-
UKIP Comes Out Fighting
May 8, 2013 | 15 comments
-
What Will Britain Turn Into?
May 1, 2013 | 31 comments
-
His Queeg Moment
January 29, 2013 | 120 comments
-
High Marks for The Hobbit
January 10, 2013 | 23 comments
-
So, What to Do? Ask Lady Houston
January 9, 2013 | 39 comments
Another Perspective
Evolution Needs to Evolve
Of monkeys, moons and Professor Dawkins.
Professor of Atheism Richard Dawkins grows increasingly shrill. His outbursts include the following, not very recent, but typical:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I’d rather not consider that).
You can, of course, make any point you like providing you don’t care about first premises. One thing which evidently fails to enter Professor Dawkins’ mental universe is the idea — accepted by many scientists — that the theory of evolution is broadly correct, but as an explanation of life and the human condition it is incomplete.
We know life exists. We also know it had to be created by some process. Biology tells us that that process was evolution. It tells us nothing about what set that process in notion, created the Earth we stand on, or created the universe from some unimaginable pre-Creation state without space or time. The idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing seems somehow unsatisfactory.
Whether the Heaven and the Earth, and human life, was created over 13.2 billion years following the Big Bang, or over six days as a literal reading of Genesis is interpreted as saying, actually does not matter.
Of course I accept evolution. I find the Biblical literalists who claim the Earth was created in six days, and who believe that we are all descended from a couple called Adam and Eve Fell who because they were tempted by a walking, talking snake, tiresome. I am more-or-less aware of the historical reasons why these fundamentalist beliefs took root and persist in some communities.
But this does not mean that evolution explains everything, or that it ought to explain everything.
It is not an explanation, for example, of why human beings (I am tempted to say some human beings) have brains that are not only far larger than those of any comparable animals, and far larger than is needed for mere species’ survival, but are also qualitatively different. I have, of course, seen various theories advanced to account for the growth in size of the human brain, such as that it grew bigger as a result of having to cope with successive Ice-Ages, but these are not really satisfactory explanations.
Further, they suffer from the great scientific disadvantage that they can be neither proved not disproved. Other animals coped with the Ice-Ages by growing to giant sizes and saving body heat thereby, such as the mastodon, or did not cope at all and died out. The succession of Ice-Ages did not produce intelligent bears or tigers, only somewhat bigger ones. Why did the ancestors of Homo sapiens adopt such a radically different solution?
Monkeys and men appear to have a common ancestor. Monkeys, like men, have hands. But, as Chesterton said, the significant point is not that monkeys have hands, but that, compared to Man, monkeys do almost nothing with them. A five-year old child can paint a crude picture of a monkey. But not the wisest monkey ever painted a picture of a child. Years of experiments trying to teach apes language show they cannot form even the simplest sentences.
If a monkey was born capable not only of gathering nuts and bananas but also of building cathedrals, writing Hamlet or flying to the moon, we would see it as a major objection to the pure theory of evolution. We might even be tempted to believe that a God had intervened somewhere along the line.
But Man is born capable of doing these things and has done them. The fact speaks for itself. Further, as far as paleontology can tell us, Cro-Magnon Man, the earliest form of Homo sapiens, had brains as good as modern men — Cro-Magnon Man simply knew less. We know from cave paintings that 16,000 years ago at least Man had highly developed art.
Why? Art is useless for survival. There is no reason why evolution should have produced it. It is possible to be reminded of Gandalf’s cryptic comment in The Lord of the Rings: “Something else is at work.” (About Neanderthal Man we can only make guesses from a few ambiguous hints — in at least one Neanderthal burial, for example, a dead body was found to have been buried bedecked with flowers. Why did the dead Neanderthal’s fellow-tribesmen take time off from hunting and gathering food to do that? Further, there were different types of Neanderthal Man and the more we discover about them the more complex the picture becomes.)
The unique quality of the human brain is one of the things which evolution, and Professor Dawkins, fails to explain. Humanity is special, and evolution can give no reason for it. Shall we perhaps be so unkind as to paraphrase Professor Dawkins, and call anyone who believes these things to be fully explained — with that explanation being perhaps that they are the result of blind chance — “ignorant, stupid or insane”?
About the Author
Hal G.P. Colebatch’s “Immram,” Counterstrike, is being published by Australian publisher Imaginites.
Letter to the Editor View all comments (618) | Leave a comment
More Articles by Hal G.P. Colebatch
More Articles From Another Perspective
http://spectator.org/archives/2011/09/16/evolution-needs-to-evolve
Follow us:
ADVERTISEMENT
Current Issue
- Celebrating Our Lady of Paris
- Screwtape Protests
- Gabby Giffords Poisons the Well
The Spectacle Blog
Democrat Dan Maffei Blames Budget Cuts for Girl’s Rape, Mother’s Murder
Robert Stacy McCain | 6.18.13
SPONSORED LINKS
FLASHBACK TO: 1995
-
Pope Culture
A man of faith in a godless age is hitting Americans where it hurts.
