When God tells you six days he means six days when he tells you he rested on the 7Th day he means he rested on the 7Th day. The concept of what time means to God is a humanists way of trying to think for God, God always says what he means by time In different parts of Scripture.

Well, most of the priests and theologians with whom I've studied would beg to differ, but what do they know? I guess they're going to hell too.

wrong, and wrong, but even if it did, you have nothing to compare it with that you know for sure that is that old so what again do I have to prove to you?

C14 decomposes at a constant rate just as other radioactive isotopes. You would presumably trust the science regarding radioactive decay when it came to the dangers surrounding a dirty bomb. The science is the same. C14 has been used to date things that are within recorded history and so has accurate comparisons in that way as well.

OK Ill give you that but, what conclusion of this theory, your time aspect is unprovable, your mutation aspect has as been proved wrong, your simple cell aspect has been proved wrong, most of your original evidence was shown to have been fabricated

The time aspect has considerable evidence in support of it. You have not disproven anything. Provide the evidence you believe disproves the 'mutation aspect' and the 'simple cell aspect.' Please also provide the evidence that most of the relevant evidence was fabricated.

If your would try to use just a little common sense you will see that I am not trying to argue what you think to be your science with you but trying to get you to see what you believe in as a one of your faiths

I have faith in reason, you obviously place little stock in reason.

Re: literal reading
How do you explain away the contradictions inherent in reading this text literally?
Even the three tellings of the birth of Christ have substantive differences and there are different versions of who he presented himself to first after the resurrection just to name a couple.

that's because you think evolutionary, and God speaks and creates at will in what ever order pleases him.

*****Would it be accurate of me to translate this as saying you believe in the Bible as literal fact rather than allegorical truth?****

yes.

*****What is our understanding of time and the cosmos to God, anyway? Is it your position that you have the only window into the divine, and that you know better than anyone else what exactly God is and thinks?****

Billy that is the exact evolutionary indoctrinated way of looking at things that I have been trying to warn you about, you can see it no other way, When God tells you six days he means six days when he tells you he rested on the 7Th day he means he rested on the 7Th day. The concept of what time means to God is a humanists way of trying to think for God, God always says what he means by time In different parts of Scripture.

*****Incorrect again. There are several methods of dating things beyond recorded history among them the decay of C14 for anything organic that is less than about 60,000 years old.****

wrong, and wrong, but even if it did, you have nothing to compare it with that you know for sure that is that old so what again do I have to prove to you?

******You asked for evidence and I provided evidence. You have provided nothing other than your belief. If you demand absolute proof you will never be satisfied with anything provided by science. After all I cannot absolutely prove that when you flip the switch to turn on your lights it is not magical undetectable fairies that create light in your home. I can provide you with evidence that it is the result of supplying electrical current to whatever type of light bulb you use and that in turn either exciting a gas or filament, but I can't prove absolutely its not the fairies.*****

and I told what your evidence was worth and that it was not prof, not for you any way.

*****Webster's defines indoctrinate as
1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH
2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
By the first definition certainly there is rampant indoctrination in schools.******

forgive me I should have said liberal indoctrination.

*****Incorrect yet again. That is a conclusion of the theory for which there is considerable evidence. You have provided exactly zero evidence to disprove or even dispute it.****

OK Ill give you that but, what conclusion of this theory, your time aspect is unprovable, your mutation aspect has as been proved wrong, your simple cell aspect has been proved wrong, most of your original evidence was shown to have been fabricated, most of the good evidence that you have stumbled across has shown not a common ancestor but a common creator. But yet, as your theory evolves and morphs again and again, it still must be the right and the only acceptable way to think?

If your would try to use just a little common sense you will see that I am not trying to argue what you think to be your science with you but trying to get you to see what you believe in as a one of your faiths, not to mention having a little fun alone the way.

