Some on this board are very rude. In response they get a rabbit or a Hog pic, but I would not need to give these out if everyone would behave. I suggest people be nicer and impress me with your behavior and then maybe then you won't see anymore animals.
So what does "science" suggest? Aliens did it.
Aliens who had to come into existence by the very Darwinistic processes for which there is absolutely no evidence on earth.
The missing link is on Mars!
I would simply trust God. If He wants you to have Ebola, it will be for His glory.
My wife used to be Buddhist and she says that sometimes they will summon Devils on people as this happens a bit in Mongolia. I do not want this and I am not sure if God would allow the devil to bring havoc to the family so maybe I should send them stuff without a return address so the devil will not know how to find me. What say you?
Again witnessing to world religions is different than calling the savage wolves in the church to repentance so my approach would be entirely different. I would probably also send A God Loves you tract.
_______________
If Dinosaurs lived millions of years ago and before man ever entered the picture (according to Darwin) then why do we have drawings of them by man before man discovered dinosaur fossils?
The idea that :everyone needs a high school diploma , came from the worldwide Socialist movement.
Reading, Writing, and Arithmetic are achieved by 5th grade.
We would still have a manufacturing workforce, had we not stuffed American boys into a room full of girls during their apprenticeship years.
University began at 13 yrs old, for those who would pursue higher ed., remember? Ministers would begin to fill pulpits or hold meetings at 14.
Show me where the last 100 years took the U.S. society. Crime Rate? Bastards? Sodomy? Illiteracy ? Gambling? Debt?
"Education" isnt important, Work is.
Those who are designed for it, will seek it.
How many "educated" people abhor labor?
How many couldnt tune up their car?
How many have to call a plumber, if their toilet stops up?
Wisdom doesnt come from education.
Knowledge begins with the fear of God, which our public institutions have Systemically rejected.
How much of our divorce rate is caused by unhapiness created by fornication that occurs in H.S., and College? How much Atheism?
These be thy gods, O Israel...dance around the Golden Diploma...
Micro evolution is a misnomer. I am the son of a microbiologist with and earned Dr. If an organism will react the same way every time, to external stimuli, it isnt evolution, it is mutation. If it were, the original organism would cease to exist in the generation that evolved. The subsequent offspring would never again be able to reproduce a dna pattern that matched their parent's pre-evolution pattern.
This is over simplified, but to call it evolution is to admit ignorance of science.
Dont expect the educaters to help, either. I remember my Mother's doctoral dissertation on gene mutation in e coli. The questions asked by the committee that reviwed here presentation had my sister and I giggling. They had been asked and answered by Dr. Mom, in the dissertation. She was gracious, we laughed out loud.
Gonna say this....Creation occurred within six literal 24-hr. days.
God did not utilize any form of "evolution" in his creation of mankind.
The Earth is approximately (and the known Universe as well) 6,000 to 10,000years old.
"EVOLUTION"...and the empirically verifiable facts about it are indeed absolutely true.
"Evolution" does not prove that man came from monkeys...but, it does demonstrate, however, that pretty much all dogs came from a common ancestor in the canine family....
It doesn't demonstrate that reptiles miraculously evolved into birds....but it DOES demonstrate that the saltwater crocodile and the Florida Alligator have a common ancestor....
It makes the (absolutely problematic and horrifying) prospect that Bull-Sharks (who have now all but adapted perfectly to fresh water) are a truly "evolving" specie....and we have to account for them......and their ancestors were exclusively salt-water sharks, period.
There are certain facets of verifiable scientific fact, that help us to understand more fully the Scriptural teaching, and they are not to be ignored...but, don't read into the Scripture more than is there.
The Scriptures NEVER NEVER NEVER disagree with verifiable and provable "Science".....if they initially APPEAR to...then, either our understanding of Scripture, or our beliefs about the natural World are wrong, and need to be re-examined...
Phrases like: "The Bible is not a 'scientific' text"....are meaningless. superfluous and serve nothing but to obfuscate the real questions...That's a meaningless phrase. It is "historical" and it's also "scientific". It INSISTS that every statement it makes is to be taken as LITERALLY true....There's no such thing as "Theologically true, but Scientifically false" or, as some would have it on B.B...."Theologically meaningful, but not historically factual".
