Given enough time anything can happen, really!

Originally posted by Proper Knob
[b]An ape was not my ancestor

I'm afraid it was. Why does it bother if an ape was you ancestor?[/b]

Ypu may be proud to have an ape as your ancestor;
but I consider it an insult against my whole family.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Ypu may be proud to have an ape as your ancestor;
but I consider it an insult against my whole family.

Why do you consider it an insult against your whole family?

Originally posted by Proper Knob
Why do you consider it an insult against your whole family?

If you don't know the answer to that question,
you must be stupid.

Originally posted by RJHinds
If you don't know the answer to that question,
you must be stupid.

How very (un)Christian of you. Can you show me the scripture where Jesus says it's okay to insult someone? Good luck finding it.

Can you answer my question, it appears i'm stupid, mind reading across the Atlantic Ocean isn't my strongest point.

Originally posted by KellyJay
If you want to tell me about life on other planets produce some, or stick with what
you have data for, simple enough?
Kelly

“...If you want to tell me about life on other planets produce some, ...”

where did I say/imply that I want to tell you “about life on other planets”? answer, I clearly didn't.

What I said was:

“If the probability of it happening on this one is, say, one in a billion then the 'reason' why it happened to this one is because, out of a billion suitable planets including this one, the odds of it happening to ONE of those billion is good and if it didn't happen to this one but one of the other billion then we would STILL be asking “why this one” because we would still be on ONE planet and we would refer to that planet “this one”. “ (my quote on page 5 )

So far you have not given any sort of counterargument to my original point (quote) above.
Note that the above quote is not saying/implying anything about “life on other planets” for it says/implies nothing about the characteristics of life on other planets -the operative words here are “IF the PROBABILITY of it happening on this one is...” esp the “IF...” part -so I am not even stating or even speculating anything about the actual probability of life let alone anything else about life on other planets.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
I was curious as to why you answered a question with a question, it's something you seem to do a lot.

Why do you think whales have vestigial legs?

“...I was curious as to why you answered a question with a question,...”

perhaps to avoid answering a question?

Originally posted by KellyJay
Why do doves and bats have eyes?
Kelly

It helps them to see and this helps them to survive.
But back to his question: Why do snakes and whales have vestigial hind legs?

I and he knows the answer to this and it makes sense. But have you got an answer to this?

Originally posted by KellyJay
🙂 I think godlessness is, evolutionary processes I actually believe in, just not to
the degree it is given credit for, for forming all life after life starts from non-living
matter.
Kelly

Thank you Kelly and RJ. I have been seeking to understand why you hold to your positions, and not to change your beliefs. I don't want to lump you two together, but as I understand it, the important factor is that God intended the Bible to be understood in a straightforward, unchanging way. Some aspects of current scientific theories contradict this straightforward, unchanging reading of the Bible. Belief in those scientific theories may hinder belief in the Bible, which may cause its most important message to be missed or disbelieved. It is of utmost importance that this message be received and believed.

So I think arguing evolution versus creation with you, either for or against, is pointless. While my above description of your issues is probably oversimplified, the way to address your concern is to address your issues. The better you can state and stick to them, the more likely you will be understood.

However, I think there is a similar set of issues opposing your position. Some could see your beliefs to be a threat to freedom of thought and inquiry to seek natural explanations of the world. Others could see it as a threat to their own theistic faith, if it differs more than you will tolerate. There are some individuals who could feel both of these threats. If you want to address their issues in a way that would get them to accept your views, I suggest you address these threats.

Originally posted by JS357
Some aspects of current scientific theories contradict this straightforward, unchanging reading of the Bible.

I feel compelled to point out here that although people like Kelly and RJ tend to focus on evolution, the truth is that much of the the key evidence for an ancient earth and an ancient universe comes from other branches of science. For example geologists (who use physics and chemistry mostly when doing dating), astronomy (who mostly use physics and mathematics for measurements) and physics itself.
So although biologists and the theory of evolution helps explain how life was able to evolve, it isn't the main source of evidence for an ancient earth.

Originally posted by twhitehead
I feel compelled to point out here that although people like Kelly and RJ tend to focus on evolution, the truth is that much of the the key evidence for an ancient earth and an ancient universe comes from other branches of science. For example geologists (who use physics and chemistry mostly when doing dating), astronomy (who mostly use physics and mathem ...[text shortened]... explain how life was able to evolve, it isn't the main source of evidence for an ancient earth.

