Rome (CNN) - Mariam Yehya Ibrahim, the Sudanese Christian woman sentenced to death in Sudan because of her faith, arrived in Rome on Thursday, the Italian Foreign Ministry said.
Ibrahim "will remain in Italy for a short time and then will travel on to the United States," the ministry said.
Sudanese authorities had said Ibrahim was guilty of rejecting Islam in favor of Christianity, but her conviction for "apostasy" and adultery was overturned last month on appeal, following weeks of international controversy.
After her release, she and her husband, American Daniel Wani, were detained for two days, accused of falsifying travel documents after going to the airport in Sudan's capital, Khartoum. They were trying to fly to the United States with their baby daughter, who was born while Ibrahim was in prison, and toddler son.
Now their dream of starting a new life in the United States appears to be on the verge of becoming reality.
Not only that, but Ibrahim and her family met with Pope Francis at his private residence in Domus Santa Marta in Vatican City.
During the meeting Thursday, which lasted about half an hour, Ibrahim thanked the Pope for his and the Roman Catholic Church's support and prayers, the Vatican said.
He, in turn, thanked Ibrahim and her family for their "courageous witness and constancy of faith."
Francis also played with the children, 18-month-old Martin and 2-month-old Maya, and greeted the Italian diplomats involved in her journey to Italy.
With this gesture, the Vatican said, the Pope "desired to show his closeness, attention and prayer also to all those who suffer for their faith, in particular to Christians who are enduring persecution or limitations imposed upon their religious freedom."
Great MIRACLES have been discovered in the GOSPEL (Matthew & Mark & Luke & John),
it will change the World forever!
BIBLICAL EXCELLENT MIRACLES -3-
Most of the Jesus "miracles" are noted in John's gospel which after very rigorous studying has been judged to be historically nil. Details previously presented.
Another radical atheist type... Listening to liberal theologians. The miracles occurred. Have faith
Another radical religious type. There is no evidence anywhere of any miracles. None.
Belief without any evidence anywhere makes no logical sense.
Faith takes the place of logic and reason.
Faith, Hope and Love. The most important attributes for humans to have. If all you do is believe what your senses tell you, I feel sorry for you.
Answer a few questions for me if you would.
1. How many lies would you say you’ve told in your life?
2. Have you ever stolen anything regardless of its value?
3. Have you ever used God’s name as a curse word? (called blasphemy)
4.have you ever looked at a woman/man lustfully?(if so, Jesus said you have committed adultery with that person in your heart.)
If you’re like me, you are a self professed lying, stealing, blaspheming adulterer at heart or some form thereof. A holy God must punish wickedness, otherwise He wouldn’t be just. Given your confession, will you be guilty or innocent? If you’re like me and everyone else on this board, you are guilty. However, God provided a way for salvation through the blood of His innocent Son who took the punishment on the cross, that we might be declared innocent. Think of it like this. You’re in a court room. you’re guilty as you’ve professed. Someone walks in and pays your fine for you. Now the judge can legally dismiss your case and let you go. This is the gospel message. What you must do is repent (turn from your sins) and follow Jesus as Lord. This following is enabled by God when He gives you new desires and a heart that wants to please God instead of the flesh.
Why the same old rhetoric? What business is it of yours? How about you answer those questions for yourself and stop inundating the blog with them?
We can talk about cosmology, morality, etc. but the Gospel message needs to be known. We need to see our true standing before God to realize our need for a Savior. I have committed all of these sins.
You mean we can talk about things that have pertinence but you have chosen to talk about things based on fantasy! There is little truth to the bible and we have this thing called the internet, so we don't require you preaching it.
Your questions mean nothing to anyone outside of your ilk and given that you have pasted the same thing too many times over to count now, even it has no meaning.
Cosmology, morality, etc. give evidences for God but we need to know we need Jesus. These questions apply even if you deny God's existence. Surely you don't think God's existence depends on whether you believe in Him or not.
Complete malarkey! Unless you provide the evidence for this claim, your point is moot! So far no evidence has EVER been provided that substantiates the claims for your god. Stop using the God of the Gaps for the things you fail to comprehend!
Creation itself is one such evidence. If you find the term "creation" preloaded, you can use "the universe and material".
Also, i don't remember if you and I have discussed morality in the past, but do you believe morality is objective or subjective?
Your beliefs don't make you a better person than anyone else. Your behavior does. On the evidence from these pages, contemporary evangelicalism fails miserably.
Actually, on atheism, no one is any better or worse than anyone else. What foundation are you using to determine who is a "better" person?
And by the way, I didn't say I was a better person. I am sinner saved by Jesus.
There is no such thing as the phrase "on atheism". Why do you INSIST on saying it?
" Actually, on atheism,..."
The standard dodge. Go ahead, ignore the vile behavior exhibited on these pages by the saved. That too is standard.
"on atheism" might be a phrase from those "on stupidity".
"have you ever looked at a woman/man lustfully?"
If people DIDN'T feel that way, they never would have ended up marrying the person they did. It's ridiculous, THOUGHTLESS nonsense to make an issue of this. God supposedly invented s3x and so you are supposed to feel guilty about it?
Try to think things through next time so you don't keep spamming this IGNORANCE again.
1. Thinking someone is beautiful or attractive and listing after them are two different things.
2. Se-x between a married male and female is not a sin.
Tell us that no one should find their spouse s3xually attractive before they marry them.
Get into the world of REALITY. Do some THINKING for a change.
Thinking someone is attractive and lusting after them are two different things.
Wrong. The feelings on all on the same spectrum in different degrees.
Are you claiming that a couple should NOT be s3xually attracted to each other before getting married? YES or NO?
I never said finding one's future spouse attractive is a sin. The sin would be having se-xual thoughts about that person before marriage. Big difference.
tf: "The sin would be having se-xual thoughts about that person before marriage."
If you need to place restrictions on yourself and self-deprecate yourself for finding yourself in some way going beyond such restrictions, then by all means don't let me keep you from it. But please, cut with the sanctimonious BS that everyone else needs what you think you need.
You are totally delusional if you think that EVERYONE hasn't thought about what it would be like to have s3x with the person they ended up marrying.
You aren't in REALITY at all. You are living in a world of FANTASY.
There is NO FIXED line between attraction and lust.
If God says it's wrong, then it's wrong for you and me and all on this blog. We can either abide in line with this or choose to reject God and live in rebellion.
So someone stands at the altar. They say "I do" and then go "Wow! I JUST REALIZED that I would actually like to have s3x with my new spouse".
lol. lol. lol. lol. lol. lol. lol. lol. lol. lol. lol. lol. lol. lol. lol. lol.
"There is NO FIXED line between attraction and lust."
Are you honestly saying you don't know the difference between seeing someone and thinking they are attractive and seeing someone and having mental se-xual images with that person?!?!
Obviously, you have NO CLUE what the word "spectrum" means.
Please use a dictionary so you won't continue to ask such foolish questions.
tf: "f God says it's wrong, then it's wrong for you and me and all on this blog."
Maybe you missed my use of the word sanctimonious, tf. Look that one up and then re-read what you just wrote above. Your opinion and the next believer's opinion are quite often quite different. And that's really good evidence that they are most likely all nothing more than opinions. And that's a problem! (Ergo our secular Consti.tution.)
You've got to be joking! Is there a "fixed line" between murder and hate if they are on the same spectrum?!?!
Why do you think you are FOOLING anyone to switch to a completely different topic that was not mentioned and has nothing to do with marriage?
Does God COMMAND that we stand at the altar and say "I do" and then we can go "Wow! I JUST REALIZED that I would actually like to have s3x with my new spouse"?
YES or NO?
(tf likening hate and murder to attraction and lust; lol – oh, but I forgot, I think I've heard that in tf's world, every time someone unmarried person imagines someone other than their spouse naked, tf's God kills a bunch of kittens somewhere....) (eyeroll)
If you think someone is attractive, what kind of attraction exactly do they have?
Hey, Topher. Good to hear from you this morning.
Or I should say, "this afternoon"!
Keep preaching the Gospel!
God wants to save me from himself. What a psycho.
This is all predicated on your belief that there is a god and that it has these rules. Neither is proven. I doubt that anyone could answer no to all of those because as children we are still understanding our world and developing. Also not all lies are equal – lies so as not to offend someone or lies about trivia are not the same as lies intended to defraud someone.
The Jesus and lust passage after rigorous historic testing by a number of NT scholars is historically nil. e.g. Matt 5: 27-28 is a single attestation found nowhere else in the scriptures. http://www.faithfutures.org/JDB/jdb396.html.
Testing of what ? All liberal skeptics that refuse to encounter the truth of the gospel.
Religious people claiming truth but never prove it.