-
Why the GOP Does Not, Like, Totally Suck
Mr. and Mrs. American Spectator Reader, let P.J. O’Rourke talk sense to your kids.
-
Dames at Sea
-
In the Absence of Guns
In Britain, defending your property can get you life.
-
The Metaphysical Martini
-
Counting the Costs of Clintonism
The debacle of this president’s administration is both a cause and a symptom of the decline of American values. Unless Congress impeaches him, that decline will go on unchecked. An eminent jurist surveys the damage and assesses the chances for the recovery of our culture.
-
Chuck McHagel
It won’t take long for conservatives to scratch this presidential wannabe off their 2008 scorecard.
-
The Legacy of Old John and Mother Fresh-Roasted
-
It’s the Best Time of the Year
The American Christmas, like the songs that celebrate it, makes room for everybody under the rainbow. Is that why so many people seem to be hostile to it?
-
The Bush Crack-Up
Was the President done in by the economy, or by the politics of the economy?
Clip of the Day
ADVERTISEMENT
John786| 9.16.11 @ 6:29AM
A bit of a shallow article by some one who has no understanding of evolution. Evolution has no foresight. Its a random experiment. There is no end point or improvement that evolution aims at. It is an information war in which the best replicating information goes forward. As a theist I may have a different narrative- a beutiful narrative but God is capable of doing anything. A bigger brain may have provided advantages as an information replicator- that's all that's required for a trait to be selected. How far can things go- just look at the peacocks tail.
Kevin Dunn| 9.16.11 @ 6:49AM
If you criticise the article, criticise if for what it said, not what you think it said. It did not say evolution was aiming at anything. And if it is an "experment", who is the experimenter?
Bob K.| 9.16.11 @ 8:17AM
Correct.
Mr. Colebatch has pointed out here that human life is fundamentally different than all other forms of life and that is something that evolution cannot explain.
mames| 9.16.11 @ 12:51PM
I am happy to see some level of honesty in the Darwinian world. He did not go far enough though in explaining the underlying foundations of evolution;s hypothesis that are now being challenged by nano and DNA science that refute those very foundations that Darwin himself said could be disproved. The terms "seems to", "could", "appear to" are rampant in Darwin's ideas but modern advocates are far more absolute in their faith claims.
Quartermaster| 9.16.11 @ 8:07PM
There are two forms of evolution. One is a fact, the other is the fantasy that Darwin concocted, and the pseudo-scientist Dawkins places his faith in. Of course Colebach can "accept evolution," but he does not define which form, and the fools try to conflate what has been proven from selective breeding, and Darwin's/Dawkins' insane mental meanderings.
What the insane meanderings of the evolutionist can not, and never can, explain is the fall out of information theory for genetics. Selective breeding and natural selection simply produces a slightly different form of the same thing. The genetic information determines that. Dawkins' insanity requires new information be introduced, and that is the downfall of his "theory."
Dawkins likes to make out that anyone who disagrees with him is an ignorant fool. Why anyone should worry about being considered an ignoramus by someone certifiable is beyond me.
taxguy| 9.17.11 @ 11:33AM
excellent points, all.
Crafty Bernardo| 9.16.11 @ 1:32PM
"If you criticise the article, criticise if for what it said"
OK.. no problem.
"The succession of Ice-Ages did not produce intelligent bears or tigers, only somewhat bigger ones. Why did the ancestors of Homo sapiens adopt such a radically different solution?"
Because ancestor's of Homo Sapiens and Tigers didn't "adopt" anything. In Tigers, the physically larger ones faired better with dropping temperatures and, therefore were less apt to die and more prone to reproduce, and "viola!!!" larger tigers over an evolutionary timeframe.
In Homo Sapien ancestors, where intelligence (to produce fire and clothing or find/make shelter) was a more important factor than physical size , the more intelligent homo-sapiens therefore were more apt to reproduce and not die and "viola!!!", more intelligent homo sapiens.
In the end, the original poster in this thread is wrong. The auther has apparently "accepted" evolution, but he really doesn't understand it at all... he's kind've trying to adapt a "supernatural being"-ness, in which evolution "chooses" or "adapts" by some act of choice.... it's an understandable mindset for someone who is mor steeped in religion thatn science, but it makes it hard to think properly about evolution.
Crafty Bernardo| 9.16.11 @ 1:35PM
Ooops... typo.. I meant "the original poster in this thread was RIGHT", not wrong.
Oh, and before anyone responds, the larger tiger fairs better in the cold because with a larger body mass it is more capable of maintaining body heat and storing fat for long periods between meals during the winter months...
In homo-sapiens it' s more important to be able to start a fire, create a good winter shelter, and preserve and store FOOD during the winter months, all things requiring greater intelligence instead of greater size.