That's a load of meaningless crap.
For YEC's (like myself) we need to admit FULLY what facts of science serve to modify or alter our understanding of Biblical truth such that we more fully understand Scripture....But, is a "Young-Earth-Creationism" still a viable and intelligible option????.......Absolutetely it is............
But it ISN'T served by simply DENYING every scientific fact about the verifiable known Universe.
I am a Bible-Believing...Literalist...Young-Earth Creationist...who denies no KNOWN facts about "Science" that I am aware of...The Bible's account is to be taken literally...the days were 6 in toto...they were essentially 24 hrs. in duration, and EVERYTHING he stated that he created was done in that time-frame. The Bible squares PERFECTLY with "Science" neither is to be discarded. They are both (if properly understood) correct.
I also am intimately familiar with Hugh Ross's work...he also denies the Universality of the Noahcian flood...He's wrong. I like Ross, but he doesn't get it.
problem is that Evolutionary theory is "junk science", as there have little essential LITTLE evidence to support that on a true science basis, as there have been NO evidence for transistion species in fossil record, NO proof to origins of life apart from God, and NO biological evidence to support notion that God did NOT breate all things after own kind as in genesisi account!
To holfd to that, would be puttingscince ahead of revealed word of God, to negate real scientic evidene that suppts full creationism,and to viewgenesis in either a myte or allogorical way!
You are wrong, the Earth can be only 6000 years old, and the Universe 14-15 years old if you understand it properly.
When we say the Earth is 6000 years old. we are speaking of "solar years" the time it takes the Earth to travel around the Sun. In solar years the Earth and universe is only about 6000 years old, just as the Bible says.
But there are "light years". This is time (actually distance), but it is based upon the speed of light. Right now if we look out to the edges of the universe, it appears to be about 14-15 billions years old. At today's speed of light, this is how long it would take light to travel from the most distant galaxies to Earth. And this is why science argues the universe is 14-15 billion years old.
But if the speed of light was much faster just a few thousand years ago, then that light could have reached Earth within the 6000 solar years.
It is the same with radioactive dating methods. When they date rocks or fossils using this method, they get very old dates, such as 70 million years ago for dinosaurs. Of course, these methods are prone to much error and they have dated live chicken eggs to be thousands of years old.
Nevertheless, these dates are true based on the present speed of light. But if light was much faster in the recent past, then radioactive decay would likewise also have been many millions or billions of times faster just 5 or 6 thousand years ago.
So, the fossil of a dinosaur that lived 5500 solar years ago could give a radiometric age of 75 million years. Both are true, but you must understand that light was much faster in the early universe.
You must understand, when science speaks of the universe being 14-15 billion years old, they are speaking from the perspective of "light years", not solar years. The reason there is confusion is because science assumes that light speed is a constant, when that may not be so.
Unless the Bible is literally true, Genesis to Revelation, doing science is pointless. Science relies on the Christian worldview, and a true Revelation, for its own validity.
Atheist scientists who deny Christianity with their lips, nevertheless believe it in their hearts (Romans 1), and rely on it for their science.
Science does not oppose Christianity. Science, whether admitted or not, is undergirded by, dependent on, and senseless without Christianity, and the literal revelation of God to man.
True Story....that is actual "Science" and it glorifies God....Dinosaur soft-tissue will not last for "millions" of years...it will degrade...and yet, we can take some DNA samples from it...The Earth is YOUNG, and "Science" proves it...OVER and OVER and OVER....There is not, nor will there ever be a distortion between the truth of Scripture and the Revelations of "Science"...they ALWAYS agree.
Start doing some research about "Tachyons"....and how they (faster than light particles)....might be disproving some facets of Einstein's theories of relativity...The Science is there...and it will ALWAYS support Scripture. We just don't know how to look for it.
Eviloution !
It is nothing more than tired scientist who have grown tired of looking for the elusive missing link they will never find because it does not exist. So they all got together in there rocking chairs and decided together to simply state evilution as fact with out the facts. So they pesent what they claim are facts which in reality is nothing more than old dead bones they can't extract DNA from and claimed the missing link has been found. They simply have done this to save face instead of admitting they are defeated by there own lies. Not to mention simple math proves the world isn't old enough for evolution to exist. For instance if the world was 150,000,000 years old the world would be so populated there would not be enough room on the planet to be stood on.
The thing that strikes me today is that it is more apparent than ever macro-evolution is a religion requiring blind faith in opposition to all the science that proved macro-evolution wrong / invalid / impossible.
In short, they are guilty of what they accused Christians of blind faith in a religion. Only their is disproved. Christianity (creationism) was only disagreed with.
And if evolutionists and anti-God proponents were not so deeply entrenched in the media and the education system they would have been laughed right out of the public square.
I.C.R. was right!
Institute for Creation Research.
Reality is NOT limited to our scientific understanding of nature. Events are not always the results of naturalistic processes. The early founders of science knew this. They recognized science for what it was, a tool to study the creation of God, not a tool to make the creation god. In the real reality, there are supernatural forces at work— just like the Bible says. They are usually very subtle and not apparent at all, but they are there. Again I think that dowsing is occultic and does NOT come from God, even though I have known Christians who practiced it (but I can’t help but wonder why).
Technology is a fruit of one's world view, and I think world history will bear out that as a society is just and free, technology skyrockets.
Where a society becomes unjust, atheistic and/or pagan, technology takes a dive.
I've always been fascinated by the fact that it's possible to calculate exactly when the sun will rise and set for a thousand years from now. Or as far out in the future you want to go.
How could that be if evolution is true?
While a parent ultimately makes the decision, I think Christians should seriously consider removing their children from public schools. Education is not secular, it is a distinctly Christian act rooted in God.
There are literally thousands of examples of ancient art showing man lived with dinosaurs. There is art from Babylonia showing what we used to call a Brontosaurus, I forget the modern name. This is very likely the Behemoth described in Job with a tail like a cedar tree that drank up rivers. Job also described the Leviathan, that sounds like some tremendous sea creature. Most scholars believe Job the oldest book in the Bible because of his long lifespan (Job 42:16). It is probable Job lived well over 200 years and lived not long after the flood.
But all over the world there is ancient artwork and literature about huge dragons that once roamed the earth, many killed by man himself. There have been found the footprints of man and dinosaurs found preserved together in several different locations.
Google "Ica Stones" to see photos of thousands of ancient stones found in South America with detailed carvings of dinosaurs, even showing that some were tamed and ridden by man!
So, there is much evidence, even in the Bible that man lived with dinosaurs.
I don't need "sound reasoning". I have faith. I have faith that God did it as he said he would do it. I don't need science to back up God's Word. Evidently, you do.
I knew that topic would get some people's attention. But listen to where I am coming from. Since all people are born of a sinful nature, we are all inclined to sin. That sin could be lying, stealing, lust, homosexuallity, ect. If a homosexual tells you "I was born this way", why argue with them? It doesn't go against the Bible to agree with them on that point. Just because you are inclined or tempted to sin doesn't make it right. Jesus was tempted, but didn't sin. God won't give us more than we can handle. He wouldn't allow people to deal with homosexuallity if they couldn't handle it. They can still say, even if they are tempted to live such a lifestyle, no. At least with God's help. So don't argue with someone on homosexuallity where you can't even get to the gospel. Just show them that we all are sinners in need of a savior and that when God saves us, he will give us a new heart with new desires. We can trust God because he cannot lie. That may mean God either
1.) takes away the homosexual temptation completely or
2.) gives you the desire to do what God wants and resist homosexual temptations.
My point is that we are to love our neighbors, even if their particular sin problem is different from ours and rather than debate that intellectually, speak to their conscience. They know what is right even if they don't practice it.
A long time ago, when Obama was running for POTUS, a poll was run here on BB asking if we thought Obama would govern as a black man first and an American second.
The results were heavily in favor of him governing as a black man first.