You claim it is truth...proof is required...you have none so the best you can claim is that you BELIEVE it to be the truth, not that it is.
Cannot help someone that does not understand that not all truth can be scientifically proven. Atheism, a immature and selfish endeavor.
Since this thread got sidetracked SO early on, allow me to join those who are celebrating this woman's release. She is now free. Free. That means she can meet with whoever she damn well pleases to give thanks. I applaud her strength and resolve.
It's really pathetic to see so many Christians that are so LACKING HONESTY and INTEGRITY that they would refuse to answer simple yes-or-no questions or even care enough about TRUTH to admit their own quotes were made.
If there is a God, it's a real damning testimonial about the kind of people he wants.
Except that Topher is not a really real Christian but a Baptist, nice to use his own tactic against him, therefore lying and being evasive is all part of his new covenant. If anyone deserves to rot in his mythical hell it is Topher who has admitted to breaking all of the ten commandments.
Meanwhile we have believerfred that has his oh so supernatural god that can change the natural laws of the universe at whim; why because it says so in a 2000 year old book of myths, so there take that. God did it, all religions mantra.
The closest we get to a rational Christian person on this blog is Dala who I think is a fraud in that he slithers and slides about his beliefs, just read his posts condemning the anti theists but is oh so reluctant to do the same with the Christian fanatics/nutters, that make such ridiculous statements. Yet he calls himself a peer reviewed scientist, strange that.
I admire all three of them. Topher interprets the bible literally and will not back down. Fred interprets the bible a little less literally and can discuss the Cosmo stuff. Dala has science background which allows him to communicate with all our science atheist on here.
Topher is a bit over the top in his insistence about the flood, tower of babel, new covenant, etc, but is probably relatively harmless, except to his own children. You are a reasonable moderate, where do you stand on the outriders of Christianity that do have dangerous/fanatical beliefs/practices? Where is the outrage from the mainstream, the silence is deafening?
There really aren't many dangerous Christians. Every now and then someone will claim the Christian God told them to murder, but it is obvious they are demon possessed, just insane, or both. Other than those extreme cases Christians are peaceful loving folks.
Robert – just how many concrete examples would it take to convince you otherwise ?
Do you not think that some evangelical huckster that cheats someone out of their resources, say a Harold Camping, Jim Baker, David Koresh, too many more to list are not dangerous? My opinion is that why main stream religions remain silent is that if they raise a fuss many people would say is that not exactly what you have been doing for hundreds of years, running a scam based on belief?
At least limit the examples to recent centuries.
Koresh was a murderer.
I agree that there are people who use religion to steal peoples money. They have their reward. Jesus spoke woe unto those is his day who devoured widows houses.
My opinion is that religious leaders who lead extrav.a.gant lifestyles at the expense of the church are in error. On the other hand a church should provide for the needs of their pastor.
Robert, I can limit the examples to this decade. The picture it paints of contemporary evangelicalism is not pretty. At the same time, those examples do not represent mainstream Christians.
Some of the koranic passages that drive Muslims to the horror and terror that is Islam:-->
o "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)
"Make war on them until idolatry shall cease and God's religion shall reign supreme." (Surah 8:36-)
"...make war on the leaders of unbelief...Make war on them: God will chastise them at your hands and humble them. He will grant you victory over them..." (Surah 9:12-)
"Fight against such as those to whom the Scriptures were given [Jews and Christians]...until they pay tribute out of hand and are utterly subdued." (Surah 9:29-)
"It is He who has sent forth His apostle with guidance and the true Faith [Islam] to make it triumphant over all religions, however much the idolaters [non-Muslims] may dislike it." (Surah 9:31-)
"If you do not fight, He will punish you sternly, and replace you by other men." (Surah 9:37-)
"Prophet make war on the unbelievers and the hypocrites and deal rigorously with them. Hell shall be their home." (Surah 9:73)
"Believers, make war on the infidels who dwell around you. Deal firmly with them." (Surah 9:121-)
"Say: 'Praise be to God who has never begotten a son; who has no partner in His Kingdom..." (Surah 17:111)
"'How shall I bear a child,' she [Mary] answered, 'when I am a virgin...?' 'Such is the will of the Lord,' he replied. 'That is no difficult thing for Him...God forbid that He [God[ Himself should beget a son!...Those who say: 'The Lord of Mercy has begotten a son,' preach a monstrous falsehood..." (Surah 19:12-, 29-, 88)
"Fight for the cause of God with the devotion due to Him...He has given you the name of Muslims..." (Surah 22:78-)
"Blessed are the believers...who restrain their carnal desires (except with their wives and slave-girls, for these are lawful to them)...These are the heirs of Paradise..." (Surah 23:1-5-)
"Muhammad is God's apostle. Those who follow him are ruthless to the unbelievers but merciful to one another." (Surah 48:29)
"Shall the reward of goodness be anything but good?...Dark-eyed virgins sheltered in their tents...They shall recline on green cushions and fine carpets...Blessed be the name of your Lord..." (Surah 55:52-66
[Deut. 13:6-10] “worship other gods’ . . . Stone the guilty ones to death
[Deut. 21:18-21] “stubborn and rebellious son . . . stone him to death.”
[Deut. 22:20] “man is found lying with a married woman, . . .then both of them shall die”
[Deut. 22:23-24] “virgin engaged . . . another man . . .and lies with her . . stone them to death”
[Exodus 21:15] “Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death”
[Exodus 21:16] “He who kidnaps a man . . . put to death.”
[Exodus 21:17] "Anyone who says cruel things to his father or mother must be put to death.”
[Exodus 21:29] “ox . . . kills a man or a woman, . . . its owner also shall be put to death.”
[Exodus 22:18] "Do not let a woman who does evil magic stay alive. Put her to death.”
[Exodus 31:15-17] “Whoever does any work on the Sabbath day shall be put to death”
[Lev. 20:9] “If there is anyone who curses his father or his mother, he shall surely be put to death”
[Lev. 20:10] “man who commits adultery with another man's wife . . they shall surely be put to death.”
[Lev. 20:11] “man who lies with his father's wife . . both of them shall surely be put to death.”
[Lev. 20:12] “If a man lies with his daughter-in-law, both of them shall surely be put to death”
[Lev. 20:14] “man who marries a woman and her mother . . . they shall be burned with fire”
[Lev. 20:27] “man or woman who is a medium or a fortune-teller . . . You must stone them to death"
[Lev. 21:9] “daughter of any priest . . harlotry . . she shall be burned with fire.”
[Lev. 24:11-14] “anyone who blasphemes the name of the Lord . . .entire assembly must stone him.”
[Lev. 24:17] “If anyone takes the life of a human being, he must be put to death”
From the Koran? Nope from the Bible when God set up ALL the rules he wanted mankind to live by.
And all old covenant.
Yes, and all from the SAME God in the New Testament. Those were HIS laws until Jesus got him to CHANGE his mind.
1. Jesus IS God.
2. God didn't change His mind on these laws. It was the plan all along. And beside that, it was MAN who didn't keep the covenant.
Are the 10 commandments also discarded?
"God didn't change His mind on these laws."
So we should go around KILLING people for the LONG LIST of reasons that God DEMANDED, right?
In Santa We Trust
"Are the 10 commandments also discarded?"
No. They are repeated under the new covenant.
"So we should go around KILLING people for the LONG LIST of reasons that God DEMANDED, right?"
Nope. We're under a new covenant.
Of course, after all when it's time for the farmer to plant as opposed when it's time for the farmer to reap the farmer has to automatically become a different person. That is the only way a farmer can work througout the seasons is to have multiple personalities, just like with God; he must automatically become a different person because there is no possible way for God to be the same person yesterday, today, and forever:
1 To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:
2 A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted;
3 A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up;
4 A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance;
5 A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;
6 A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away;
7 A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak;
8 A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.
Ecclesiastes 3:1-8 KJV
Putting the kibosh on all religion including the NT, OT and the koran in less than ten seconds: Priceless !!!
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Abraham i.e. the foundations of Judaism, Christianity and Islam are non-existent.
• As far as one knows or can tell, there was no Moses i.e. the pillars of Judaism, Christianity and Islam have no strength of purpose.
• There was no Gabriel i.e. Islam fails as a religion. Christianity partially fails.
• There was no Easter i.e. Christianity completely fails as a religion.
• There was no Moroni i.e. Mormonism is nothing more than a business cult.
• Sacred/revered cows, monkey gods, castes, reincarnations and therefore Hinduism fails as a religion.
• Fat Buddhas here, skinny Buddhas there, reincarnated/reborn Buddhas everywhere makes for a no on Buddhism.
Added details available upon written request.