Hrek| 9.16.11 @ 4:51PM
"In homo-sapiens it' s more important to be able to start a fire, create a good winter shelter, and preserve and store FOOD during the winter months, all things requiring greater intelligence instead of greater size."
While sounding reasonable before actually thinking about it this sort of typical defense of the theory of evolution doesn't explain anything once thought is applied.
One such example; Since human intelligence is a trait of the species the comment doesn't account for the equal levels of intelligence among all races, many of which were relatively uneffected by the nothern glaciation; or even winters.
This implies the potential for intelligence in the species existed before having the thought, which would invalidate your supposition, since your statement implies the ability to have the thought promoted increased intelligence.
Were that the case only the races whose immediate survival was directly effected by glaciation/winter would have produced offspring capable of such thought.
Zebulon| 9.16.11 @ 11:27PM
Humans are neither intelligent nor reasonable. Evolution, Creationism, Intelligent design, whatever. It matters little, intelligence never happened as far as humans are concerned.
Occam's Tool| 9.16.11 @ 6:02PM
I've had a little training in evolutionary theory. My bachelor's was in biology, after all.
The Bible is not a biochemistry/biophysics/biology text. Neither does evolutionary theory explain motive.
John Navratil| 9.17.11 @ 11:53AM
Occam's Tool,
I'm not a biologist, I'm a programmer. What got me intrigued in the problem was studying Claude Shannon's work in communication theory and information existing as an "anti-entropy" - signals degrade, noise may be injected, but with sufficient redundancy, information is preserved.
DNA is a mechanism of which the principle objective is accurate transmission of the message. Yet somehow, information is injected into the message. Not noise, but information, required to make the transformation. How an initial population sufficient to multiply is established is another question.
I have no particularly objection to any conclusion of how we came to be as we are, but I am curious as to what that mechanism is - not SO curious to make it my life's work, obviously. I can postulate that all information was present at the big bang, but the mechanism of, over time, modifying the message to add information is a fascinating one.
Did the biology department address the problem from a communication theory perspective?
Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 8:57PM
Interestingly---no.
My own view is that there was a designer behind it all. Methods and mechanism are much more open to question---in short, if, as DEVO said---"G-d made man, but he used a monkey to do it. Apes in the plan, but man came through it. I can walk like an ape, talk like an ape, do anything an ape can do---G-d made man, but a monkey looks a lot like you," ("Jocko Homo" from their awesome album, "Are we not men?") who am I to question it.
But I have to tell you, John, that's a fantastic question. If I get some time this week I may Medscape it. (The "Monkey looks a lot like you" is from the song, not a reference---you kick ass routinely.)
What a great question. That just made my year.
Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 9:22PM
Dear John:
something to play with. Thanks for the question---
Comput Biol Chem. 2011 Jun;35(3):199-209. Epub 2011 May 13.
Information-theoretic approaches to SVM feature selection for metagenome read classification.
Garbarine E, DePasquale J, Gadia V, Polikar R, Rosen G.
SourceElectrical and Computer Engineering Department, Drexel University, 3141 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, PA 19104, USA.
Abstract
Analysis of DNA sequences isolated directly from the environment, known as metagenomics, produces a large quantity of genome fragments that need to be classified into specific taxa. Most composition-based classification methods use all features instead of a subset of features that may maximize classifier accuracy. We show that feature selection methods can boost performance of taxonomic classifiers. This work proposes three different filter-based feature selection methods that stem from information theory: (1) a technique that combines Kullback-Leibler, Mutual Information, and distance information, (2) a text mining technique, TF-IDF, and (3) minimum redundancy-maximum-relevance (mRMR). The feature selection methods are compared by how well they improve support vector machine classification of genomic reads. Overall, the 6mer mRMR method performs well, especially on the phyla-level. If the number of total features is very large, feature selection becomes difficult because a small subset of features that captures a majority of the data variance is less likely to exist. Therefore, we conclude that there is a trade-off between feature set size and feature selection method to optimize classification performance. For larger feature set sizes, TF-IDF works better for finer-resolutions while mRMR performs the best out of any method for N=6 for all taxonomic levels.
Copyright © 2011 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
What I find is best with this stuff is to grab the article and then go to references and party there. It's a fairly recent article, so the references should be nicely cutting edge. Remember, I went to college well before the internet.
I'm back to drudging in the " what do I treat intractable nausea with now that Zofran has been shown to cause EKG abnormalities" portion of the internet. No fun metaanalytic thoughts for me.
Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 9:25PM
(The "remember, I went to college well before the internet" indicates that I went there well before people were starting to cut up genomes for fun, as well. 1980-1984. That's probably why we didn't answer it then. But I should have THOUGHT about information theory in that class and asked about it. If no one had done it, it would have been a great senior research topic.)
John Navratil| 9.18.11 @ 9:39PM
Occam's Tool,
I look into the doc, but I'm not so interested in sequencing, which is essentially looking at what we have, as to the "how" we have it. As a microscope, it's a fantastic tool.
I predate you by just a few years. I did my college on the nine-year plan (remember Jimmy Carter's press secretary "Ham" Jordan). I did two years beginning in '73, then spent five working (including a stint in Saudi Arabia) and travelling before the wisdom of obtaining the degree sank in. So, I ultimately got my Bachelors in '82 and went back to work.
If I were to do it again, I think I would study biomedical engineering. It was a degree which was just being offered when I graduated.
axbucxdu| 9.20.11 @ 6:44PM
Exploring evolutionary questions using system theory in general along with physics (lately turning even to the quantum variety for answers) has been very effective in eliminating the speculation, what Jerry Fodor calls "one damned thing after another", from evolutionary thought.
The trouble is that as these new approaches gain momentum and sweep more of the nonsense from biology, Darwinists will not like what's left of the old man's "survival of the fittest" ( a characterization of his theory with which he agreed).
These physical and mathematical methods will make clear that evolutionary "theory" as it now stands is no doubt a tautology, and that as such, explains why it always seems to have an excuse for everything observed and yet yields little or nothing in terms of engineering "usefulness".
When life is seen as local equilibria produced by the non-linear systemic chaos that is the universe, that it's really just a logical and mathematical consequence of that universal existence, I do wonder where such people like Dawkins will hide?
John Navratil| 9.16.11 @ 8:30AM
John786,
Why are we evolved to ask why we are evolved?
That rhetorical questions has nothing to do with evolution other than it is the result of evolution... or so say the evolutionists.
Apart from a profound misunderstanding of randomness (which can appear quite non-random locally) and probabilities and combinatorial explosion, the evolutions propounds a non-falsifiable argument.
If we are evolved to ask why we are evolved, it's because of evolution and it advances the species in some subtle way. If we are not evolved to ask why we are evolved, it's because of evolution and it advances the species in some subtle way. It's a no-brainer.
Vern Crisler | 9.16.11 @ 10:00AM
Agreed. In addition, Colebatch's denial of the teachings of Genesis just shows his anti-Christian credentials. It doesn't tell us anything about truth. In my opinion, anyone who affirms the theory of evolution -- in the light of what we know about genetics, chemistry, biology, etc. -- is a fool.
Bob K.| 9.16.11 @ 10:06AM
If we recognize that Genesis is part of the Historical Consciousness of Human Beings and of Human Life then we can disagree with the fundamentalist interpretation of it without disagreeing with Christianity.
Vern Crisler | 9.16.11 @ 10:09AM
How so?
Mike Cazayoux| 9.16.11 @ 10:32AM
Did Jesus ever offer any teachings regarding Adam and Eve? Literal acceptance, or not, of Jewish mythology regarding the origins of life has little to do with Christianity.
Sparky| 9.16.11 @ 11:02AM
In Matthew 19:5, Jesus paraphrases Genesis 2:24, implicitly endorsing the Adam and Eve described in Gen. Ch. 2. Paul, of course, built his theology upon a bedrock belief in a literal Adam and a literal Fall.
big bob| 9.16.11 @ 11:27AM
He explicitly mentioned the death of Abel, thus acknowledging Adam and Eve. Unless you can somehow turn that into a metaphor, I must accept His own discussion of Adam and Eve's family as being quite literal.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 3:01PM
Did Jesus ever offer any teachings regarding Adam and Eve?
Yes, He, along with His Father God created them:
"Then God said, "Let Us make Man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth." Gen. 1:26.
George| 9.16.11 @ 7:01PM
What do you mean "He along with His Father God."
Jesus is God.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 7:15PM
Read the verse. And I know it's you, Joseph.
Joseph| 9.16.11 @ 7:49PM
No, now it's me. Answer a simple question, is Jesus God? Try yes or no.
Merlin| 9.16.11 @ 10:33PM
Yes
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 2:29PM
Jesus is LORD.
Who do you think YOU are?
Nick| 9.17.11 @ 11:36PM
Margie,
Jesus Christ is GOD.
"Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."
- 2 Peter 1:1
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 1:42PM
Are you trying to deny that Jesus is the Son of God?
Nick| 9.18.11 @ 5:00PM
Margie,
Don't you mean is Saint Peter trying to deny that Jesus is the Son of God? Because, I only quoted his words, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, from Sacred Scripture.
But, to answer your question, no, I am not denying that Jesus was the Son of God, and was God. Begotten, not made, One Being with the Father. "[Christ] and the Father are One." (John 10:30)
Along with the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.
God Bless!
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 6:45PM
Then quit using the same claptrap on me, Papist!
Herb Tarlek.| 9.16.11 @ 11:32PM
You cannot pick & choose scripture, as the cafeteria Christians might. You either believe ALL of it or none of it, & that includes the Old Testament. The Old Testament has everything to do with Christianity, it is the foundation of the Law, to which Jesus says he changes not a jot or a tittle, & should be disregarded at the peril of your eternal soul.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 11:39PM
Amen.
And you either believe false teachers~ or the written Word of God.
His Truth endures forever.
Bob K.| 9.16.11 @ 12:32PM
You can't simply reject "evolution" by professing a belief in "creationism." It is simplistic, confused and rigid. It has no explanation for the historical evidence and scientific (anthropological) evidence of human life prior to the "creation."
There is a study of historical consciousness by the historian John Lukacs. Russell Kirk wrote the forward. It's title is "Historical Consciousness --
The Remembered Past." ISBN 1-56000-732-x. Transaction Publishers. 411 pages.
He ends this book with this quotation from Kierkegaard in "Thesis Attributable to Lessing: 'If God held all truth concealed in his right hand, and in his left hand the persistent striving for truth, and while warning me against eternal error, should say: Choose! I should humbly bow before his left hand, and say: 'Father forgive! The pure truth is for Thee alone.' "
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 3:03PM
"You can't simply reject "evolution" by professing a belief in "creationism."
Yes, I can.
"By faith we understand that the World was created by the Word of God, so that what is seen was made out of things which do not appear." Heb. 11:3.
JayDick| 9.16.11 @ 3:55PM
If you read the Bible as literal truth, you must reject evolution. If you regard the Bible as teaching truth while not necessarily being literally true in every detail, it is easy to reconcile with evolution, i.e., God caused evolution and perhaps controlled its progress.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 4:30PM
If you do not accept God's Word as to how He created the universe and Mankind and animals as literal truth, then you are calling Him a liar.
"Every Word of God proves true; He is a Shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His Words, lest he rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Prov. 30:5 & 6.
MOS 1 1 2 | 9.16.11 @ 6:03PM
Margie, I have great respect for your beliefs, and have to say that your biblical quotes show you have a profound knowledge of the Text. My belief is that God inspired the Old Testament and the human writers used allegory at times to convey that inspiration. God endowed us with intelligence to study the material wonders of the world He created. The earth is not the center of the solar system or the universe, and it is not 5 0r 6 thousand years old, but I don't have to hold to those things in order to believe in God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 7:02PM
MOS 1 1 2,
I appreciate the kind words, and am glad that you believe in God.
But I must say that the Devil is a deceiver, and he has worked through this fraud~ Darwin to infect the minds of those who would have otherwise fully believed the Words of God.
"Every Word of God proves true; He is a Shield to those who take refuge in Him." Prov. 30:5.
The book of Genesis is NOT an allegory. It is the account of the Creation of the Universe, and of Mankind.
Do not believe what the Papists tell you!
Also~ men that were inspired by the Holy Spirit who wrote the Bible spoke exactly what God wanted them to. He appointed them to do so~ though some Papists like the resident liar RCV will try to tell you otherwise.
The point is that the Holy Spirit IS infallible, and therefore so are the words which they spoke, as God appointed them to do.
Jesus taught some things in parables, yes. But the account of the Creation is not that.
Occam's Tool| 9.16.11 @ 6:07PM
I believe G-d created man and the Earth and the animals. I believe he was explaining the mechanism to a group of savages, as the Israelites were before they received the Word of G-d. The Biible as literal truth and the mechanism of creation being evolution are not incompatible to me.
Hey, but occasionally I may slightly disagree with you, Margie. What I do NOT believe is that man's creation was random and without purpose. The complexity of Man's design would indicate a series of Prigogine systems, and I don't believe that was entirely random.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 6:47PM
But O.T.,
Consider this, though: If God says He created Man in His Image, and then the animals, each according to its kind, in Genesis, it answers the question and completely debunks the perpetrator of a fraud~ Darwin.
RCV| 9.16.11 @ 7:42PM
I agree completely with you, Occam. Evolution is another of God's wondrous mechanisms that He created. What has always impressed me is not the incompatibility of evolution and Genesis, but the remarkable presaging of scientific discoveries that are hidden in that ancient text - the Big Bang, evolution, it's all there if one sees it (as you do) as ancient Man trying to make sense of the revelations made to them by their Creator before they were capable of understanding, and then those stories being passed down from generation to generation.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 7:51PM
"Evolution is another of God's wondrous mechanisms that He created."
Where is that in Scripture, liar?
Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 9:08PM
Margie, you are wonderful.
Again, I simply note mechanism versus motive. How did G-d create man in his image. A simple declarative statement does not delineate the mechanism. For example, we are "wondrously" made. Sure, I believe that---the incredible complexity of the human brain and its incredible redundancy systems shows that to me every day.
Scripture is NOT a biology text. It explains motive, not mechanism. For example, the proscription against eating Pork. Only millenia later did we figure out poorly cooked pork can spread trichinosis. Proof of G-d's word contributing to health, and knowledge beyond the time and place, as RCV noted above.
But the point I'm making on this one, and it is important, is that Dawkins takes the mechanism (not fully understood---the science is not settled) and uses it to infer motive. On that he's dead wrong. Look up Prigogine systems---first off, they're neat, and secondly, they help to counter commentary against there being a designer.