I don't think any of us realized how much of a racist he is, but our opinion has provern correct.
We also did not realize, in our wildest dreams, how far down the line governing as an American would be. I'm not sure it's even in the top 5.
[re: Were the Pyramids built before or after the flood?]
Read again the account of the Flood. The earth forced up water from the deep. The heavens let loose waters from above. The very ground was breaking apart. The entire world was flooded. Every mountain was covered. If the highest mountain was covered, as was recorded, where and how does the water settle? It must cover the rest of the earth. It was not a local flood.
Furthermore the Ark was massive. Noah was commanded to take two of every kind of animal and seven of every clean animal on board with him. Why, if local? The could have just fled to another region. The flood was destructive. It destroyed everything and everyone outside of the Ark. Only Noah and his family were saved. Only 8 people, and that was all. Everyone else perished. The Bible records that the world perished. The world was destroyed. That is why there was a rainbow put in the sky afterward--with the promise that God would never again "destroy" the world with a flood.
When were the Pyramids built? Not before the Flood! It is an impossibility. Nothing survived the flood--nothing! Even the rivers, such as the Euphrates which we have named before the Flood are not the same rivers after the Flood. They were so named out of fond memories that they had from before the Flood.
Before the Flood the entire world had a climate that was much like a greenhouse. After the flood great mountain ranges had been pushed up. There were now volcanoes. There were four season: winter, summer, spring and fall. There was a north and south pole, both of which were cold.There were desert areas which had arid climates. There were climactic regions that were very humid. The whole world had changed from what it was before the flood. It indeed was a different world. Only 8 people had survived that flood. The Pyramids certainly didn't.
[Re: Were the Pyramids built before or after the flood?]
It is evident that they were built post-flood, for any Egyptian civilization (and the people that created it) would have been washed away.
That simple answer is not really all that simple under the hood, however, for it flies in the face of common dating schemes applied to the Scriptures such as Archbishop Usher's view that the earth was created in 4004 BC.
While I admire those who have worked elaborate dating schemes based on the genealogies in Genesis, those schemes do not seem to reflect the reality of our world in complete accuracy. That is not to take away one iota from the Scriptures -- heaven forbid! They are what they are and record what they record, but to date based on the published dates takes into account many an argument from silence and assumes that the Scriptures are the ONLY source of knowing anything, which we know is un-true. Once we see all things clearly, we will realize that the Scriptures are perfectly true but that they simply have not told us EVERY detail that we would need to know to actually date the earth based on their contents.
[re: Pastor Al Martin's sermon blaming women for causing lust in men's hearts]
The magnets Pastor Martin graphically discussed are real for teenager boys and men. Pretending they do not exist is hiding from the issue, as is preferring them not to be discussed because they may embarrass or educate. No males need education of this issue--it comes naturally. Calling any boy or man dirty or lustful because he looks and wonders does not solve the problem either.
Men should "man up" and tell their sisters, wives, mothers, ladies across the aisle, and ladies in the pew in front of them something like:
Excuse me, but you are so pretty that I cannot keep my mind on the sermon. Do you mind if I move?
No wonder, many of the old-line Baptist churches separate the congregation into women and girls on one side, and men and boys on the other side. Some even have separate doors.
Ladies, I am with the conservative reformed crowd on this one. Modest Apparel is an issue for the church. You can do something about this issue. The only thing we boys and men can do is not look at you, not pay any attention to you, and only speak with male companions in your company. Please cover up the magnets before you go to church.
It's past time people got their heads out of the sand regarding the disgusting behavior hidden by the abortion-loving leftists, who of course, profit from the industry.
People who have not served in the military, especially those that have not been in combat, have no clue what having an openly gay person coming on to you does to unit cohesion. It's bad enough if you have an effeminate acting male. But, "openly" usually means the ones that are not shy about coming on to total strangers.
And, this does not even address the issues of HIV and other STD's... Or other things that do not require intimate contact but merely sharing a foxhole...
People are always trying to re-write history. Christianity never had the issue of treating women badly. It was the social environment that Christianity changed over the years.
[after being shown Bible passages where women preached/prophesied]
Sure, women prophesied. Any women got that gift today? Didn't think so. Do you also believe every gift given to the early church is still given today? If so, where are they?
Paul said that when Christ ascended on high He lead captivity captive and gave gifts unto men. He gave some, apostles; some, prophets; some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers. So, He obviously gave some women the gift of prophecy. That gift isn't given anymore. Today the gift of pastor/teacher is still given. Who is it given to? Men. Thus, today the only ones who are supposed to preach in such an office is, you guessed it, men. Thank you.
This woman, and all women alive today, are not preachers.
I believe women in politics have done a great disservice to the sovereignty and resolve of a our great Republic. Many issues that face our nation, from without and within, need to be decided from a place of strength instead of weakness. Women are gifted from God with a lot of skills that are good in the home, but not in the Government. They tend to base their decisions from a security standpoint and believe that they have the ability to rehabilitate and nurse others to mental and social health. Men are more pragmatic and can make the tough calls that have to be made in matters of war, also in domestic and international policy. Maybe I should have said men used to be able to make the tough calls. Women in politics have been in position so long now that men are not the men they once were. They have to take into account how their decisions and policies will be viewed by the ladies. Being weak, pathetic, and a bunch of pansies being entrusted with positions of power are all the result of this great error.
It doesn't matter one bit to me since faith cannot be explained by science.
Science can only really explain what is observable in the natural world. It does not deal with the supernatural. Therefore whatever is natural, is theoretically, truth. But also, whatever is supernatural cannot be denied by science because it is outside the bounds of what science can measure. Faith is, therefore, above science.
Joseph Botwinick
While I believe in lifeforms "adapting" to their environment, that is not the same thing as evolution. Evolution is changing from one species into another entirely different species. Some Christians speak of "micro evolution", but that to me is just compromising the truth. Evolution is a LIE of the devil. Nothing evolves. It might adapt or bring a new species to life by two compatible but slightly different species mating. I've seen that before, where a cat mated with a rabbit. The offspring looked really strange, with attributes of both parents--the head and back legs of the rabbit and the body of the cat. Who would have thought that cats and rabbits were compatible?
Originally Posted by webdog
I think there needs to be clarification on what is termed evolution. Micro evolution is a scientific fact, macro evolution is the silly darwinism theory.
In the reading of the OP you will find that I did just that. I'll go one step further, when I was a junior high student, what you call Micro Evolution, was known by the term of Adaptation. The act of redefining Adaptation to lend some path down to slide into Darwin's theory is just a cheap trick of the Revisionist culture of today.
Do you live in a cave? The agenda is to make society accept homosexuality as normal and good.
Have you noticed that
...anyone who thinks homosexuality is immoral is called a "homophobe" and has "narrow views?"
...books and magazines extolling gay behavior are easy to buy or find at the library, whereas before, they weren't?
...there are programs in schools to teach children that homosexuality is okay (this has been going on for over 10 yrs. in my area) and that gay marriage is okay?
...the more extreme and bizarre fringe of the gay culture is now more acceptable or at least not as shocking to people?
....that many once conservative churches (not to mention the liberal ones) accept homosexual couples as members, and more churches are ordaining them as ministers?
It is a far left wing liberal lie that homosexuality is only about what goes on in the bedroom. The fact is it is about making their behavior acceptable, forcing states to accept gay marriage, filling the brains of our children across America with this deviant propaganda. It is am evil agenda with a whole lot more than just private bedroom activities. But then all liberals who call themselves moderates already know this but choose to ignore it.
[Does this mean I'm unpatriotic because I support health care reform?]
No, it means you don't understand the concept of liberty. (I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, here. If you support this measure knowing what it means, then it means you're a Marxist and theif.)
[The Ugandan law against homosexuality is an abomination and it demeans basic human rights.]
You're saying people have the right to be homosexuals?
The minute the twin towers went down the mosques and borders should have been closed, every foreign Arab deported, and every naturalized Arab either under surveilance or in a camp.
[re: Newlywed Game show has first gay couple]
There is only so much outrage one can voice before they have to realize that there is a bigger issue at play.