A quick search will put the kibosh on any other groups calling themselves a religion.
"The origins of Taoism are unclear. Traditionally, Lao-tzu who lived in the sixth century is regarded as its founder. Its early philosophic foundations and its later beliefs and rituals are two completely different ways of life. Today (1982) Taoism claims 31,286,000 followers.
Legend says that Lao-tzu was immaculately conceived by a shooting star; carried in his mother's womb for eighty-two years; and born a full grown wise old man. "
Some of the koranic passages that drive Muslims to the horror and terror that is Islam:
http://www.muslimaccess.com/quraan/arabic/005.asp et al
o "Believers, take neither Jews nor Christians for your friends." (Surah 5:51)
"Believers, when you encounter the infidels on the march, do not turn your backs to them in flight. If anyone on that day turns his back to them, except it be for tactical reasons...he shall incur the wrath of God and Hell shall be his home..." (Surah 8:12-)
According to Topher, the Grand Canyon was created when the great floods water receded, really. And he has yet to address the fact that a world wide flood once receded would leave all lakes filled with salt water, not fresh, that mammals could not survive on and would have also killed off most of the plant life. The fact that Topher believes actually believes this happened is, well, just crazy.
Unfortunately this blog does not offer us the option to 'IGNORE' people.
You could write a book about just the nonsense in the Noah's ark fantasy. There still isn't one good excuse about where the water came from or went to and the idea that they had a year's supply of fresh meat for all the carnivores is laugh-out-loud funny.
Joey and someone called fortheloveofellipsis twisted my words on this subject, quoted here by Joey ...
"2. You can pass out anything you want on Halloween as far as I'm concerned. However, if you would not want your children to receive the same stuff about another religion then I would think you are a hypocrite."
I NEVER claimed someone couldn't give my son a tract for another religion. What was said, however, in a completely separate conversation (thus it is being taken out of context) was about whether it is wise to let someone who doesn't know a subject well, such as in a class that discusses several religions, teach that subject. And thus I said I don't want a public school teacher teaching my son Chrisitanity. That's my job and my pastor's job, not the government's.
I wasn't trying to claim that you said that I was simply making an observation that if you did think that you would be a hypocrite.
Which is why I included the word "if" in my post.
joey... Topher is lying again. He has stated that he does not want anyone that does not believe the bible is 100% the inerrant word of god anywhere teaching his children.
Then my apologies. But why should you even bring it up?
Because I highly doubt you would let your kid read it if you saw it happen. For example what would you do if you kid came home one day with a copy of the Koran and told you someone gave it to me and now he wants to be a Muslim?
Then we would discuss it. He can read the tract all he wants.
"whether it is wise to let someone who doesn't know a subject well, such as in a class that discusses several religions, teach that subject. And thus I said I don't want a public school teacher teaching my son Chrisitanity."
A FAULTY assumption on your part. Someone who has made a study of religion and teaches them may know far more than you do about Christianity.
I see a catch 22 in the reasoning here.
If you know christianity well enough to teach it, there is no way you could actually believe in it.
So the only ones qualified to teach christianity are non-christians.
You see the duplicity, it is not just if the teacher is educated in the mainstream of Christianity and other religions but must believe in the bible being the 100% the inerrant word of god. How many outside a rather limited cult do not see the bible as personal opinion, beliefs and prejudices of the human authors. Good grief Topher get a grip on reality.
For a change you maybe quite right, it is not up to the school system to teach creationism/religion is it? It is up to you and your fellow nutters, including your pastor, good on you? You are hilarious.
You know, back to the actual story about this woman ... I'm glad she's safe. I may not share her beliefs, but I can't help but admire her for her guts.
And it would have been so sad if she had been killed over something so pointless as religion.
"Chocolate ice cream is the only ice cream! Death to those who like vanilla!"
Its even sadder that 1.5 billion Muslims believe in this idiocy. A peaceful solution has been previously presented.
Got it grace, belief in jesus christ and him alone makes you a good baptist Christian. Begs the question of why you believe in all the old testament nonsense is it not redundant? I think Bobby Henderson said it best in the Gospel of the FSM, p. 100,
"Born Agains are the most dogmatic of all, because it is the dogma itself that forms their belief system. The Born Again believes that everybody needs to be told what to do...." And may I add told what to believe to be a really real acceptable Christian like Topher. "This group (include Baptists) has a powerful system of beliefs, and they will tell you about it whenever they get a chance." Thus Topher's constant preaching on this blog about who is a real Christian, of course Topher's arrogance sets the standard.
Topher's Southern Baptist arrogance was perfectly on display when he shrieked about not letting anyone teach his kid about their religion while bragging about forcing Southern Baptist tracts into the hands of trick-or-treaters at his door. In other words, it's all right for HIM to proselytize to others' kids, but wrong for others to proselytize to HIS kids. Of course, double standards are par for the course for Baptists...
Watching people argue against evolution is perplexing. They attack the evidence and the scientists with unscientific arguments.
It's like a lay person arguing with a doctor, telling him that your strep throat isn't caused by a bacteria, it is caused by a black bile Humor. When the doctor assures you that it is a bacteria, you show the doctor quotes from research doctors that question the results from some specific medical experiments. The person says, 'see, there is controversy regarding the Germ Theory of infectious disease'. The doctor replies, 'no, those quotes only pertain to the specific ways the germ agent is operating, not WHETHER there is a germ operating, every doctor is certain of the Germ Theory'. The person provides more quotes from articles where one researcher disagrees with another. The doctor pleads with the person to take the antibiotic. The person refuses, sticking with leeches to suck out the bile, confident in their knowledge that the Germ Theory is rubbish.
Lay people don't have to take the word of an expert in the field. When virtually every expert in the field agrees that the Theory is a fact, arguing that because the details aren't all agreed on the theory is false is silly and requires enormous hubris.
Evolution is both a phenomenon and a theory, just like gravity. Scientists continue to argue about the details on how gravity works. Not knowing the details, arguing about them in the theory doesn't mean the phenomenon of gravity be considered questionable. Evolution is the same. Some would argue, but we can directly feel gravity, not evolution. That is true but doesn't bear on the veracity of the phenomenon. We can't see or feel X-Rays, but we know they exist. The details of evolution are being discovered every day, but the overall phenomenon is a fact.
She's free, she's free!
That's the power of prayer! You pray for something that's likely to happen anyway and when it does you claim god. If it doesn't happen, you fall back on the laundry list of plati.tudes like "well god's answer isn't always yes" and "god has his plan" and oh so many more.
It's foolproof ...
“I concluded that this great group had been suddenly developed at the commencement of the tertiary series This was a sore trouble to me, adding as I thought one more instance of the abrupt appearance of a great group of species. ”
“The case most frequently insisted on by paleontologists of the apparently sudden appearance of a whole group of species, is that of the teleostean fishes, low down in the Chalk period.”
“On the sudden appearance of groups of Allied Species in the lowest known fossilferous strata: There is another and allied difficulty, which is much graver. I allude to the manner in which numbers of species of the same group suddenly appear in the lowest known fossiliferous rocks.”
“Consequently, if my theory be true, it is indisputable that before the lowest Silurian stratum was deposited, long periods elapsed, as long as, or probably far longer than, the whole interval from the Silurian age to the present day; and that during these vast, yet quite unknown, periods of time, the world swarmed with living creatures. To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
“The case at present must remain inexplicable; and may be truly urged as a valid argument against the views here entertained.”
“The several difficulties here discussed, namely our not finding in the successive formations infinitely numerous transitional links between the many species which now exist or have existed; the sudden manner in which whole groups of species appear in our European formations; the almost entire absence, as at present known, of fossiliferous formations beneath the Silurian strata, are all undoubtedly of the gravest nature.” – Charles Darwin
"To the question why we do not find records of these vast primordial periods, I can give no satisfactory answer.”
– and there still is no satisfactory answer and the lemmings continue to scurry down the rabbit hole in search of more 'proof'.
– evolution is total, utter nonsense.
scot....Darwin died in 1882; do you really believe that the study of evolution died with him? Catch up scot or preferably quit displaying your ignorance, thank you.
don't defend it, obfuscate, engage in personal attacks, stereotype. this is the atheist/deist/evolutionist modus operandi.
Not that you are seeking to be educated, but try looking up paleontology. It would be an epiphany for you, just kidding, you are too far gone to learn anything not written in the book of silly.
Darwin is still very much relevant today in spite of your denial. The fact of the matter is that you cannot defend the myth in light of the real scientific knowledge we have today. Darwinism/Evolution is merely extant to materialism and naturalism; it started out as a theory and remains a theory to this day, embellished of course. It never has been a hard science. The notion that matter randomly self-constructed to form living organisms is meant for delusional God-deniers such as yourself.
