The Genesis Enigma - Dr Andrew Parker:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Bible-evolution-life-3-000-years-Darwin.html
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Bible-evolution-life-3-000-years-Darwin.html
Last edited:
Just now people are finding out the scriptures are true???? Can't people see the wonders God has created on a daily basis??...It dosen't take a genius to figure out, that the bible is true, ..lol.
And while the bible is mysterious, it's also and most definitely an accurate book...I believe 100% in the scriptures, for they speak of our Lord Jesus Christ...sigh..
The Genesis Enigma - Dr Andrew Parker:-
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-Bible-evolution-life-3-000-years-Darwin.html
The Bible itself is something I have some serious questions about. It's pretty clear that it has been edited, books added and books taken out over time. But thousands of years later, how are we even certain that this is what Jesus wanted people to read?
Which version do you believe?
Old testament, New testament, The King James Version, The New American Standard Version, The American Standard Version, The New King James Version, The New International Version or The New World Translation.
QUOTE]
All the versions basically give one same message, in diffrent wording of course...I understand any version...Some are more difficult to read than others, but I personally like the King James Version..It's easier to read,:mrgreen:
-snip-
On the whole I find his arguments rather weak and his logic flawed. You can not use some historical fact in other parts of the Bible to conclude the Bible describes real events therefore my translation is correct, this is simply circular logic based on a faulty assumption.
Further to this his take on atheism is at best a stereotypical one and at worst only accurate of uneducated atheists which I notice he got through without referencing any "known" atheists, I can't think of a single quotable atheists that regards Darwin as a source of knowledge because even they realise that Darwinism does not disprove God it only disproves religious literalism.
Basically it is a good example of how to make money by saying nothing at all and that any one can fill a couple of hundred pages if they pack the book with irrelevant tangents.
Del Boy, I don't bother to read many books or articles written on the subjects like Flat earth, Over Unity power generation, free money, perpetual motion machines or religion.Guys - as this guy is a scientist, I want you all to obtain his book and give us your critiques.:smil:
Now that just goes to show, Guys; you can't believe a word these scientists tell us these days. Next thing, they'll be telling us that we are responsible for global warming!
As for me, of course I never read current scientific output, so I can't comment on the content. Just thought you would all appreciate a good read.:smile:
Well, I agree with that statement for the most part. I for one don't believe that religion and science are mutually exclusive. In either case (scientific or religious), one is required to assume that things exist that are inexplicable. Science may call them theories and the religious may call them mysteries or miracles. It works either way. For example, just because religion attributes creation to God and science can't explain basic human emotions are not reasons to discount either.MontyB said:I honestly think Darwin would be spinning in his grave if he could see how people are bastardising his work for their own ends which is a shame as his work gave us an invaluable background to the origins of man without any bearing on religion (it is a theory you can accept and still believe in a god without any second thoughts) and instead we bury it in dogma.
I am agnostic, that says all.:bored:
I third that...I am agnostic, that says all.:bored: