How would you determine between those that "can't" get a job and those that would choose "not" to get a job because they can freeload? Just because a person can't get a job as management or a high-paying IT position doesn't mean there are no jobs available and no work.
There is much more to this. It's not just Army systems being upgraded, it's all of DoD and ultimately, all federal desktops. What is being rolled out (and has been for some time) is the Federal Desktop Core Configuration (FDCC) (http://cit.nih.gov/Support/FAQ/FDCC/)(http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2008/08/01/FDCC-model-branches-out.aspx). FDCC started out as the USAF Standard Desktop Configuration (http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/c/4/5c46c4a0-950f-40a9-9a8f-9af4a2869bc2/WhitePaper_FDCC%20AirForce.doc)(http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123020383). FDCC is mandated for all federal systems (http://techbuddha.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/omb-deadline-for-fdcc-compliance-looming/) and the Dec 2009 deadline is for all DoD systems, which means millions of workstations.
I will grant you that eating may not count as a truely neutral act. I was anticipating possible objections to it involving either some ethical vegiterianism or possibly something involving starving people all over the world. But I still think one could in principle have a truely morally neutral act. Of course the fact that animals (which are basically amoral being in most western religious views and most versions of secular humanism and the like) eat adds some weight to the arguement that eating can be a neutral act.
Everything we do (excepting those basic fundamental things we have to do to live: eat, drink, breath, bathroom, etc.) we have a purpose for. Often times, probably most of the time, we don't think about it or realize it. Those purposes may or may not be evil, but they are there. I try to think about what I'm doing and who gains from it. I have to work to survive and the human side of me says, "I need that money or I can't provide for my family, I can't eat, I can't afford the house/car/etc.,...". The spiritual side says, "God will provide for my needs, I just have to trust Him and trust in His promise to take care of me. What will I do with my life that can further the kingdom of God and lay up treasures for me in eternity?" Now, extrapolate that into all other areas of your life. Am I being silly? I don't think so. It's a major life change, and one that only Jesus can bring into your life.
And yes, eating is probably a neutral act most of the time, but I wanted to show you that you CAN bring honor to God in almost every thing you do.
Thinking everyone is basically evil sound very negative and pessimistic to me. I am not arguing whether or not you have theological reasons for that view, or even if that view is true. I am just saying that it is a more negative and pessimistic view of human nature than the (non-religious) views I hold.
In human terms, 'evil' has a very negative connotation, and most would not like being called that. But in God's eyes, we are all the same: sinners. And that sin condemns us all to hell. God doesn't put any value or rank on the sins we commit (we do that). We're born into it and unless we do something about it (rom 10:9-10), it dooms us to hell. You may live a long and wonderful life and never do anything 'evil' or bad (by human standards), but by God's standards, we are all pathetic and have no hope. You can't be good enough to get to heaven. And that doesn't mean that God is out to get us. On the contrary, God loves us so much that He did the only thing He could do to make it possible for our sins to be atoned for and make it possible for use to live in eternity with Him. He made the rules, He will not change those rules, and that's the way it is.
By the way, this is a surprisingly civil discussion of religious vs. non-religious world views. These types of things usually get much nastier (from both sides).
I still think your definition of statanic diverges from the dictionary definition. You also do not seem to allow for any purely neutral actions (which was sort of the point I was trying to get at with the sandwhich example).
I understood what you were trying to get at with the sandwhich example, but, to me, that is the way life is. I'll try to explain: Our existance on this earth is for one purpose - to bring glory to God. We are His creation, made in His image (yes, God is a male, and yes, God looks like a human). God wanted someone to communicate with, in a one-on-one relationship. Read Genesis, it's in there. Adam and Even blew it, and all of humanity has had to pay for it ever since. Since we're human, we have to eat/sleep/etc. How does eating a sandwhich bring glory to God? Did you give thanks to God for allowing you the resources (ingredients, money, etc.) to be able to have that sandwhich to eat? Did you share that sandwhich and perhaps have an opportunity to witness to someone? How could eating that sandwhich dishonor God? Are you a glutton? Basically, our existence either honors or dishonors God.
It does amaze me that people talk about the positive aspects of relgion (finding meaning in life, good works, comfort, and so on) and yet your religious view of the world and of people seems unbelievable more pessimistic than my non-religious view of the world and people.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Please let me know if I miss something. I don't think I have a pessimistic view of people. It's simple: we are all basically evil (yep, even me). It's nothing that we do or don't do, we are all born into sin (rom 3:23). You can't get around it (once you've reached the age of accountability, knowing right from wrong). Because of the original sin, we are all inheriters of the sin nature and held accountable for that sin. Are there good people on earth that aren't christians? Definitely (good by human definition), but they will still go to hell when they die if they haven't accepted Jesus as their saviour (those in the old testament were granted salvation because they put their faith in the promise of Jesus, Hebrews 11).
No, everything I do (probably 99.9% of everything I do) does not bring honor to God. That is something I strive for.
I try to bring honor to God in my posting on slashdot (or anywhere else). You CAN honor God with all of your actions, think about it.
If you are not glorifying God, you are glorifying satan, like it or not. Since the fall, it's our nature.
Let me first say that Catholics, and therefore the Pope, do not speak for all of Christianity (just in case anyone is not clear on that).
Next, let me say that newspaper columnist missed something. Yes, religion is about why we are here, but, in the case of Christianity and the bible, we are also told how we got here. God wanted more than relationship with the angels he had created. He wanted something that had free will and could choose to commune with Him or not.
You can not take away the Genesis account of creation. To do so invalidates all other portions of the scriptures. You can not interpret the six days of creation as anything but six 24 hour days. God defined the day and night right at the beginning so there would be no question. Genesis shows God's plan for us from the beginning and how Jesus would defeat death and Satan by taking on our sins on the cross and making a way for us to be forgiven and live eternally in heaven with Him. Take away any part of Genesis, and you destroy the rest of it.
Science and religion can go hand in hand. Scientists/biologists/archeoligists are constantly proving the bible right.
I can't speak for others, but my problem with Harry Potter is that it teaches/supports/popularizes witchcraft, which is satanic (does not bring honor or glory to God). Jesus gives all honor and glory to God in all he did and does.
"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D. -- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.
"...not being a paleontologist, I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..." (Dr. Greg Kirby in an address given at a meeting of the Biology Teachers Association of South Australia in 1976. Dr. Kirby was the Senior Lecturer in Population Biology at Flinders University and was giving the case for evolution.)
"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983.
"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock.' The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987.
"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.
"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)
"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant, October, 1982.)
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.
"Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen." (The Collapse of Evolution, by Dr. Scott Huse.)
Some of those quotes are a few years old, but still applicable. There is a strong and growing contingent of very well-known and published scientists that do not buy into the evolution lie. Read "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. It will open your eyes.
Evolution, in regards to change within species, is a fact. Beyond that, it's a religion because it takes faith to believe in something that can't be proved.
The bible, and therefore God, is most definitely not pro abortion.
Exodus 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
Job 31:15 "Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?"
Psalm 139:13-14 "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."
Luke 1:13-15 "But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."
Also, you are taking the verses regarding stoning disobedient sons out of context:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
This is not a child the bible is talking about, but a grown man (glutton and drunkard, v 21).
Christians are not anti-science. Use adult stem cells. There is plenty of good research being done and already done with adult stem cells.
2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
2:15
But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
2:16
For "who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
But the Bible is not without proof. Read Genesis and compare with the fossil record. Look at the archealogical digs that have shown the history of the bible is correct. Look at the science behind the occurance of Noah and the global flood.
Compare that with innacurate dating methods and the assumptions required to date things at millions of years old; the missing pieces of the fossil record would be necessary to prove 'science'.
Which one takes more faith?
