make is that scientific consensus in the world of scientists is against a bible based belief in creation. The belief in Christ as the son of God via virgin birth is not supported in any way shape or form. This does not make it untrue in my eyes but it doenst make me anti science or a denier. This is the only point I am making and I am done with this.
Additionally, even if the number of US scientists were higher than 5% when we take science from all over the world, a bible bases belief is even more remote.
So since you claim to be a Christian, how many believe in immortality, rising from the dead etc.
So I am assuming that you have proof of the garden of Eden, a snake and an apple, or do you reject these things as well
From a fee posts back Ok Harry, if you insist, lets just limit the definition to a divine being creating the earth and stars as well as man as d beast. Now tell me how my definition differs from those of the 5%
Good catch, Tiredofit. I should not have said "God had a hand in the process."
That unfortunate statement reflects neither the poll nor my views. I retract it. Sorry for the confusion I caused when I used it.
God did not "have a hand in the process." God was the process.
Thanks for bringing this up and letting me correct myself.
Again. According to the Gallup poll, that 40% of scientists accept both the Biblical account and the geologic evidence.
So what definition of creationism are you using?
Your right that the 1991 Gallup poll found only 5% of scientists to be creationists --using THEIR definition of creationism. Using YOUR definition, it's 45%.
The studies I cited say 95% reject creationism and that is what we are discussing, nice try AGAIN.
Harry the bible doesn't say God had a hand in creating the world now does it?
We can look at creation to better order our lives.
We can identify in ourselves which of our tendencies are like a beast and choose to become and act higher than.
That pretty much sums up what I feel Satan is all about.
Its the instinctual and animalistic side of the human mind that gets us into trouble.
"Maybe not the only path, but it is certainly a path God expects us to take."
Im pretty sure its the only way but...if their is a god then the "science" of it all is the word of god so to speak.
It's his/it/hers signature.
Top to bottom from the micro to the macro.
If all of this is the result of gods hand then all that we see was put in place BY god.
"The way our politics are, we are probably all descendants of Baltar."
LOL! I know right?
"We can argue all day but the fact is you are on the wrong side of scientific opinion."
True, but not by far. I believe God had a hand in creation. According to the Gallup poll you cited, 55% of scientists believe God had no hand and 45% believe, as do I, that God had a hand.
Did you even read the poll you cited?
"So now you speak for gods will????"
Nope. You can read Romans 1:20 in any Christian Bible.
"While the earth remains, seedtime and harvest, cold and heat, summer and winter, day and night, shall not cease.”
Quite true. And as far as I know, no climate scientist has said these things would cease.
"You seem to be critical because a person is leaning on faith over science on this topic."
Actually, Kendall, you're right. Tiredofit's argument is silly. He accuses me of hypocrisy because he imagines I accept one body of science and reject another.
He's silly for 2 reasons. First, he's wrong. I accept both bodies of science.
Second, notice how he won't express what HE believes. He can't. If he adopts the absolutist position he demands of me, he either shows himself to be the hypocrite he accuses me of (by accepting the geological record in the creation instance and rejecting climate science) or enhances the case that he denies science (by rejecting both the climate science and the geologic record).
Let me be clear--I'm not labeling him. His own words and deeds will show who he is.
519 Juliana St. , Parkersburg, WV 26101 | 304-485-1891