****G.A.Phillips is a waste of conversation, no amount of fact or evidence will every convince him that he is wrong about anything. You've probably already guessed that, so I'm just reaffirming it.****

oh I have been wrong many a time, mostly when I used to think and live my life like a liberal, but what would it matter to you if it was right or wrong, as I have surrendered to the notion that it is imposable to win an argument with a liberal.

well in the first place ether you believe the word of God of you believe what it means to you.

So what of, for instance, an Orthodox reading of Genesis whereby it can be understood allegorically? For instance, the length of a "day" might be numbered in billions of years considering that the sun, by which our time is reckoned, was not created until the fourth such “day.”

What is our understanding of time and the cosmos to God, anyway? Is it your position that you have the only window into the divine, and that you know better than anyone else what exactly God is and thinks?

well in the first place ether you believe the word of God of you believe what it means to you.

Would it be accurate of me to translate this as saying you believe in the Bible as literal fact rather than allegorical truth?

In the second place you can not date any thing beyond recorded history.

Incorrect again. There are several methods of dating things beyond recorded history among them the decay of C14 for anything organic that is less than about 60,000 years old.

wrong I have read and am still reading more of it and it is exactly what I said it was, and not prof.

You asked for evidence and I provided evidence. You have provided nothing other than your belief. If you demand absolute proof you will never be satisfied with anything provided by science. After all I cannot absolutely prove that when you flip the switch to turn on your lights it is not magical undetectable fairies that create light in your home. I can provide you with evidence that it is the result of supplying electrical current to whatever type of light bulb you use and that in turn either exciting a gas or filament, but I can't prove absolutely its not the fairies.

for some reason you still have missed my point about indoctrination

Webster's defines indoctrinate as
1 : to instruct especially in fundamentals or rudiments : TEACH
2 : to imbue with a usually partisan or sectarian opinion, point of view, or principle
By the first definition certainly there is rampant indoctrination in schools.

the whole theory of Evolution was was based of the "fact" that things started out simple and over great amounts of time became complex, wrong, so where is your continuation of this theory with the evidence that has disproved it getting any of us, you ask me to provide evidence, I give you yours.

Incorrect yet again. That is a conclusion of the theory for which there is considerable evidence. You have provided exactly zero evidence to disprove or even dispute it.

""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""

Grewgills;
OH!!!!!PULEEEASE! It was levity for the purpose of perspective. Sorry you missed that.

""After all,complex art and humor proofs HUMANITY?"" Right?

BTW; plenty of humans have no humanity! {or apparently no sense of humor.}[lol]

So did you also think that I considered the lack of a fifth digit a dis-qualifier for cartoons?[grinz]

Just out of curiosity, how is it that evolution is incompatible with the design of an all-powerful creator? In other words, why are the devout Christian scientists (not Christian Scientists, necessarily) who insist that they are studying God's creation wrong to believe in evolution, as so many of them do?

well in the first place ether you believe the word of God of you believe what it means to you. In the second place you can not date any thing beyond recorded history.

The article references provided and the link provided some answers for the question asked. I am guessing that you read none of it.

wrong I have read and am still reading more of it and it is exactly what I said it was, and not prof.

Students are taught and retaught every year what is meant by the terms hypothesis, theory, and scientific law (though you don't seem to have learned those definitions). Theory is taught as theory and factual evidence in support of theory is taught as fact. You may not like the facts, but facts they are. The theories taught are the best explanations that conform to scientific method we have available to explain those facts.
The scientific method is responsible for the rapid advance of science in technology in our recent history. Presumably you have little problem with its results that don't cast doubt on a literal reading of Genesis.

for some reason you still have missed my point about indoctrination, I wonder why, maybe its because you have been Indoctrinated?

Patently untrue. Provide any evidences that you think support this assertion.

the whole theory of Evolution was was based of the "fact" that things started out simple and over great amounts of time became complex, wrong, so where is your continuation of this theory with the evidence that has disproved it getting any of us, you ask me to provide evidence, I give you yours.

The only thing I see evolving around here is your theory of Evolution.