Talk about obfuscate and denial. Do you think that the best way to treat a tumor is blood letting and leaches, it was in the 18th century? Science advances, evolves if you will, quoting material over 130 years ago is hardly pertinent in todays would. It is akin to stating that the Wright brothers designed the space shuttle. Really look up paleontology and learn something.
Do you ride a horse to work or has transport progressed in the last 150 years. Same with evolution – since Darwin's time, fossil record, DNA, and more have validated evolution. Got a better theory and evidence to support it? Thought not.
Ausphor, the treatment of tumors has ZILCH to do with evolution. Again, evolution is NOT a hard science, it is a philosophical argumentum pseudo science extant to materialism and naturalism. It's not testable, repeatable, etc... it's bunk. Evolution is complete and utter nonsense meant for consumption by delusional God-deniers.
I will take that as a "no" You are not willing to look up paleontology and learn what has been accomplished in that field in the last 150 years. You 2000 year old book of silly got it all right, lordy, lordy.
University of East Anglia. "Four-billion-year-old chemistry in cells today." ScienceDaily, 24 July 2014. <www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2014/07/140724094021.htm
scot: evolution along with many other fields of science are called "hard sciences" because we have proof of how things work.
a "soft science" namely deals with the brain, such as psychology. we understand more about the universe than we do about the inner workings of the human mind.
ok here is a challenge scot, explain emotions.
1) where do emotions come from?
2) why would an all powerful being need emotions?
3) where did god experience emotions to even be able to give us emotions?
4) why do you think your dog "loves" you?
5) who taught god how to use anger correctly? ever seen a three year old have a tempertantrum; imagine that child with super powers.
6) why do you say "i love you with all my heart?"
I guarantee you that Scott wouldn't go to a doctor that still practiced medicine like they did in 1882. He knows that science has advanced and thanks to the scientific advances, he or his family would be saved by modern medical science.
The evolution denial thing is just his pride. He doesn't want to admit he is wrong. He doesn't want to admit he has been a fool.
the advancements of medical science owe absolutely nothing to your myth of evolution.
oh what an astoundingly ignorant statement! LOLOLOL
Medicine is an applied science.
It is based upon a number of basic sciences, and one of those basic sciences is evolution.
The most obvious example is bacterial antibiotic resistance. Antibiotics place a selective pressure on a bacterial population, often resulting in the emergence of resistant strains. Understanding this “evolutionary arms race” between bacteria and antibiotics allows us to develop strategies for minimizing resistance.
The American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) and the Howard Hughes Medical Insti.tute (HHMI) published a joint report, ti.tled Scientific Foundations for Future Physicians in which they call for increased emphasis on evolution as one of the basic sciences students learn before they come to medical school.
There is a journal of evolution in medicine, available online as the Evolution and Medicine Review (evmedreview.com)
it's wonderful that you brought up the immune system here since there are a few facts i'm not sure you are aware of. the first one being that the immune systems of animals are much stronger than humans. the second fact is that immune depressing drugs and therapy are very necessary during medical treatments in many and varied cases. What happened in your myth of evolution when these drugs and therapies were not available? the mythmakers have absolutely no answer to this. Evolution is complete and utter nonsense meant for the consumption of God-denying modernists.
"What happened in your myth of evolution when these drugs and therapies were not available? "
Those suffering illnesses that today would be treated with immuno-suppressants died, Scot.
On average, a child born in the United States in 1900 would live to age 47. By 1965, life expectancy in the United States had increased to about 70 years. Infants born in the United States today can expect to live to age 80.
Over the past century, life expectancy has been increasing primarily because of the development of effective medicines.
By the 1960, deaths from infectious disease were no longer common. These illnesses were replaced by diabetes, heart disease, stroke, mental illness, and cancer as the greatest medical threats to life and well-being. Between 1950 and 1980, new medicines for all these diseases were introduced. Death rates declined and life expectancy grew.
in addition to what we know about immunology in animals and humans, what you described concerning bacteria is precisely the definition of adaptation and not evolution, the gene already exists! this is why you have take the flu virus for example the various types, the virus has not evolved to something else, it has adapted. again, evolution is complete and utter nonsense.
exactly, they did not evolve, they died. evolution is complete and utter nonsense. i have to go do some work now, catch ya later.
"They didn't evolve – they died"
That would be because evolution doesn't happen in a single lifetime!
If you are stricken with a disease, you're not going to spontaneously evolve a mechanism to combat it.
You sound like Behe in the Dover trials.
He was presented with 58 peer reviewed articles, nine books, and several textbook chapters on the evolutionary development of the immune system; he insisted they were "not good enough."
Bacterial speciation occurs all the time, including in laboratories where it is metiulously docu/mented.
In the taxonomic sense, "bacteria" are a domain which is then subdivided into various kingdoms, phyla, classes, orders, families, genuses, and then, finally, species.
scot: "what you described concerning bacteria is precisely the definition of adaptation and not evolution"
EXACTLY! now you are half way there..........missed the goal post however.
adaptation is the process of how things change. a single adaptation in one fish that allows to to move closer to shore. saves that fish to pass that genetic adaptation on to the next generation. over time as little adaptations allow fish to move further from the water you get "mudkips", as time progresses you get amphibians, then lizards, mammals etc etc etc.
the whole thing is called "evolution" however the process is called adaptation.
"in addition to what we know about immunology in animals and humans, what you described concerning bacteria is precisely the definition of adaptation and not evolution, the gene already exists! this is why you have take the flu virus for example the various types, the virus has not evolved to something else, it has adapted. again, evolution is complete and utter nonsense"
Evolution the fact is defined as a change in allele frequency in a population over time. Evolution the the scientific theory uses this fact and empirical physical evidence from every relevant scientific discipline to explain extant and extinct biodiversity. The change in allele frequency may arise by any number of mechanisms including the addition of a novel allele via mutation. Microbes may acquire novel genes via some form of lateral transfer, but frequently, the novelty is the result of a mutation. With respect to antibiotic resistance, this novelty can be induced and we can trace the novelty to particular mutations arising absent gene transfer; i.e. the genes which give rise the resistance were not present prior to the mutation, they are new sequences and not simply the activation of dormant genes.
With respect to influenza A, the RNA polymerase which replicates the viral genome has a known error rate of ~ 1/10,000 base pairs, which is just under the total bp count for the viral genome. This translates into the vast majority of the viral progeny being mutants. Many of these mutants are likely non-viable; however, many will have subtle changes to their functional components, including the HA gene which allows the virus to bind host cells, and NA gene which allows the virus to escape from host cells. Mutations to these genes also represent a primary source for immune evasion (because they are the dominant proteins exposed on the viral surface) and why we need a new flu shot every year (i.e. because the dominant circulating strains are different from what our immune system has seen before). This, in a nut shell, is evolution: 1) mutation produces variation in a population; and 2) selection (via host immunity) filters for those strains which are most fit (i.e. best suited to reproduce in a given environment). It's precisely because these genetic alterations did not exist before that we are susceptible to these new strains. Furthermore, it's our understanding of how this evolution operates from the molecular to the epidemiological scale that allows us to reasonably predict (although certainly not without a fair degree of error) which strains are most likely to be circulating in a given flu season and develop the appropriate vaccine.
Evolution, contrary to scot's limited understanding, is not restricted to only those changes which cross some higher level of taxonomy. Furthermore, neither scot nor any other ID/creationist can point to some mechanism which precludes the acc-umlation of novelty beyond some particular taxonomic classification.
If you read the rest of the chapter, he gives "satisfactory answers".
"In order to get a perfect gradation between two forms in the upper and lower parts of the same formation, the deposit must have gone on continuously acc.umulating during a long period, sufficient for the slow process of modification; hence the deposit must be a very thick one; and the species, undergoing change must have lived in the same district throughout the whole time. But we have seen that a thick formation, fossiliferous throughout its entire thickness, can acc.umulate only during a period of subsidence; and to keep the depth approximately the same, which is necessary that the same marine species may live on the same space, the supply of sediment must nearly counterbalance the amount of subsidence. But this same movement of subsidence will tend to submerge the area whence the sediment is derived, and thus diminish the supply, whilst the downward movement continues. In fact, this nearly exact balancing between the supply of sediment and the amount of subsidence is probably a rare contingency"
Why is quote mining and taking statements out of context OK for a Creationist to do with Origin, but not OK for an atheist to do with the Bible?
with all due respect, you don't make the rules. i'll use the quotes of your fellow delusionists when and as much as i like. i will use any and all material available to debunk your myth. dishonest atheists/deists/evolutionists always want to tie the hands of anyone opposed to their myth but it won't happen here. in short, you don't own this microphone and thus you have no say in it.
