---

http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/can-creationists-be-real-scientists#

Ultimately, biblical creationists accept the recorded history of the Bible
as their starting point. Evolutionists reject recorded history, and have
effectively made up their own pseudo-history, which they use as a starting
point for interpreting evidence. Both are using their beliefs about the past
to interpret the evidence in the present. When we look at the scientific
evidence today, we find that it is very consistent with biblical history and
not as consistent with millions of years of evolution. We've seen in this
book that the scientific evidence is consistent with biblical creation. We've
seen that the geological evidence is consistent with a global Flood-not
millions of years of gradual deposition. We've seen that the changes in DNA
are consistent with the loss of information we would expect as a result of
the Curse described in Genesis 3, not the hypothetical gain of massive
quantities of genetic information required by molecules-toman evolution.
Real science confirms the Bible.

---

KaZ skrev:
> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/can-creationists-be-real-scientists#
>
>
> Ultimately, biblical creationists accept the recorded history of the
> Bible as their starting point. Evolutionists reject recorded history,
> and have effectively made up their own pseudo-history, which they use as
> a starting point for interpreting evidence. Both are using their beliefs
> about the past to interpret the evidence in the present. When we look at
> the scientific evidence today, we find that it is very consistent with
> biblical history and not as consistent with millions of years of
> evolution. We've seen in this book that the scientific evidence is
> consistent with biblical creation. We've seen that the geological
> evidence is consistent with a global Flood-not millions of years of
> gradual deposition. We've seen that the changes in DNA are consistent
> with the loss of information we would expect as a result of the Curse
> described in Genesis 3, not the hypothetical gain of massive quantities
> of genetic information required by molecules-toman evolution. Real
> science confirms the Bible.
>

Det er da helt utroligt så mange løgnagtigheder man kan
presse ind på så få linjer.

Og det er helt ufatteligt at nogen vil lade tage ved
næsen på den måde.

Bare en enkelt smagsprøve: "Evolutionists reject recorded
history".
Hvilke "evolutionister"?
Hvilken "recorded history?"

Jeg havde nær skrevet "Gud bedre det", men
det gør han åbenbart ikke. Kan forklaringen
være at han ikke er der?
--

Med venlig hilsen
Jørgen Farum Jensen
Håndbog i webdesign: http://webdesign101.dk/wwwbog/udgave2/
Webdesign med stylesheets: http://webdesign101.dk/cssbog/
..

---

On 16 Maj, 17:16, Jørgen Farum Jensen <jfjen...@yahoo.dk> wrote:
> KaZ skrev:
>
>
>
>
>
> >http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/can-creationists-be-rea...
>
> > Ultimately, biblical creationists accept the recorded history of the
> > Bible as their starting point. Evolutionists reject recorded history,
> > and have effectively made up their own pseudo-history, which they use as
> > a starting point for interpreting evidence. Both are using their beliefs
> > about the past to interpret the evidence in the present. When we look at
> > the scientific evidence today, we find that it is very consistent with
> > biblical history and not as consistent with millions of years of
> > evolution. We've seen in this book that the scientific evidence is
> > consistent with biblical creation. We've seen that the geological
> > evidence is consistent with a global Flood-not millions of years of
> > gradual deposition. We've seen that the changes in DNA are consistent
> > with the loss of information we would expect as a result of the Curse
> > described in Genesis 3, not the hypothetical gain of massive quantities
> > of genetic information required by molecules-toman evolution. Real
> > science confirms the Bible.
>
> Det er da helt utroligt så mange løgnagtigheder man kan
> presse ind på så få linjer.

Det usmagelige er, at det foregiver at være religiøst -
Det må være rendyrket satanisme, siden det åbenbart er helt legalt at
lyve så intenst.

> Og det er helt ufatteligt at nogen vil lade tage ved
> næsen på den måde.

Ja. Man kan stille sig tilfreds med, at det nok skyldes, at der løber
noget utroligt stærkt saltvand til Det Døde hav. Og at det derfor er
vældigt logisk og videnskabeligt, at jorden kun kan være 6 - 7000 år
gammel :)

> Bare en enkelt smagsprøve: "Evolutionists reject recorded
> history".
> Hvilke "evolutionister"?
> Hvilken "recorded history?"

Det må guderne vide -
Men der skal da nok være en, som engang har løjet om genforeningen ?

> Jeg havde nær skrevet "Gud bedre det", men
> det gør han åbenbart ikke. Kan forklaringen
> være at han ikke er der?

Nej - Deder fyre og damer vælger selv at være komplet uoplyste og ikke
at orke at åbne en bog. Det skal vi nok ikke blande Gud ind i - Det er
sikkert nærmere noget med noget ualmindeligt stærkt saltvand, som
løber til det Døde hav :)

> --
>
> Med venlig hilsen
> Jørgen Farum Jensen
> Håndbog i webdesign:http://webdesign101.dk/wwwbog/udgave2/
> Webdesign med stylesheets:http://webdesign101.dk/cssbog/
> .- Skjul tekst i anførselstegn -
>
> - Vis tekst i anførselstegn -

---

Jørgen Farum Jensen skrev i
news:4bf00c5c$0$274$14726298@news.sunsite.dk

> KaZ skrev:
>> http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab2/can-creationists-be-real-scientists#
>>
>>
>> Ultimately, biblical creationists accept the recorded history of the
>> Bible as their starting point. Evolutionists reject recorded history,
>> and have effectively made up their own pseudo-history, which they
>> use as a starting point for interpreting evidence. Both are using
>> their beliefs about the past to interpret the evidence in the
>> present. When we look at the scientific evidence today, we find that
>> it is very consistent with biblical history and not as consistent
>> with millions of years of evolution. We've seen in this book that
>> the scientific evidence is consistent with biblical creation. We've
>> seen that the geological evidence is consistent with a global
>> Flood-not millions of years of gradual deposition. We've seen that
>> the changes in DNA are consistent with the loss of information we
>> would expect as a result of the Curse described in Genesis 3, not
>> the hypothetical gain of massive quantities of genetic information
>> required by molecules-toman evolution. Real science confirms the
>> Bible.
>
> Det er da helt utroligt så mange løgnagtigheder man kan
> presse ind på så få linjer.
>
> Og det er helt ufatteligt at nogen vil lade tage ved
> næsen på den måde.
>
> Bare en enkelt smagsprøve: "Evolutionists reject recorded
> history".
> Hvilke "evolutionister"?
> Hvilken "recorded history?"
>
> Jeg havde nær skrevet "Gud bedre det", men
> det gør han åbenbart ikke. Kan forklaringen
> være at han ikke er der?

Som sædvanligt formår fanatiske ateister ikke forholde sig til det der
bliver lagt frem!

Evolutionister har opdigtet den ene fabel efter den anden om hvordan livet
er opstået og hvordan dette fabelliv har udviklet sig fra en enkelt urcelle
i en fantasiursuppe og frem til vor tids komplicerede livsformer.

Der skal en meget stærk både tro og overtro til for at kunne tro på de
gudsfornægtende ateisters fantasier om livets opståen og udvikling.

--
Med venlig hilsen Andreas Falck
http://bibeltro.dk/ + *DebatForum*
http://skabelsen.info/ + *DebatForum*
http://SDAsyd.dk/ *SDA i Synnejylland*