You see, Margie, Prigogine systems are areas of increasing complexity and declining entropy---they can only occur by increasing entropy in the greater system. They occur in human beings in a number of areas. How could they evolve against the natural tendency towards entropy without help?
Do you begin to see my point? I am NOT on the opposite side of you, nor do I believe that G-d's word here was not literal. I simply don't think it was covering the topics as thoroughly as a 21st Century biologist would like because it wasn't written for him.
Keep praying for me. I need it. Thanks, Margie.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 2:11PM
O.T.,
God says precisely how He did it. His "mechanism" was to create Man from the Earth:
"..then the LORD God formed Man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being." Gen. 2:7.
There you have your mechanism, and His motive? I'd say pure love. :^).
Us humanoids want to try and make it oh so complicated! But that's how He did it~~ and when you finally reach Heaven, if God so grants you or I to enter His Kingdom by His Grace~ there is where we shall be able to know Him as He is.
Mankind gets into trouble when he tries to play God and decide that he knows better. God tells us all we need to know, for now. In this life,
He made it so that we cannot figure everything out. Even King David proclaimed:
"Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain it." Ps. 139:6.
And his son, King Solomon, the wisest man to exist, said this:
"He has made everything beautiful in
its time. Also, He has set eternity in their
heart, without which man cannot find out
the work that God makes from the beginning
even to the end." Ecc. 3:11.
And check this out, too~ Solomon continued on, explaining the scientific fact of "Matter cannot be created nor destroyed:
"I know that whatever God does, it
shall be forever; nothing is to be added
to it, and nothing is to diminish from it.
For God does it so that they fear before
Him.
15 That which has been, it already is; and
that which is to be, it already has been."
Like I always say, and am in agreement with the God of the Bible:
"Every Word of God proves true; He is a Shield to those who take refuge in Him.
Do not add to His Words, lest He rebuke you, and you be found a liar." Prov. 30:5 & 6.
You see, it is very serious stuff. Mankind thinks he is permitted to mess around with what God says, ad to or change things to what He has said and done, but when we do that, we are then calling Him a liar.
Be careful, and pray. Many, many people do not take His Words seriously.
Some, like the RCV's and so-called Liberal Christians make a mockery of the Word of God.
They discard what they wish to in order to try and justify themselves and their sin.
They mock people like me who believe every Word of God~ they call me a "Bible idolator" and accuse me of worshipping the book, and not the Lord.
This is sick and perverted. Why?
Because Jesus says that His very Words are Spirit and Life.
And where are His Words found? In the Bible.
"It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you that do not believe." Jn. 6:63 & 64.
These men are wicked men.
God forgives ignorance, but not blatant wickedness.
"The house of the wicked will be destroyed, but the tent of the upright will flourish." Prov. 14:11.
You are witnessing spiritual warfare here, O.T.
And I will always pray for you, that you fully choose the God of the Bible, and His Son, the Lord Jesus Christ, Who died for you~yes, He did~ the Son of God died for you in your place, just as He did for me.
And He rose from the dead, and He lives!!
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 4:36PM
P.S. To O.T:
Consider an amazing thing: God says He created Man from dust from the ground.
It's a scientific fact that many of the same minerals that are in the Earth are also contained in our bodies.
Interesting?
Proving that, once again, as it is written, "Every Word of God proves true." Prov. 30:5.
Also, here is a truthful statement taken from CSI website:
"The Bible clearly affirms the truth that all living things reproduce according to their own kind. They are genetically pre-programmed in their DNA at the cellular level to reproduce exact replicas of themselves. Dogs produce the dog 'kind' and humans produce the human 'kind'. This is clearly demonstrated by what we see in nature and it is also confirmed in the fossil record where every living thing appears abruptly, fully formed in the fossil record, just as it is recorded in the Book of Genesis, Gen. 1:21, 24-25."
stik| 9.18.11 @ 7:06AM
Genesis 6:1-4
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 9:22PM
Occam,
When your conversion to Christ finally comes about, (many of us are surely praying for you, including your own family), you will come to believe that EVERY Word of God is true, and you will reject the lies of Darwin and his "theory."
"God is spirit, and those who worship him must worship in spirit and truth." Jn. 4:24.
Because, in truth, it cannot be that Darwin and God are both telling the truth.
God says He created..
Darwin says we evolved.
One of them is a liar.
Israel & America, friends| 9.16.11 @ 11:35PM
In my opinion it is AntiSemitic to attempt to convert or otherwise "perfect" God's chosen people.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 11:40PM
What?
Haven't you ever heard of preaching the Gospel to the Jew and the Gentile?
It's the Will of God.
Chaim Goldman| 9.17.11 @ 1:54AM
I think you know better Margie.
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 2:31PM
Know better than whom? God?
It is He Who tells me (according to His Word) to preach the Gospel of His Son, Jesus Christ.
Liars and evil doers want nothing to do with Him, or His Son.
Where do YOU stand?
Bob K.| 9.16.11 @ 6:20PM
Evolution fails because it refuses to accept that there is a fundamental difference between human life and all other forms of life.
Creationism fails because it refuses to admit that God has chosen not to reveal all His truths to His children.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 6:44PM
False. Creationism does not fail, because God cannot fail. To say that it fails is to say that He fails.
God has reveals all that one needs to know. You could say it's on a need-to-know basis.
And why not? God only reveals His secrets to those whom He chooses.
Here is what He says about who those people are:
"The secret things belong to the LORD our God; but the things that are revealed belong to us and to our children for ever, that we may do all the words of this law." Deut. 29:29.
And this:
"In the same hour Jesus rejoiced in the
Spirit, and said, I praise You, Father, Lord
of Heaven and of earth, that You hid these
things from the sophisticated and learned
and revealed them to babes; yes, Father,
because so it was pleasing before You.
All things were given over to Me by
My Father, and no one knows who the Son
is if not the Father; and who is the Father,
if not the Son, and He to whom the Son
may desire to reveal Him." Lk. 10:21 & 22.
Bob K.| 9.16.11 @ 8:12PM
God cannot fail. It is his children who fail. And they fail because he has given them free will to fail if they choose. They would not have free will if he revealed all of his truths to them. Free will would be worthless if his children did not have the ability to discover some of these truths. The history of man is full of these discoveries.
Some truths will never be discovered or revealed.
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 1:44PM
You said Creationism fails, and that's what I was addressing.
God never fails, His Word is Truth.
Anthony| 9.16.11 @ 6:45PM
I guess you can't simply reject creationism by expressing a belief in evolution. It is simplistic, confused and rigid. It has no explanation for the lack of actual physical evidence of human life prior to the creation. Evolution is taken by faith by people either too busy to study its false claims or too ignorant to see them.
W| 9.16.11 @ 7:05PM
Are we confusing two issues, how life started and how it developed or evolved after life was created?
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 7:23PM
No. God says He created Man in His Image, out of the earth, and in the Image of God, therefore we do not evolve from animals.
He also says that he created the animals from the dust of the ground~ each according to its kind.
Each according to its kind!!
There was no primordial soupmix, and no evolving.
He created everything just the way He meant it to be, therefore there was no need for the fraudulent "theory" of evolution.
It flies in the face of God's Word. Too bad certain Religions have chosen to teach this fraud to their sheep.
W| 9.16.11 @ 9:03PM
You can believe whatever you like, but the creation in the Bible is consistent with evolution if you accept that God is the first cause, created life with the design or plan to develop as it did. There is a great deal of evidence to support evolution, but evolution does not explain how life started.
Not to dredge up past posts, but you know I disagreed strongly with all your comments about Catholics and other religions that you do not approve of. There is no reason for you to constantly inject into every discussion you opinions about Catholics. We already know. I am sick of your constant attacks, and enough is enough.
This is year 2011 and Catholics or Jews do not have to list the names of prominent Catholics or Jews to try to convince you.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 9:14PM
W~
That's right, I can believe whatever I want to, and I choose to believe every Word of God.
There is NO "Evolution" in Genesis, or in any part of the Bible.
YOU just made it up!
AND furthermore, when a thread happens to be about Catholicism, or when a comment is made about it, and it is a lie or a false teaching~ I will speak up about it.
When Catholicism repents of its false teachings, I will congratulate it~ but until then I will NEVER shut up.
Joseph| 9.16.11 @ 9:47PM
W
You are wasting your time trying to reason with a hopeless bigot. The mullah has spoken. Nobody can disagree.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 11:28PM
The Bible t (God's own Words) tells us exactly WHO the BIGOTS are:
"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the Doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son." 2 Jn. 1:9.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 9:16PM
p.s. I simply speak in Scriptures and expose the lies of Catholicism.
THAT is not attacking~ the attacking is done by the Catholics!
LOL.
And it is fierce!
Les Nesman| 9.16.11 @ 11:57PM
The biggest problem I have as being Christian is giving away all my stuff.
In the Gospel Jesus is asked by a rich man, what he could do to secure salvation. Jesus answers simply. "Give away all that you have & follow me". I have never been able to do this. I am not sure what this means for me in terms of salvation, seeing a lot of other people in the same boat, hoping maybe times have changed since 2000 years ago.
DLB| 9.17.11 @ 12:58PM
The rich man asked, "What must I do to be perfect?" Jesus's reply was sarcasm, in effect saying "You can't be perfect by your own actions."
Les Nesman| 9.18.11 @ 12:35AM
That is not correct. Mark 17-22 shows us that we must give away everything to the poor if we are to achieve salvation. No doubt that is why it said that the way is narrow, with few to pass. It is one thing to claim Christ as your Savior. It is another thing to do what he commands. At this point, I cannot do it, as my faith in the Lord providing for me with me having nothing is not in place.