I like how you completely ignored the passage from teh same chapter of Origin that explains how geological strata can and do form without a constant, linear appearance of fossils.
But go ahead and believe that cut and paste jobs from creationist websites debunk evolution.
So have you managed to falsify any of the 5 laws that comprise the theory of evolution yet?
You'd be the first person in over 150 years to do so.
"... you don't own this microphone and thus you have no say in it."
But lies and dishonest posts are self-evident and do nothing to further your cause and much to discredit you.
already debunked. for one thing variation or adaption is not the same as evolution as has been proven in what we know about microbiology today. those genes for adaptation already exist within the genus. when the species needs to adapt the means to do so pre-existed. no big mystery. Again, evolution is complete and utter nonsense.
"Variation" isn't one of Darwin's 5 laws.
"But lies and dishonest posts are self-evident". once again Santa, you don't make the rules and you are not the judge of these things. you won't intimidate me by smears and stereotyping. atheists/deists/evolutionists always want to cut off criticism or debate about their senseless myth just as they continue to do so in academia. but you don't own the microphone here so please do continue to attack me and not defend your delusional myth, it only serves to make you look silly.
"Darwin anticipated that microevolution would be a process of continuous and gradual change. The term macroevolution, by contrast, refers to the origin of new species and divisions of the taxonomic hierarchy above the species level, and also to the origin of complex adaptations, such as the vertebrate eye. Macroevolution posed a problem to Darwin because his principle of descent with modification predicts gradual transitions between small-scale adaptive changes in populations and these larger-scale phenomena, yet there is little evidence for such transitions in nature. Instead, the natural world is often characterized by gaps, or discontinuities. One type of gap relates to the existence of 'organs of extreme perfection', such as the eye, or morphological innovations, such as wings, both of which are found fully formed in present-day organisms without leaving evidence of how they evolved."– Reznick, David N., Robert E. Ricklefs. 12 February 2009. Darwin's bridge between microevolution and macroevolution. Nature, Vol. 457, pp. 837-842.
– so yes adaptation or variation does exist although delusional evolutionists prefer to call it 'microevolution'. whatever... microevolution is a fact, macroevolution is not.
Evolutionary biologists don't use the terms "micro" and "macro" evolution.
Those are obfuscatory terms made up by Creationists when they realized they couldn't deny evolution as an entirety anymore.
It is akin to calling a raindrop "micro moisture" and an ocean "macro moisture".
These are matter of degree, not principle.
There are 5 specific laws that comprise the theory of evolution and none of them have been falsified in over 150 years. Quite the opposite, in fact.
Do you need me to once again post "Doc Vestibule's Primer in Evolutionary Biology" ?
The evolutionary development of the eye is observable even today becuase its various stages are still there in extant species with each stage fulfilling the organism's needs in their respective environmental niches.
Some very simple animals have nothing more than light sensitive spots that enable them to differentiate light and dark.
If a patch of such spots developed even the slightest of pits, it would cast a shadow and thereby show the direction of light. If the pit got deeper and started to close,then light would form a blurred image. Mucous secreted by the cells would bend the light and focus it. If this mucous hardened, it would form a lens and transmit a better image.
All these different fully functional stages at different levels of complexity are found in living animals today.
I didn't claim to make the rules. If you put your invalid conclusions into a public forum. I am a judge of these things. I'm not trying to intimidate you – just pointing out that partial quotes out of context are obvious and do not help your cause. You continually dodge the fact that your quotes are out of context, that you jump to invalid conclusions, and that the scientific community accept, no embrace, evolution as fact. You need to prove that evolution is a senseless myth (which is ironic given that you believe in a myth with no evidence except for ancient writings). You never answered on the 5 pillars of evolution and you never provide evidence for creationism. It's not me that looks silly.
China dig, lowest known fossil strata ever, Precambrian strata, virtually no progenitors to the plethora of phyla existent in the Cambrian. Evolutionists are helpless to explain this. Evolution is complete utter nonsense.
Evolution is a fact. Not understanding all mechanisms does not change that. Do you have any evidence for creationism?
scot: then the answer as to why there isn't any progenitor in the pre-cambian strata is simple.
aliens! there markings and wonders are all over the world. thousand ton blocks set up right and stacked in various angles, stone working that is so perfect that it can cut you.............
yup it was all done by aliens. they anonoki wanted workers to mine the gold of earth for them, so they created humans.
don't ask me for proof, unless you can prove me wrong.
i love ancient aliens! they made us in their imagine.
I have told you all before,
The mertro that killed the Dinos – that was no meteor. That was our Mother Ship crashing. We are the aliens.
Macro evolution never proven to be fact. Just because someone says it is so, does not make it so.
macro evolution is a term used as a smoke screen by creationists.
there is evolution and there is time.
The greater the time, the more chances that things will change, and evolve into new species.
Macro evolution is a red herring, by those who do not understand the concept.
If I understand correctly, the siluran was preceded by the ordovician period/strata which actully does contain fossils:
Ordovician strata are characterized by numerous and diverse trilobites and conodonts (phosphatic fossils with a tooth-like appearance) found in sequences of shale, limestone, dolostone, and sandstone. In addition, blastoids, bryozoans, corals, crinoids, as well as many kinds of brachiopods, snails, clams, and cephalopods appeared for the first time in the geologic record in tropical Ordovician environments. Remains of ostracoderms (jawless, armored fish) from Ordovician rocks comprise some of the oldest vertebrate fossils.
Well scot, given that you don't understand evolution we can safely say you are intellectually dead and shouldn't be speaking on the matter....it's kind of like you not wishing us to speak on the matter of anything spiritual since you consider us spiritually dead.
PS: No matter how many times you try to spin it, you'll never disprove Evolution.
This act of bravery by 1 women has reverberated around the world. Killing someone just because of their beliefs is hard to fathom. Yet it is going on wholesale in many countries. North Korea, Syria, Somalia, and now ISIS in Iraq. That act of bravery got many to put pressure on Sudan. I'm sure there were many brave people who died for their efforts.
People determine the end result of what goes on here. The battle between those who want open freedom and those that want tyranny (religious, political, or otherwise) continues. I admire this women and I am happy it worked out for her.
Dala is a fraud and Topher has lost all touch with reality. Reminds me of a line from the Coen brother "Oh Brother, Where Art Thou?"...."You two are just dumber than a bag of hammers."
On the topic, I am pleased that the RCC made the intervention on her behalf as caring Christians. Something that Topher's really real baptist christians never did squat to help, go figure.
Hmm. Ad hominems. I mean ... what a great defense for your side. How can I compete with them? Oh, wait. It's the only argument you have.
The story never once said the RCC had anything to do with her release, just that the government of Italy arranged for her family to meet the Pope. That being said, I hope the papacy DID have something to do with it. SOMEBODY should have. My Baptists don't have an organizing body, so what you'd have is just some guy trying to talk with the Sudanese government ... not too affective, I'm sure. And let's face it, the Catholics do better than any other religious group on humanitarian issues. Who are the predominance of hospitals involved with? The Catholics.
Indeed, the only mention of the RCC is that she met with the Pope. That didn't stop you from questioning her topher credentials, all so you could steer the conversation as quickly as possible away from a feel good story that peripherally makes the RCC look good, to one of Catholic validity as Christians. It was crass and despi.cable yesterday, and it remains so today.
Ridiculous. All I asked was which one is she? Turns out she belongs to the Orthodox church. It was you atheists and such that wanted to make me look like I was picking on her. Even if she was a Catholic I wouldn't pick on her. So it was clearly your side that was "crass and despi.cable" yesterday.
He didn't say you were picking on her – he said you used this story as a platform to declare that Catholics aren't Christians – which you did. Repeatedly.
More tap dancing. Yours was the 5th root post yesterday, and you immediately questioned her validity as a Christian. It was crass. It was wrong. And it was despi.cable.
"He didn't say you were picking on her – he said you used this story as a platform to declare that Catholics aren't Christians – which you did. Repeatedly."
Only after attacked by the atheists. And it's not like the information was any new revelation (except to the atheists) as the two have been separated for several hundred years. All I did was ask the question because the way the story was written she was a Christian visiting the Pope. That's mixing religions. So I just asked which is she — a viable question. The atheists just want to whine and complain and turn everything into an argument. What new.
" only after attacked by the atheists."
A blatant lie. You did it in your root post, when the ink was barely dry.
Your root post was "is the catholic or christian" – that statement is delberately contentious and you know it.
A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour.
Whether you think that other sects are heretical, teaching false doctrine or whatever has no bearing on whether the denominations are indeed Christian.