I don't care that this game show has decided to host a homosexual couple. I really don't. I'm no longer surprised, I'm no longer outraged...I just am surprised it hasn't happened yet.
Most Americans are opposed to homosexuality and even more to homosexual marriage. Yet the media doesn't care, they have pushed their agenda. Look at most of new shows out, homosexual couples are completely in the mix. The media elites don't care about your voice, your wallet, or your letters. They are deadset on pushing their culture.
For most Christians and citizens they realize this conundrum and just ignore the issue. At this point the media elites are running the issue into the ground. Yet they haven't really changed public opinion.
The Southern preachers who defended slavery misused the Bible. They themselves were slaves to the culture in the sense that they could not see or did not want to see the problems with slavery.
The Bible does not teach explicitly against slavery because the Bible is not about overthrowing social structures that are evil. It's about redeeming people to new life. Many preachers did advocate abolition of slavery and used the Bible for that, too. I think that one can find principles against slavery in the Bible. The main teaching in the Bible was for masters to be good and kind to the slaves and the slaves to obey masters. Slavery then was a different form from the South - and many were willing "slaves" in order to pay off debt.
My favorite woman pastor is the woman who has the moral integrity to admit that what she's doing is Unbiblical, repents, and steps down from the pastorate.
No baby murder, no exceptions.
Tell me, if a kidnapper took your wife, called you on the phone, and proceeded to tell you that in order to save your wife, you will have to kill your five year old daughter, would you do it? Of course not! Taking the life of the baby, then, to save the mother, is morally reprehensible.
Another thing: doctors tell us that in almost every case, with the exception of the very earliest in utero murders, the abortion is more traumatic and dangerous than carrying the baby to term.
Tell me, do we not trust God? Can we not leave the choice of who lives and who dies in His knowing hands? It is WRONG to take human life! How DARE a so called Christian support such a thing!
[re: Should abortion be available in certain circumstances - eg. the 9 year old Brazilian girl who was raped by her stepfather and became pregnant?]
Thou shalt not kill.
It does not say, "Thou shalt not kill, unless you are young."
It does not say, "Thou shalt not kill, unless you are raped."
It does not say, "Thou shalt not kill, unless it would be an inconvenience."
Thou shalt not kill. (period)
Rationalization is a powerful deception. I pray the Lord give us the strength to accept neither wrong and never rationalize such an evil concept as killing one innocent unborn child to just save its mother.
Apparently the down stream fish evolved into a new breed of fish. This demonstrates the weakness of which hypothesis?
So a fish "evolved" into a fish? That's not the claim of Darwinism (a term widely recognized in the scientific community as a valid description of evolution), and it's not the way that "evolve" is typically used. "Evolve" has a much more loaded meaning.
The Bible is fully consistent with fish "evolving" into other kinds of fish. However, Darwinism teaches that fish evolved into other kinds of animals, something completely unproved by science.
God understands all languages but He prefers Elizabethan English. Surely you know that.
The Bible: a book of hate that will be banned?
If the Sodomites are allowed to be married and their act of copulation is viewed as an alternative lifestyle how long will it take the Bible to be banned since it condemns these actions. Wouldn't it be classified as a book of hate?
Evolution was created to kill the God of the bible BECAUSE they don't want Him to be Judge!
Are there any socialist countries that have maintained robust free speech rights and freedom of religion? I can't think of any. It seems the trend of all socialist countries is to curb speech and/or religion to some extent. China is an extreme example, while what you see in England is the start of a slippery slope.
So I wonder, why would any thinking Christian ever support socialism? It is beyond me.
[Regarding Obama's plan to end the military's Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy.]
["How will this destroy the military?"]
Homosexuality destroys all that it invades whether the family, the state, or the church. This move is just one more step in an attempt to legitimize homosexual conduct under force of law and to make heterosexual people accept it. A society that does not openly understand and condemn homosexual conduct but, instead, gives aid and support to its advocates in an accomplice to the sinfulness of it. We will suffer because of it. If you've served in the military you will probably understand how this will adversely effect that institution. I don't think I can explain it appropriately in this forum.