You are correct that the over-arching theme of the bible is God sending His son, Jesus Christ, to be the ultimate sacrifice for us all, and accepting that gives us eternal salvation. Romans 10:9-10 sums it up quite nicely.
However, you can't take away any other part of that. Either it's all true, or it's one big lie. To discredit the Genesis history of the creation of the world and human and animal-kind, discredits everything else. If God said that He created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th, we have to take His word for it. I agree that science might be able to explain how God done some things, but the current 'science' does not do that. Everything about the current 'science' smells, and I don't want anyone being taught shody science. Children are impressionable, and if you teach them that the world is x million years old with no proof, they will believe it. The bible can be believed because every word of it is true, 2 Pet 1:16, and it has withstood many tests and is proven true over and over.
Also, Jesus did not do away the 'rules' and laws of the OT: He made the definitions more clear and showed the error of the pharisees and how the law was condeming them to death (spiritual and physical). Jesus said that if you commit a sin your heart, you've committed the sin for real. We are to uphold the 10 commandments and all of the rest, to the best of our ability, excepting those that went away with Jesus (blood sacrifices, tearing of the veil so we can go straight to God, etc.). The difference being, we have forgiveness through Jesus. We're not held to the law, and the law doesn't condemn us (those that have accepted Jesus) any longer.
I, too, am a christian.
Now, do you believe that anything that is unprovable should be pulled out of schools? I would be fine with that, myself. This would mean no mentioning evolution. Teaching change within species is fine with me, but it has to stop there. None of us has any proof of how we got here. If God can't be mentioned, then neither can ideas of 'scientists' making guesses. If the education establishment says its ok to teach theories, then creationism must be allowed as well. It's as valid as any of the other 'theories'.
I believe in science (true science) as much as I believe in God and the Bible. The many theories that are taught in schools as science are not really theories, they are thoughts/ideas. They might as well be a religion because it takes as much faith to believe those than it does to believe that God spoke us and the world into existence. I don't want anyone taught the shody science we are being force fed now because those ideas are never questioned in the classrooms, and if a student does question them, they are laughed off or they are made fun of for believing in the Bible.
There is absolutely no proof of the earth being millions or billions of years old. Yes, there is change within species but never change from one species to another (cat turning into a dog), and the Bible is INFALLIBLE.
Like it or not, America was started by a bunch of Bible believing, God fearing nuts (like me), and our education system started out the same way. It wasn't until they tried to pull out all mention of God and all morals (that come from God) that we started having the problems that we do now.
-------
If I'm wrong, what does it matter? If I'm right non-believers are in big trouble.
You should not say such things about our lord Gates. This is blasphemy of the highest order. As it is written in Q000666, Thou shalt not use the name of the lord thy Gates in vain!
Penance shall be 3000 recitations of the most sacred EULA.
Now, back to the study of the holy BSOD, for in it are the mysteries of the universe.
The bible is not evidence. It may be what you base your beliefs on, but that does not make it evidence.
If the bible stood on its own, then that may be true. However, other historical documents bear it out, as do archaeological finds and other historical evidence. Many times, people have set out to disprove the Bible, only to find out it was true. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/je richo.asp
Everyday evidence disproves a young earth. I personally have found fossilised coral 2000 miles from the sea, 800 feet above sea level. How did it get there?
And you completely igored my first question:
Just how do you explain that light can travel millions of light years in 6000 years? Or do you believe that the stars are painted on a glass roof to the world?
I've included the two links below that have various theories that others have proposed about this topic. It may be that light travelled at faster rates at the time of creation. God is God, and He did it however He did it. This isn't a scientific answer (see the links below for a scientific approach), but it's what I believe. Not every answer lies in science or numbers. Some things take faith. I will add, though, that the 'big bang' theory has a problem with this same topic: the universe is too big for the big bang theory. The light hasn't had enough time to travel for the big bang theory to be accurate. See the links for more information on this. http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/li ghttravel.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starligh t.asp
Let me clarify: by species, I mean that we have never observed an 'organism' changing from one type (say, a bird) to another (a fish). A salamander giving birth to a salamander with a slightly different skin pattern (or different body shape) is not an indicator of what most think evolution is. This will not get you to the point of a single-cell organism (originating from wherever), evolving over millions of years into humans. A salamander is still a salamander.
I have only one physical piece of evidence, the Bible. There is zero scientific evidence. All ages given to the earth are speculation and guesses - prove me wrong.
I'm not catholic and do not know what the catholic church teaches on this matter. I do know what the Bible says, and I believe it.
And yes, God could definitely have made the earth as old as He wanted. However, the bible is clear on this matter: He made the earth approximately 8000 years ago, and made it in 6 days with Adam and Eve and various types of animals/fish/birds/etc. I believe He made the same types of animals that we see today (sure, they changed somewhat so we have different types of cats, dogs, horses, etc.), and that included dinosaurs and the other creatures that are now extinct.
What I believe and what scientists believe are both religions based on faith. I place my faith in what God tells us through the bible. Scientists (in regards to evolution and the other things I mentioned), place their faith in what they speculate happened so many years ago. I believe a lot of science. There's nothing wrong with most of it. However, I don't for the life of me see where they get that the earth is millions or billions of years old. Nothing supports it.
Again, I ask, where is ANY proof of the earth being more than about 10000 years old? Everything we are taught in science/biology class is based on several assumptions. None of our methods used to date items are accurate (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dat ing.asp)
My proof of younger earth: the Bible, which has been upheld by science and archaeology many times.
This is not proof of evolution. Ring species actually prove the Bible: Noah probably had one breed of each 'type' of animal, from which all other 'types' came (i.e. he had one pair of dogs, and from those, we get all the various types of dogs we have now). This is not evolution. Evolution would require that 'information' be added to DNA. Ring species shows a degredation of DNA, nothing is added.
Slashdot Mirror
I saw this movie, it doesn't turn out well for us humans.
How would you determine between those that "can't" get a job and those that would choose "not" to get a job because they can freeload? Just because a person can't get a job as management or a high-paying IT position doesn't mean there are no jobs available and no work.
There is much more to this. It's not just Army systems being upgraded, it's all of DoD and ultimately, all federal desktops. What is being rolled out (and has been for some time) is the Federal Desktop Core Configuration (FDCC) (http://cit.nih.gov/Support/FAQ/FDCC/)(http://www.gcn.com/Articles/2008/08/01/FDCC-model-branches-out.aspx). FDCC started out as the USAF Standard Desktop Configuration (http://download.microsoft.com/download/5/c/4/5c46c4a0-950f-40a9-9a8f-9af4a2869bc2/WhitePaper_FDCC%20AirForce.doc)(http://www.afmc.af.mil/news/story.asp?id=123020383). FDCC is mandated for all federal systems (http://techbuddha.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/omb-deadline-for-fdcc-compliance-looming/) and the Dec 2009 deadline is for all DoD systems, which means millions of workstations.
What does it taste like?
Chicken!
I will grant you that eating may not count as a truely neutral act. I was anticipating possible objections to it involving either some ethical vegiterianism or possibly something involving starving people all over the world. But I still think one could in principle have a truely morally neutral act. Of course the fact that animals (which are basically amoral being in most western religious views and most versions of secular humanism and the like) eat adds some weight to the arguement that eating can be a neutral act.
...". The spiritual side says, "God will provide for my needs, I just have to trust Him and trust in His promise to take care of me. What will I do with my life that can further the kingdom of God and lay up treasures for me in eternity?" Now, extrapolate that into all other areas of your life. Am I being silly? I don't think so. It's a major life change, and one that only Jesus can bring into your life.
Everything we do (excepting those basic fundamental things we have to do to live: eat, drink, breath, bathroom, etc.) we have a purpose for. Often times, probably most of the time, we don't think about it or realize it. Those purposes may or may not be evil, but they are there. I try to think about what I'm doing and who gains from it. I have to work to survive and the human side of me says, "I need that money or I can't provide for my family, I can't eat, I can't afford the house/car/etc.,
And yes, eating is probably a neutral act most of the time, but I wanted to show you that you CAN bring honor to God in almost every thing you do.
Thinking everyone is basically evil sound very negative and pessimistic to me. I am not arguing whether or not you have theological reasons for that view, or even if that view is true. I am just saying that it is a more negative and pessimistic view of human nature than the (non-religious) views I hold.
In human terms, 'evil' has a very negative connotation, and most would not like being called that. But in God's eyes, we are all the same: sinners. And that sin condemns us all to hell. God doesn't put any value or rank on the sins we commit (we do that). We're born into it and unless we do something about it (rom 10:9-10), it dooms us to hell. You may live a long and wonderful life and never do anything 'evil' or bad (by human standards), but by God's standards, we are all pathetic and have no hope. You can't be good enough to get to heaven. And that doesn't mean that God is out to get us. On the contrary, God loves us so much that He did the only thing He could do to make it possible for our sins to be atoned for and make it possible for use to live in eternity with Him. He made the rules, He will not change those rules, and that's the way it is.
By the way, this is a surprisingly civil discussion of religious vs. non-religious world views. These types of things usually get much nastier (from both sides).
Agreed!
I still think your definition of statanic diverges from the dictionary definition. You also do not seem to allow for any purely neutral actions (which was sort of the point I was trying to get at with the sandwhich example).
I understood what you were trying to get at with the sandwhich example, but, to me, that is the way life is. I'll try to explain: Our existance on this earth is for one purpose - to bring glory to God. We are His creation, made in His image (yes, God is a male, and yes, God looks like a human). God wanted someone to communicate with, in a one-on-one relationship. Read Genesis, it's in there. Adam and Even blew it, and all of humanity has had to pay for it ever since. Since we're human, we have to eat/sleep/etc. How does eating a sandwhich bring glory to God? Did you give thanks to God for allowing you the resources (ingredients, money, etc.) to be able to have that sandwhich to eat? Did you share that sandwhich and perhaps have an opportunity to witness to someone? How could eating that sandwhich dishonor God? Are you a glutton? Basically, our existence either honors or dishonors God.
It does amaze me that people talk about the positive aspects of relgion (finding meaning in life, good works, comfort, and so on) and yet your religious view of the world and of people seems unbelievable more pessimistic than my non-religious view of the world and people.
I'm not sure I understand what you are saying here. Please let me know if I miss something. I don't think I have a pessimistic view of people. It's simple: we are all basically evil (yep, even me). It's nothing that we do or don't do, we are all born into sin (rom 3:23). You can't get around it (once you've reached the age of accountability, knowing right from wrong). Because of the original sin, we are all inheriters of the sin nature and held accountable for that sin. Are there good people on earth that aren't christians? Definitely (good by human definition), but they will still go to hell when they die if they haven't accepted Jesus as their saviour (those in the old testament were granted salvation because they put their faith in the promise of Jesus, Hebrews 11).
No, everything I do (probably 99.9% of everything I do) does not bring honor to God. That is something I strive for.
I try to bring honor to God in my posting on slashdot (or anywhere else). You CAN honor God with all of your actions, think about it.
If you are not glorifying God, you are glorifying satan, like it or not. Since the fall, it's our nature.
Let me first say that Catholics, and therefore the Pope, do not speak for all of Christianity (just in case anyone is not clear on that).
Next, let me say that newspaper columnist missed something. Yes, religion is about why we are here, but, in the case of Christianity and the bible, we are also told how we got here. God wanted more than relationship with the angels he had created. He wanted something that had free will and could choose to commune with Him or not.
You can not take away the Genesis account of creation. To do so invalidates all other portions of the scriptures. You can not interpret the six days of creation as anything but six 24 hour days. God defined the day and night right at the beginning so there would be no question. Genesis shows God's plan for us from the beginning and how Jesus would defeat death and Satan by taking on our sins on the cross and making a way for us to be forgiven and live eternally in heaven with Him. Take away any part of Genesis, and you destroy the rest of it.
Science and religion can go hand in hand. Scientists/biologists/archeoligists are constantly proving the bible right.
I can't speak for others, but my problem with Harry Potter is that it teaches/supports/popularizes witchcraft, which is satanic (does not bring honor or glory to God). Jesus gives all honor and glory to God in all he did and does.
"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)
"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of 'seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of 'gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D. -- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.
"...not being a paleontologist, I don't want to pour too much scorn on paleontologists, but if you were to spend your life picking up bones and finding little fragments of head and little fragments of jaw, there's a very strong desire to exaggerate the importance of those fragments..." (Dr. Greg Kirby in an address given at a meeting of the Biology Teachers Association of South Australia in 1976. Dr. Kirby was the Senior Lecturer in Population Biology at Flinders University and was giving the case for evolution.)
"A five million year old piece of bone that was thought to be the collarbone of a humanlike creature is actually part of a dolphin rib...The problem with a lot of anthropologists is that they want so much to find a hominid that any scrap of bone becomes a hominid bone." (Dr. Tim White, anthropologist, University of California, Berkeley, quoted in New Scientist, April 28, 1983.
"All the above (radiometric) methods for dating the age of the earth, its various strata, and its fossils are questionable, because the rates are likely to have fluctuated widely over earth history...It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological 'clock.' The uncertainties inherent in radiometric dating are disturbing to geologist and evolutionists..." (W.D. Stansfield, Ph.D., Instructor of Biology, California Polytech State University, The Science of Evolution, Macmillan, 1987.
"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.
"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)
"One is forced to conclude that many scientists and technologists pay lip-service to Darwinian theory only because it supposedly excludes a Creator." (Dr. Michael Walker, Senior Lecturer in Anthropology, Sydney University, quoted in Quadrant, October, 1982.)
"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.
"Faith is the substance of fossils hoped for, the evidence of links unseen." (The Collapse of Evolution, by Dr. Scott Huse.)
Some of those quotes are a few years old, but still applicable. There is a strong and growing contingent of very well-known and published scientists that do not buy into the evolution lie. Read "The Case for a Creator" by Lee Strobel. It will open your eyes.Evolution, in regards to change within species, is a fact. Beyond that, it's a religion because it takes faith to believe in something that can't be proved.
The bible, and therefore God, is most definitely not pro abortion.
Exodus 21:22 "If men strive, and hurt a woman with child, so that her fruit depart from her, and yet no mischief follow: he shall be surely punished, according as the woman's husband will lay upon him; and he shall pay as the judges determine."
Jeremiah 1:5 "Before I formed thee in the belly I knew thee; and before thou camest forth out of the womb I sanctified thee, and I ordained thee a prophet unto the nations."
Job 31:15 "Did not he that made me in the womb make him? and did not one fashion us in the womb?"
Psalm 139:13-14 "For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb. I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well."
Luke 1:13-15 "But the angel said unto him, Fear not, Zacharias: for thy prayer is heard; and thy wife Elisabeth shall bear thee a son, and thou shalt call his name John. And thou shalt have joy and gladness; and many shall rejoice at his birth. For he shall be great in the sight of the Lord, and shall drink neither wine nor strong drink; and he shall be filled with the Holy Ghost, even from his mother's womb."
Also, you are taking the verses regarding stoning disobedient sons out of context:
Deuteronomy 21:18-21 "If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them: Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place; And they shall say unto the elders of his city, This our son is stubborn and rebellious, he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton, and a drunkard. And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear."
This is not a child the bible is talking about, but a grown man (glutton and drunkard, v 21).
Christians are not anti-science. Use adult stem cells. There is plenty of good research being done and already done with adult stem cells.
Lean not on your own understanding...
1 Corinthians 2:14-16
2:14
But the natural man does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him; nor can he know them, because they are spiritually discerned.
2:15
But he who is spiritual judges all things, yet he himself is rightly judged by no one.
2:16
For "who has known the mind of the Lord that he may instruct Him?" But we have the mind of Christ.
But the Bible is not without proof. Read Genesis and compare with the fossil record. Look at the archealogical digs that have shown the history of the bible is correct. Look at the science behind the occurance of Noah and the global flood. Compare that with innacurate dating methods and the assumptions required to date things at millions of years old; the missing pieces of the fossil record would be necessary to prove 'science'. Which one takes more faith?
You are correct that the over-arching theme of the bible is God sending His son, Jesus Christ, to be the ultimate sacrifice for us all, and accepting that gives us eternal salvation. Romans 10:9-10 sums it up quite nicely.
However, you can't take away any other part of that. Either it's all true, or it's one big lie. To discredit the Genesis history of the creation of the world and human and animal-kind, discredits everything else. If God said that He created the world in 6 days and rested on the 7th, we have to take His word for it. I agree that science might be able to explain how God done some things, but the current 'science' does not do that. Everything about the current 'science' smells, and I don't want anyone being taught shody science. Children are impressionable, and if you teach them that the world is x million years old with no proof, they will believe it. The bible can be believed because every word of it is true, 2 Pet 1:16, and it has withstood many tests and is proven true over and over.
Also, Jesus did not do away the 'rules' and laws of the OT: He made the definitions more clear and showed the error of the pharisees and how the law was condeming them to death (spiritual and physical). Jesus said that if you commit a sin your heart, you've committed the sin for real. We are to uphold the 10 commandments and all of the rest, to the best of our ability, excepting those that went away with Jesus (blood sacrifices, tearing of the veil so we can go straight to God, etc.). The difference being, we have forgiveness through Jesus. We're not held to the law, and the law doesn't condemn us (those that have accepted Jesus) any longer.
I, too, am a christian. Now, do you believe that anything that is unprovable should be pulled out of schools? I would be fine with that, myself. This would mean no mentioning evolution. Teaching change within species is fine with me, but it has to stop there. None of us has any proof of how we got here. If God can't be mentioned, then neither can ideas of 'scientists' making guesses. If the education establishment says its ok to teach theories, then creationism must be allowed as well. It's as valid as any of the other 'theories'. I believe in science (true science) as much as I believe in God and the Bible. The many theories that are taught in schools as science are not really theories, they are thoughts/ideas. They might as well be a religion because it takes as much faith to believe those than it does to believe that God spoke us and the world into existence. I don't want anyone taught the shody science we are being force fed now because those ideas are never questioned in the classrooms, and if a student does question them, they are laughed off or they are made fun of for believing in the Bible. There is absolutely no proof of the earth being millions or billions of years old. Yes, there is change within species but never change from one species to another (cat turning into a dog), and the Bible is INFALLIBLE. Like it or not, America was started by a bunch of Bible believing, God fearing nuts (like me), and our education system started out the same way. It wasn't until they tried to pull out all mention of God and all morals (that come from God) that we started having the problems that we do now. ------- If I'm wrong, what does it matter? If I'm right non-believers are in big trouble.
You should not say such things about our lord Gates. This is blasphemy of the highest order. As it is written in Q000666, Thou shalt not use the name of the lord thy Gates in vain! Penance shall be 3000 recitations of the most sacred EULA. Now, back to the study of the holy BSOD, for in it are the mysteries of the universe.
The bible is not evidence. It may be what you base your beliefs on, but that does not make it evidence.
e richo.asp
u rial.asp y sters.asp o ah.asp l s.asp
i ghttravel.asp h t.asp
If the bible stood on its own, then that may be true. However, other historical documents bear it out, as do archaeological finds and other historical evidence. Many times, people have set out to disprove the Bible, only to find out it was true.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/j
Everyday evidence disproves a young earth. I personally have found fossilised coral 2000 miles from the sea, 800 feet above sea level. How did it get there?
How did it get there? - two sparrows (african) carried it there on a line between them tucked under their dorsal feathers (just kidding, credit to Monty Python). This only proves the Bible. This is direct evidence of the global flood. I too have found fossil remains of shells and coral, where there is no large bodies of water for 100s of miles , and I highly doubt that someone carried them there (although they could have, certainly). Fossil remains that should be from the oceans can be found on top of mountains - proof of a global flood.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i3/b
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v24/i2/o
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v12/i2/n
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/paleoso
And you completely igored my first question: Just how do you explain that light can travel millions of light years in 6000 years? Or do you believe that the stars are painted on a glass roof to the world?
I've included the two links below that have various theories that others have proposed about this topic. It may be that light travelled at faster rates at the time of creation. God is God, and He did it however He did it. This isn't a scientific answer (see the links below for a scientific approach), but it's what I believe. Not every answer lies in science or numbers. Some things take faith. I will add, though, that the 'big bang' theory has a problem with this same topic: the universe is too big for the big bang theory. The light hasn't had enough time to travel for the big bang theory to be accurate. See the links for more information on this.
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v25/i4/l
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v15/i1/starlig
Let me clarify: by species, I mean that we have never observed an 'organism' changing from one type (say, a bird) to another (a fish). A salamander giving birth to a salamander with a slightly different skin pattern (or different body shape) is not an indicator of what most think evolution is. This will not get you to the point of a single-cell organism (originating from wherever), evolving over millions of years into humans. A salamander is still a salamander.
i ters.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/b
http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CB/CB102.html
a .asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i1/dependen ce.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v17/i3/bacteri
I have only one physical piece of evidence, the Bible. There is zero scientific evidence. All ages given to the earth are speculation and guesses - prove me wrong. I'm not catholic and do not know what the catholic church teaches on this matter. I do know what the Bible says, and I believe it. And yes, God could definitely have made the earth as old as He wanted. However, the bible is clear on this matter: He made the earth approximately 8000 years ago, and made it in 6 days with Adam and Eve and various types of animals/fish/birds/etc. I believe He made the same types of animals that we see today (sure, they changed somewhat so we have different types of cats, dogs, horses, etc.), and that included dinosaurs and the other creatures that are now extinct. What I believe and what scientists believe are both religions based on faith. I place my faith in what God tells us through the bible. Scientists (in regards to evolution and the other things I mentioned), place their faith in what they speculate happened so many years ago. I believe a lot of science. There's nothing wrong with most of it. However, I don't for the life of me see where they get that the earth is millions or billions of years old. Nothing supports it.
Again, I ask, where is ANY proof of the earth being more than about 10000 years old? Everything we are taught in science/biology class is based on several assumptions. None of our methods used to date items are accurate (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dat ing.asp)
My proof of younger earth: the Bible, which has been upheld by science and archaeology many times.
There's a misconception that the earth is very old, and also that other creatures that existed at the same time as dinosaurs were 'prehistoric' (less developed, bigger, hairier, whatever). Why couldn't a shih-tzu appear the same now as it did 6000 years ago? The fossil record proves this out: the fossil record shows dinosaurs alongside the same creatures that we have today, with no or very little change. http://www.trueorigin.org/geocolumn.asp http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v20/i2/fo ssils.asp
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/re2/chap ter8.asp - very interesting
http://www.answersingenesis.org/creation/v21/i2/po lly.asp
Do you think it looked like a crocodile?
What proof do we have that anything, including the earth, is 20,000 years old? Regarding wolves/dogs: read http://www.answersingenesis.org/Home/Area/feedback /negative_25june2001.asp
This is not proof of evolution. Ring species actually prove the Bible: Noah probably had one breed of each 'type' of animal, from which all other 'types' came (i.e. he had one pair of dogs, and from those, we get all the various types of dogs we have now). This is not evolution. Evolution would require that 'information' be added to DNA. Ring species shows a degredation of DNA, nothing is added.