If a religion teaches the Bible (no matter if they've additional books from which they draw inspiration) and requires that their adherents submit to the Lord and profess Christ as their salvation – then they are Christian.
Do you have another definition of what a Christian is?
Feeling mellow at the time and knowing what the editors will permit, my ad hominems were quite mild as to what I really think in regards to you, use your imagination. Just for the humor of it tells us how the Noah's Ark story is possible in reality, always fun.
"Your root post was "is the catholic or christian" – that statement is delberately contentious and you know it."
Not at all. I simply asked a question because the story was not clear.
"A Christian is someone who accepts Jesus Christ as their Lord and Saviour."
I know what you are saying, but it's theologically incorrect. No one "accepts" Christ.
"Whether you think that other sects are heretical, teaching false doctrine or whatever has no bearing on whether the denominations are indeed Christian."
"If a religion teaches the Bible (no matter if they've additional books from which they draw inspiration) and requires that their adherents submit to the Lord and profess Christ as their salvation – then they are Christian."
Sorry, but no. They preach a different Christ than the one in the Bible.
"Do you have another definition of what a Christian is?"
A Christian is someone who is saved according to the Biblical standards. So just because you attend a Christian church, that does not make you a Christian. Just because you call yourself a Christian that does not make you one. Same goes with churches/religious groups. Just because you have a deity called Jesus Christ does not make you saved and does not make you a Christian. Christians are only those saved by grace alone through faith alone in Jesus Christ alone. And so if the Jesus you hold to is different from the one taught in the Bible (such as Mormons, JWs, etc.) you teach a different Christ. And thus you're outside of orthodoxy.
So Catholics don't teach about Jesus Christ as He is presented in the Bible?
They don't teach that Jesus is the Son of God, born of a virgin mother? Or that only through Him can one be saved because He gave His life for us on the Cross?
My mother is protestant and my father a Catholic and they've never accused each other of not being Christian in the 40+years they've been married.
Heck – my father was knighted into the Order of St. John as recognition for a lifetime of humanitarian work and it is a protestant order!
"So Catholics don't teach about Jesus Christ as He is presented in the Bible?"
No, sir. They do not. You've honestly never heard this? You've heard of the Protestant Reformation, right?
"They don't teach that Jesus is the Son of God, born of a virgin mother? Or that only through Him can one be saved because He gave His life for us on the Cross?"
The Catholic doctrine is that one is saved by being as close to perfect as you can, do good works, and then Christ's work on the cross makes up for the difference. You also are required to do confession and participate in the sacraments. All of that is opposite what the Bible teaches.
"My mother is protestant and my father a Catholic and they've never accused each other of not being Christian in the 40+years they've been married."
I have no idea what your parents believe so it would not be fair for me to comment on them.
"Heck – my father was knighted into the Order of St. John as recognition for a lifetime of humanitarian work and it is a protestant order!"
Humanitarian work does not save you. And while I'm happy he was recognized for it and happy he did it, it doesn't mean anything as far as going to heaven or not.
Missed the reply button, long thread anyway, see above. The question is if it is all about grace and belief in jesus christ whatever, why would you even need to bother with the whole silly old testament nonsense that make the bible so laughable?
Topher is a Baptist that actually explains a lot.
The sanctimonious Southern Baptist emanates from him in waves. The combination of loudmouthed certi.tude, disdain for any other religion, and the continuous undertone of victimhood clinches it...
I'm not Southern Baptist.
You sound exactly like every Southern Baptist I have ever talked to.
"I'm not Southern Baptist."
Sure you aren't. And I'm Alex Ovechkin, tovarisch...
So Topher, do the Southern Baptist lot not meet your definition of Christian? You seem to have a lot in common, overbearing arrogance, for example. Tell us all about Noah and the flood, you know you want to.
Southern Baptists are my brothers in Christ. But I am not a Southern Baptist.
So Southern Baptists are True Scotsmen but Catholics aren't.
Hmmm.... does anyone have a complete list of the tens of thousands of Christian denominations so that Topher can inform the world as to which Tartans are valid?
What is the distinction, you seem to have the same bigoted beliefs? Could it be that you do not live south of the Mason-Dixon line? About the flood.
This has nothing to do with No True Scotsman. I find it odd that the atheists like to roll that one out almost on a daily basis, but hardly ever use it correctly.
"What is the distinction, you seem to have the same bigoted beliefs? Could it be that you do not live south of the Mason-Dixon line? About the flood."
You mean like how you are biggoted against Christians, God and the Bible? The Southern Baptists are my brothers in Christ because the Baptist group I belong to and the Southern Baptists agree on the essential doctrines. And you do realize there are Southern Baptists in the north, right?
Questioning Christian beliefs is not bigoted, poking fun at Christians is also not bigoted. Calling people who don't "believe" in evolution is not bigoted, it is a statement of fact. An example of bigotry would be voting to ban gay marriage because you don't like it. You see, I am not a big fan of religion, but I would never try to ban it because that would make me a jerk just like all the religious people who want to ban gay marriage.
A simple rendition of the fallacy:
Person A: "No Christian believes anything but a literal interpretation of the Bible."
Person B: "Most Christian churches don't teach that Genesis is literal, historically accurate truth."
Person A: "Well, no true Christian teaches anything but that."
I take great amusement at picking at the scab that is religion on all of humanity. Do I picket any place of worship, no, do Baptists picket abortion/family planning clinics, yes. Do I deny people who love each other and want to marry (LBGT) no, do Baptists, yes. Do I demonstrate at our armed forces funerals, no, do Baptists yes. Do I declare that others who believe in Christ just as strongly as Baptists are not Christians, no. Look in the mirror bigot, perhaps your lot does not wear the white robe and hoods any more but you do have an ugly history of discrimination, Deists, not so much.
Should Creationism and the Bible be taught in schools?
Should I be allowed to pass out Gospel tracts at Halloween or to anyone else on the streets?
Should I be allowed to stand on a street corner on top of a box and preach the Gospel to anyone passing by?
Should I be allowed to have a say/vote on issues I find immoral?
1. Creationism should not be taught in public schools, and I wouldn't have a problem with teaching the bible as part of a world religion's class that discusses what all of the major religions of the world believe, and doesn't try to pass one off as true and the others false. When and if Creationists can supply as much evidence for their claims as there is for Evolution then I might change my mind, however, at the moment this is not the case.
2. You can pass out anything you want on Halloween as far as I'm concerned. However, if you would not want your children to receive the same stuff about another religion then I would think you are a hypocrite.
3. Once again, while I find this to be strange it is a free country, but I see this as turning more people off of religion that it turns on to it.
4. Yes, but if you vote to ban gay marriage then I view you as a bigot regardless of if the bible says so or not. To me if you don't like gay marriage then don't marry a gay person but don't try to pass laws against things just because you don't like it, or you wouldn't do it. So it is perfectly o.k. if you think gay marriage is wrong, but to actively try and deny rights to others is bigoted.
Now separate your statements, you know like the separation between state and religion. You also have the unalienable right to make a fool of yourself any old time you want, carry on.
I love it when you guys take something I've said, twist it to suit your own needs, and then try to use it against me. It makes you liars at best.
You are the deceiver here
Creationism and bible studies, have at it in private schools. The public should not have to pay for your delusions in public schools. (I really feel sort about the crap you are going to fill poor Noah's head with, sad).
As long as you allow others to give their propaganda to your kids, say the owner of a strip joint distributing their goodies.
Street preaching, sure as long as I can stand across from you refuting the BS streaming from your mouth.
You do have a vote and say, what you don't have the right to do is disobey the laws that are passed. Mormons are no longer able to practice polygamy and child abuse (under age forced marriages). You see how that works despite your religious objections.
If the Bible clearly stated God used the process of evolution for diversity, the flood story is a symbolic representation of cleansing and only the genealogy of key families are presented would there be any young earthers?
Don't coward out on us, yet again. Neither joey or I twisted anything you said, simply refuted the sanctimonious garbage you spew in your posts. The one and only really true Christian on this blog (in your own mind Topher) lying your ass off, baby jesus weeps.
I don't understand your question. That's not what the Bible says at all. It teaches a young earth.
Since you take the bible literally please supply the verse that tells how old Earth is.
There is no verse that gives a date.
You don't understand much about anything but your biblical delusion. Fred is simply pointing that out. Are you not up to a rant on the viability of the flood story, pity.
Then where do you come up with a date for Earth that isn't just an interpretation.
See, you add "interpretation" so that you can make excuses.
We get a young earth/universe and a general date of around 6,000 years because the Bible is very specific on time. We have a six-day creation week. Then we have detailed genealogies of every person from Adam through Noah to Abraham to King David and from there is splits and we have two detailed genealogies going from King David to Mary and King David to Joseph. Along with those names are dates for how old the person was at the next generation's birth as well as how old they were when he died. That timeline suggest, give or take, about 4000 years. Then you add the 2000 we know from modern history and you get 6000 years.