Grew, I said prof not the latest thing you have to keep your faith in Evolution going because all of you old prof was ether shown to to be wrong or fabricated.

No, you said,

what tests do you have for evolution, bigger E or smaller e that are worth their weight in basic single cell organisms?

The article references provided and the link provided some answers for the question asked. I am guessing that you read none of it.

Regarding your new question, the business of science is not absolute proof that our current theory is correct. Rather we constantly test and refine our theories moving on to new theories that offer better explanations for the available evidence when an earlier theory is disproven.

you liberals sure like the small print at the bottom of the contract,even when its the meaningless way at the beginning of a class to cover for teaching your theory as the truth.

Students are taught and retaught every year what is meant by the terms hypothesis, theory, and scientific law (though you don't seem to have learned those definitions). Theory is taught as theory and factual evidence in support of theory is taught as fact. You may not like the facts, but facts they are. The theories taught are the best explanations that conform to scientific method we have available to explain those facts.
The scientific method is responsible for the rapid advance of science in technology in our recent history. Presumably you have little problem with its results that don't cast doubt on a literal reading of Genesis.

I said to people like you its a theory not a belief like as to me Evolution is a belief not a theory

The difference being, I have provided evidence you have provided only your opinion.

the way you test Evolution is perfect, I think this because it always disproves your theory and gives evidence to my belief

Patently untrue. Provide any evidences that you think support this assertion.

Floyd,
I only count two points you try to make in that post. First that humans are primates rather than apes. They are both. and

What about CARTOONS? Do they descend from primates, or is it an "emergence" as Pfeiffer put it? or maybe it is ascension??

I am not sure what point you are trying to make here. Do you think that since humans can create things that they must be created?
To which Pfeiffer do you refer?

After all,complex art and humor proofs humanity?

They are among the shifting elements used to differentiate humans from other animals. Previous proofs were tool use, understanding of null states, and language. The first two have been shown in other animals and there is some evidence of the third.

Billy,
I think that depends on whether you read the Bible as literal fact or as allegorical truth.

true science is to study of the workings of Gods creation

Just out of curiosity, how is it that evolution is incompatible with the design of an all-powerful creator? In other words, why are the devout Christian scientists (not Christian Scientists, necessarily) who insist that they are studying God's creation wrong to believe in evolution, as so many of them do?

no, no, and yes, but this is why, most are not presented as such. And because they are presented as fact and the proper why to think, its called indoctrination.

please read this again, you have missed my point, you liberals sure like the small print at the bottom of the contract,even when its the meaningless way at the beginning of a class to cover for teaching your theory as the truth.

Creationism is not a theory, it's a belief. It makes no predictions and offers no means of validation. It's simply a statement of belief, there is no science involved.

I said to people like you its a theory not a belief like as to me Evolution is a belief not a theory, ect.ect.ect....

and you people practice scientific materialism not science.

[3]What predictions does creationism make that we can test, retest, and use as the basis for further predictions? How would we go about proving those predictions wrong?

it is not measured as such, it is the word of God, its truth is measured by Revelation in the Scriptures that has come to pass showing Gods word to be true, and on the other hand true science is to study of the workings of Gods creation. the way you test Evolution is perfect, I think this because it always disproves your theory and gives evidence to my belief, I think that might not be the answer you where looking for but its the only scientific way to look at it .

Comments such as:

I’m going to encourage you to have sex, and I’m going to encourage you to use drugs appropriately,” panelist Joel Becker, a Los Angeles clinical psychologist, told the students. “And why I am going to take that position is because you’re going to do it anyway.”

were common throughout this assembly.

All a pedophile for example needs is an experienced child to satisfy a sick fantasy. That pedophile prevention excuse by Obama is just as bad as jobs Americans won't do. This is the mark of a disturbed presidential candidate that believes the government should control the sexual upbringing of a child instead of its parents, or basically deprive a child an essential part of natural evolution and discovery of ones own being.