You are right. I think the first threat from modern science, by Galileo, was to Joshua 10:13: "So the sun stood still..." and the day was longer. This only makes sense if it had been moving around the earth. I don't see this particular threat being argued. Maybe we should ask. For all we know, the modern psychological interpretation of exorcism might be a threat in some people's minds, as it might seem to deny the existence of Satan.

I'm not saying Kelly or RJ is like this, but it could be a big list if you ask enough people. It could include threats from certain laws, religions, ethnic groups and nations. And the belief that what is threatened is of infinite value, is powerful.

Originally posted by Proper Knob
How very (un)Christian of you. Can you show me the scripture where Jesus says it's okay to insult someone? Good luck finding it.

Can you answer my question, it appears i'm stupid, mind reading across the Atlantic Ocean isn't my strongest point.

Who are you to judge what is (un)Christian?

When Jesus the Christ called the Pharisees, "blind guides" and "fools",
do you think he meant it as a compliment or an insult? (Matthew 23:16-17)
When Jesus the Christ said to the Pharisees, "You serpents, you brood of
vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?", was that also not
meant as an insult? (Matthew 23:33 NASB)

Yes, I could answer your question. But why don't you tell a few people
you meet on the street that their ancestors are apes and see if you get
a positive "thumbs up" reaction. Don't forget to inform them that many
or their relatives are in the zoo.

Originally posted by JS357
You are right. I think the first threat from modern science, by Galileo, was to Joshua 10:13: "So the sun stood still..." and the day was longer. This only makes sense if it had been moving around the earth. I don't see this particular threat being argued. Maybe we should ask. For all we know, the modern psychological interpretation of exorcism might be a thre ...[text shortened]... oups and nations. And the belief that what is threatened is of infinite value, is powerful.

Even scientist today speak of sunrise and sunset. They know
that the earth moves around the sun. From the point of view
of an observer the sun seems to move across the sky. Since
God created the physical universe, why could he not do something
to make the sun appear not to move for what seemed to be a
long time? Anyway, the Holy Bible never makes a scientific
statement that the sun rotates around the earth. That was the
accepted scientific view until Galileo challenged it. The leaders
of the Roman Catholic Church believed he was challenging their
authority as the only representative of Christ on earth at that
time. They, of course, were wrong. But they still make such
great claims for their Pope today.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Who are you to judge what is (un)Christian?

When Jesus the Christ called the Pharisees, "blind guides" and "fools",
do you think he meant it as a compliment or an insult? (Matthew 23:16-17)
When Jesus the Christ said to the Pharisees, "You serpents, you brood of
vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?", was that also not
meant as an insult ...[text shortened]... " reaction. Don't forget to inform them that many
or their relatives are in the zoo.

Yes, I could answer your question. But why don't you tell a few people
you meet on the street that their ancestors are apes and see if you get
a positive "thumbs up" reaction. Don't forget to inform them that many
or their relatives are in the zoo.

Sound like it's a matter of pride.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Who are you to judge what is (un)Christian?

When Jesus the Christ called the Pharisees, "blind guides" and "fools",
do you think he meant it as a compliment or an insult? (Matthew 23:16-17)
When Jesus the Christ said to the Pharisees, "You serpents, you brood of
vipers, how shall you escape the sentence of hell?", was that also not
meant as an insult ...[text shortened]... " reaction. Don't forget to inform them that many
or their relatives are in the zoo.

Who are you to judge what is (un)Christian?

Sorry, was i just meant to let you insult me and say thanks very much?!

When Jesus the Christ called the Pharisees, "blind guides" and "fools", do you think he meant it as a compliment or an insult?

Nice try, but ridiculous comparison. I was asking you to explain an answer to a question, not pilfering gold.

Don't forget to inform them that many or their relatives are in the zoo.

Over this side of the pond we've nearly eradicated the creationist Christian bilge you espouse. Recent surveys show that 80% of the UK public accept the evidence that humans evolved from apes. So i don't think i'd have much of a problem with your 'task'.

Anyhow, are you going to answer my question or just keep on insulting me?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Even scientist today speak of sunrise and sunset. They know
that the earth moves around the sun. From the point of view
of an observer the sun seems to move across the sky. Since
God created the physical universe, why could he not do something
to make the sun appear not to move for what seemed to be a
long time? Anyway, the Holy Bible never makes a ...[text shortened]... time. They, of course, were wrong. But they still make such
great claims for their Pope today.

I propose that your colleagues on the other side of this discussion respect your acknowledgment that in Joshua 10:13, the Bible recounts the historical events in a way that is consistent with the point of view of the human observer.