Where do you find biblical evidence for a young earth other than the 3 genealogies? Keep in mind Matthew stopped at Abraham because he was addressing Jews.
only problem with that is that you have to believe that people used to live to be 900 years old, which is absurd.
joey and I did not twist anything, you seemed to have moved on because you are ......... Now about the young earth thingy and Noah's Ark fantasy have at it, you are priceless at that.
Cain forged tools out of bronze which places him at about 3,000 BC at best so that would be within your range.
"Where do you find biblical evidence for a young earth other than the 3 genealogies? Keep in mind Matthew stopped at Abraham because he was addressing Jews."
So ... Biblical evidence DESPITE what God has already told us and that you want to throw out?
About Noah's wife and her three daughter in laws, did they have a limited number of eggs like modern women? Did they become post menopausal like modern women after 40 years or so? If they lived for hundreds of years did they breed like rabbits after the great flood for hundreds of years? Are you clinically sane?
Accidently posted above ...
Lying again, I have misplaced the exact quote but you said something to the effect...If they are not born again christians that do not believe 100% the inerrant word of god I do not them anywhere near teaching my children. Do you now deny this statement, unbelievable and you say we are disingenuous?
"I have misplaced the exact quote but you said something to the effect...If they are not born again christians that do not believe 100% the inerrant word of god I do not them anywhere near teaching my children. Do you now deny this statement, unbelievable and you say we are disingenuous?"
Nope, that's IS what I said. I don't want someone who knows nothing about Christianity, thus not holding any understanding or belief in the Bible being the inerrant word of God, then I don't want them anywhere near teaching my children "Christianity-light." This statement has nothing to do with a JW handing Noah a tract or knocking on my door. If nothing else, this provides an opportunity to witness to them or to talk with my son.
No. And frankly I'm tired of your baseless accusations. From here on out, you will not be responded to.
"I don't want someone who knows nothing about Christianity, thus not holding any understanding or belief in the Bible being the inerrant word of God, then I don't want them anywhere near teaching my children "Christianity-light."
No one teaches a course on comparative religions in our country who "knows nothing about Christianity". Just another FOOLISH, thoughtless statement.
Well I guess that I should be thankful for that, HALLELUJAH, but I am going to miss your tortured attempts of trying to explain away the fantasies of Noah's Ark and the Tower of Babel, they are a hoot. Beware of handle changers, I may reinvent myself as say just plain Topher or Heaven Sent the !V.
No, I do not throw anything out that is in the Bible as every word is included for a reason. I am saying all we have is the original account from Moses on genealogy and Cains use of bronze.
You must be willing to accept your position on a young earth based on science alone without any reference to the Bible. This is why I gave you the hypothetical if the Bible said the genealogy began with Adam and Eve the first parents of Cain whereas prior reference to Adam and Eve was the Hebrew for mankind or man not a specific man called Adam.
"No, I do not throw anything out that is in the Bible as every word is included for a reason. I am saying all we have is the original account from Moses on genealogy and Cains use of bronze."
Then I must have misunderstood you. My apologies.
"You must be willing to accept your position on a young earth based on science alone without any reference to the Bible."
I accept it based on the Bible and then on the science that backs up the Bible.
Science says the world is BILLIONS of years old. Even your own observations of places like the Grand Canyon should convince you of the incredible amount of time it took to get to where it is. Unless the Bible OMITTED MILLIONS of years of history, it's time-line is totally inconsistent with LOGIC.
topher, Except that science not only does not support a young earth it shows that the earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old and was not formed as described in the bible.
I really don't want to get into the whole age of the earth/evolution debate today ... there isn't enough time. But I'll make this one point ... true, 10 percent of dating mechanisms point to an old earth. But 90 percent of them point to a young earth. And the Grand Canyon only lends itself to evidence for the flood and a young earth. Don't believe it if you want to. That's fine.
When I see arguments for a young earth I look at the credentials of the author just as with anything else. In science objective results should rule. Are there non believers in your stack of proof for a young earth? I am not an expert in the various disciplines so I bring my questions to someone I trust in the respective field. In one area alone, ice cores, the science cannot be twisted enough to get any closer than 700,000 years in some places.
" It makes you liars at best."
Oh, the irony...
I am puzzled as to why atheists or non believers call it a lie when a Christian takes an unlikely but not ruled out position that is contrary to mainstream scientific consensus. There are valid arguments against some claims made as to the age of ice cores.
I know where you are coming from. I was in the same place once. But understand that everyone has a presupposition. And if you can find a way to smash billions of years into the text, go ahead. I just can't. The Bible is clear on this subject.
And the answer to the ice cores is in your freezer. It doesn't take hundreds of thousands of years to get an ice layer. Just look inside your freezer. Every time you get a big enough temperature fluctuation you'll get another layer. A perfect example for you ... google ice core layers and WWII fighter plane. They've found these buried in enough layers that it would make it appear we had these planes as long ago as the secular scientists claim. You see, these scientists start with a presupposition that evolution and billions of years are true. That's fine. I have a presupposition that the Bible is the inerrant, infallible word of God. But because they start where they start, of course they take the data that agrees with their worldview. Always trust God over man. Even when it appears all the evidence points to something in the secular worldview. If you wait 5 minutes, the secular world will increase the age of the earth by billions of years ... and then the ice core dates will be trivial and likely moved as well.
" I am puzzled as to why atheists or non believers call it a lie when a Christian takes an unlikely but not ruled out position that is contrary to mainstream scientific consensus."
fred – my characterization of topher as a liar is unrelated to the young vs old earth debate. He knows what it's about. And he knows the characterization is accurate. The rarefied air of the pedestal he has placed himself on will never allow him to admit it though.
I'm gonna jump in a bit jump for this: "But understand that everyone has a presupposition. And if you can find a way to smash billions of years into the text, go ahead. I just can't. The Bible is clear on this subject."
In reality this can be easily done. Between Gen 1:1 and Gen 1:2
Gen 1:1 In [a] beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
Gen 1:2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the spirit of God moved [brooded] upon the face of the waters.
We do not know the period of time that elapsed between 1:1 and 1:2, nor do we know "the period of time that the dust [God made man from the dust of the earth, and from Proverbs 8 we know that this dust of the earth came from the cosmos] pre-existed or the seed pattern design pre-existed before the events of Gen 1:1 " – Articles of Configuration C.Armstrong
"We do not know the period of time that elapsed between 1:1 and 1:2,"
Sure we do. They happened on Day 1.
"nor do we know "the period of time that the dust [God made man from the dust of the earth, and from Proverbs 8 we know that this dust of the earth came from the cosmos]"
The depth of snow on top of the WWII planes cannot be correlated with ice core data. The arguments presented by the creation institute in this regard are valid but they never went about proving their claim. This is a must.
I'm unfamiliar with the creation inst.itute, so I don't even know what they said. I could send you links to articles if you want, though a google search is just as easy for you to do.
Again, you can be an old-earther if you want to, I just can't. Not only does Scripture teach a young earth, but there's plenty of science to back that up. Your position on young vs. old is not an essential issue and thus doesn't affect your salvation (as.suming you're a Christian.) But I would ask you to be very careful with that stance. You're bordering on calling God a liar, and I'm sure you'd agree that'd be a very dangerous place. That would be my concern.
Just read this passage this morning and I think this applies to the conversation ... from Job 38 ...
"“Where were you when I laid the foundation of the earth?
Tell me, if you have understanding.
Who determined its measurements—surely you know!
Or who stretched the line upon it?
On what were its bases sunk,
or who laid its cornerstone,
when the morning stars sang together
and all the sons of God shouted for joy?"
"And the Grand Canyon only lends itself to evidence for the flood and a young earth"
NONSENSE. Go visit it someday. You'll see layer after layer of different kinds of sediment that built up and then later got eroded. It got gradually worn away, not in one big flood. You do appear to be totally CLUELESS.
The debate about its age by scientists concerns differing opinions on how MANY MILLIONS of years old it is.
I share your concern so typically I am silent when it comes to what appears to be supporting anything that would cause a believer to stumble. Without doubt the Bible is clear as to matters of redemption and salvation. It does not mention young earth and any assumption about that is a product of man. The first assumption is that Moses recorded the complete genealogy and the second is that Moses included the days of Adam before sin, before he was kicked out of the Garden and before Adam entered the world. When did we begin to count time before entering the world? I don't know the answers to these questions and the Bible does not tell me. I am not told for a reason in this case just as I am clearly told for a reason in others.
I have yet to find a conflict between science and the Bible.
"I have yet to find a conflict between science and the Bible."
Please get real. The laws of motion say it's impossible for the sun and moon to suddenly STOP in their orbit and then resume. There is NO SCIENCE that supports such a thing happening.
Why would you even pretend such NONSENSE isn't refuted by science? How about even a little bit of HONESTY? Do you really think you have ANY CREDIBILITY?
What is the Bible without God....................I hope I do not need to answer that for you.
How do you hope to understand what is in the Bible without God? All of existence as well as the Bible is dependent upon the miraculous. As to creation God said let it be and it was so. If God wants it to appear as if time stood still or if time stood still what difference does it make. Science is limited to the natural and by the natural it is nonsense to suggest otherwise as it goes against the foundations of what science is.
At best you can say science cannot falsify substance or events that operate according to laws and principles unknown to science. Your problem is not history narrated in Joshua but the assumptions you make concerning it.
There is NOTHING in science that says that the moon and sun can violate the laws of motion and suddenly stop.
You are certainly allowed your OPINONS, but at least have the INTEGRITY to be HONEST about what science says CANNOT be done. Does God want you to LIE for him?
You will never be able to get the right answer to 2 + 2 if you claim not to believe in the number 4, and you will never understand the truth of God if you claim not to believe in the supernatural.
The LAWS of mathematics have NOTHING to do with the supernatural. What a RIDICULOUS statement.
As if the laws of mathematics are the point of that statement. Please.
It is not a lie when I explain to you that science and the supernatural / miraculous cannot be reconciled by science. Did you need me to go through the reasons again? This is not a matter of opinion it is a matter of fact.
Your statement is incorrect to begin with as your assumption is that the laws of motion, mass, gravity etc. are predictable and held constant during the time and space you want to evaluate. Now, I have some really bad news for you as deterministic causality only implies practical predictability it does not guarantee it. You have further made a host of assumptions regarding tensors if you wish to limit how physical objects can violate assumed constants in a given time and space.
In short Topher is right the number 4 must be assumed to exist before you can claims about 2+2 regarding 4
Newton's Laws of Motion are a CRITICAL part of physics and other science.
Do these CRITICAL LAWS of science support the sun and moon suddenly stopping in orbit?
" In short Topher is right the number 4 must be assumed to exist"
A number is a DEFINITION of a condition. Your argument is WORTHLESS unless you are arguing that EVERY WORD and definition is an assumption, which is a useless discussion of English.
Thank you, we are in agreement. Science is limited by known laws assumed to operate in a predictable and given manner. Science cannot make a claim as to Joshua's account.
Science can make a claim after setting assumptions as to the physical objects in question.
The first assumption is that God does not exist as presented in the Bible in which case the Bible does not exist and by extension Joshua's account never happened. opps we now can only make a claim about something we already have an answer to.
Topher, you are a genius I get it, thanks.
Sorry you MISSED the question. Here it is again. –
They say nothing about the motion of the sun and moon. You claim the motion changed in which case yes, Newton's law states an external force acted upon it which Joshua also claimed.
"They say nothing about the motion of the sun and moon."
You have made many THOUGHTLESS and IGNORANT statements, but that may be your worst.
It is BECAUSE of the validity of Newton's laws that we were able to land a man on the MOVING moon.
You need to take a break and do some REAL thinking. You are just EMBARASSING yourself with your lack of knowledge.
You have lost track of the thread.
You claim science disproves Joshua's account of God stopping the sun and moon-> I said no science cannot and does not make claims about ->you said:
"Newton's Laws of Motion are a CRITICAL part of physics and other science." I said:
=>They say nothing about the motion of the sun and moon. You claim the motion changed in which case yes, Newton's law states an external force acted upon it which Joshua also claimed.
so stop your false Fred is crazy defense tactic
"You claim the motion changed in which case yes, Newton's law states an external force acted upon it which Joshua also claimed. . . so stop your false Fred is crazy defense tactic"
"(Newton's laws) say nothing about the motion of the sun and moon."
Again you prove my point. You take everything out of context. The context is Joshua gave an account of God stopping the moon and the sun in the Bible. Newton's law says nothing about the miraculous force of God stopping the moon and the sun.
Newton's law as to stopping the moon and sun requires a force which Joshua claimed was the power of God. Joshua does not violate Newton's law however Newton's law cannot address the power of God.
This closes the debate. You claimed science proves the Bible wrong as to Joshua's account of the moon and sun stopping which is false and cannot be supported by science (including Newton's law which you interjected)
Good job, dude!
Do you really want to praise someone who claims that Newton's laws of motion do not apply in space?
LOL. You might want to THINK before blindly praising someone.
Do I believe God has the ability to manipulate the laws? Absolutely. And Fred was right about science not being able to prove those events didn't happen.
You praised fred who claimed that Newton's laws do not apply to space.
Using ALL of your knowledge of science, do you agree with fred's claim? YES or NO?
Quote for me his entire entry so I can see what he said in context.
"This closes the debate."
Uh oh...fred pulled the "my god can do anything" card ...wow..I am so.... unimpressed.
You praised fred for a "good job" and now you are asking what he said???
Look at my comments at 7:52 pm and then his reply at 8:13 pm.
OK, I read them. As I already stated, I believe God has the power to manipulate the laws. And according to the laws (to the best of my understanding) it takes a force go stop something in motion. That's what Scripture says happened. I don't see the problem.
Using ALL of your knowledge of science, do you agree with fred that Newton's laws do not apply to space? YES or NO?
I don't see where he said that.
Are you BLIND, STALLING, or just IGNORANT?
If you're not better than ad hominems, I'm not interested. Have a good night.
lol. You are RUNING AWAY from a YES-or-NO question.
Do you really think you are convincing anyone that you have HONESTY and INTEGRITY?
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
I did not pull the "god can do anything card".
You know Newton's 3 laws as well as I do and appreciate the fact they are rooted in mathematical methods and physical theories void of theological abstractions. Not one of his principles from "Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica," addresses the supernatural. Newton's laws do not have capacity or pretense to apply geometrical or inverse relationships to the power of God in effecting the natural, specifically any large body such as sun and moon ( The Principia deals primarily with massive bodies in motion).
Ummm....OK fred.....Newton's Law's don't apply to god or what god can and can't do....but that doesn't mean you are arguing 'god can do anything'...
if you say so fred
Blessed are the Cheesemakers
Fred shouldn't have insulted you. He claimed "You know Newton's 3 laws as well as I do". I'd bet that you know them BETTER and believe they apply on the sun and moon, too. Right?
Well observer, fred's knowledge about the unknowable is second to none.
Blessed are the Cheesemakers,
Amen. And he keeps proving it over and over. As he once said, we don't live in reality - reality is the afterlife.
You have shifted the argument to "Using ALL of your knowledge of science, do you agree with fred that Newton's laws do not apply to space? YES or NO?"
=>you do realize your question lacks proper context. One would need to guess at what you mean by space in terms of the science of motions.
=>I assume you are confused as to your very first position. Let me summarize
You made the claim " The laws of motion say it's impossible for the sun and moon to suddenly STOP in their orbit and then resume. There is NO SCIENCE that supports such a thing happening."
=>To the contrary we can calculate the exact forces required to put a body in motion or effect motion in multiple vectors and dimensions which includes putting a body at rest. Dimensions have properties of space and time that must be defined by tensors (calculus which Newton gets credit for initiating even though quantum mechanics was well after his time)
=>I can assume you were simply speaking about centripetal forces associated with the orbit of the sun and moon but you said NO SCIENCE
"(Newton's Laws) say nothing about the motion of the sun and moon."
– – – – believerfred
Again you quote out of context as Newton's law says nothing about Joshua's account of the power of God stopping the motion of the sun and the moon.
"(Newton's Laws) say nothing about the motion of the sun and moon."
– – – – believerfred
July 26, 2014 at 12:32 am |
"Again you quote out of context"
Did you say that? YES or NO? Try having just a LITTLE BIT OF HONESTY.
Newton's law says nothing about Joshua's account of the power of God stopping the motion of the sun and the moon.
What a defense on my side of what exactly? That you are less than rational to believe in genesis, the great flood, the tower of Babel are indications that you are not rational, dumber than a bag of hammers!!! If you find that offensive, tough.
I heard about that show. It's blasphemous and I'd not watch it, either.
The battle for the true soul right topher ?
The CNN Belief Blog covers the faith angles of the day's biggest stories, from breaking news to politics to entertainment, fostering a global conversation about the role of religion and belief in readers' lives. It's edited by CNN's Daniel Burke with contributions from Eric Marrapodi and CNN's worldwide news gathering team.