Les Nesman| 9.17.11 @ 12:19AM
What I can't figure out is what all these fossils are doing on my ranch. I'm looking at sea shells here in SW OK which has got to be 1000 miles from any ocean. Some say the devil put them there to confuse me, & it worked,
Anthony| 9.17.11 @ 3:55PM
Ever hear of the great flood?
taxguy| 9.17.11 @ 11:35AM
But why bother? You simply do not have the courage to face up to the false assuptions you are a slave to.
JimW9| 9.16.11 @ 10:07AM
Shallow is right. The basic problem is a conflict in schemas - our internal maps or paradigms that dictate how we control, treat and classify the constant flow of information flooding our brains through our senses.
Schemas allow us to make sense of the world. But there's a problem with our schemas - they are all to some degree faulty. Every human paradigm is by nature different than the reality it represents.
So when we're dealing with the big, abstract issues - God, cosmology, why there is existence - our schemas can so easily lead us astray.
Evolution is a structured process of gathering evidence and interpreting information - the scientific method. Conclusions are constantly challenged and theories forever put to the acid test of experimentation and peer review (other than global warming, of course).
Where science parts from philosophy as well as religion is verification in the natural world. Any theological or philosophical explanation of the nature of the universe may be true but in order for it to be "scientific" it must be subject to verification and testing. If not, the theory remains outside of science which is not say that it is either true or false. (Ask theoretical physicists if string theory is science or philosophy, step back and watch the fun.)
Without evidence science must remain speculative as to "first causes" or any fact of existence for which no verifiable proof exists. That's not its Achilles heal but rather its greatest explanatory strength.
Vern Crisler | 9.16.11 @ 10:11AM
Evolution is not subject to verification and testing.
JimW9| 9.16.11 @ 11:55AM
Any and every scientific principle and theory is always subject to verification and testing.
Evolution is not one set of theories. Evolution, broadly stated, covers all natural science disciplines including geology, astronomy, cosmology, etc.
To say evolution is not subject to verification and testing is to say the scientific method doesn't exist. Certainly you know this claim to be false.
mames| 9.16.11 @ 12:59PM
The hypothesis can only be tested in a very indirect manner with large numbers of assumptions along the way. Assumptions that the earth is very old are based on faith in assumed changes that by their vary nature cannot be observed; a bedrock aspect of the scientific method i.e., this fossil looks very old, my aging tests based on a set of assumptions says it is so it must be is not direct science, it is a faith.
Seek| 9.16.11 @ 2:55PM
Actually, it is. But the Book of Genesis? That's a different story.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 3:11PM
Why? Why is one able to accept on faith the teaching of Evolution which Darwin created, but not the faith one has to believe what God teaches?
Especially when there is no proof of Evolution at all, but there is the vidence of God's Creation all around us?
"For the wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all ungodliness and wickedness of men who by their wickedness suppress the truth.
For what can be known about God is plain to them, because God has shown it to them.
Ever since the creation of the World His invisible Nature, namely, his Eternal Power and Deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.." Rom. 1:18-20.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 3:12PM
vidence should be evidence, above.
Timothy L. Pennell| 9.16.11 @ 9:31PM
In the beginning, there was the BIG BANG.
Actually, in the beginning, there was a single Hydrogen Atom, that went BANG. Except that, now, it is being called: The GOD Particle.
Interesting.
It's always been a bit of a problem, for these Men of Science, that Hydrogen Atom. Not so much, the Atom, itself, but, rather, where it came from. (It's like the Hacked Emails from East Anglia, to the whole BIG BANG Theory) Which is what it is. A THEORY.
The hard Left, the "Never dated a Girl" Scientific Geek Dweebs, and their Atheist allies, use the THEORY of Evolution to PROVE that there's no GOD.
Problem is, Darwin believed in GOD.
We know that things Evolve. That's why our Wisdom Teeth have to come out. Nobody's saying that there's no evolution going on.
What we ARE saying, is this: Until you can tell us where the GOD PARTICLE came from. Until you can explain why WE BUILD SPACE SHIPS, and every other species that ever existed, and exists NOW, hasn't advanced ONE IOTA, in comparison. The Shark and the Alligator, haven't made any strides in intelligence, and they've been around since the Dinosaurs. If we evolved from APES? Why are there still apes? And, why are there no Ape/Human middle men, running around?
There has to be a REASON that we are like GODS, compared to every other species. And, don't give me the MEAT EATING increased our Brain Size. There have been THOUSANDS of Meat Eaters, and they've never gotten past the "Licking themselves clean" stage.
Interesting.
Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 9:13PM
Margie,
I don't see where Genesis and Evolution are in conflict. That's all.
But hey, I still adore you and your hubby even if I occasionally don't fully agree (and if you parse my comments, I think you'll see I agree with you more than you think---it's just that I refer to the Washington Manual rather than the Bible when looking up a non-psych treatment for a patient, even though the Bible lays down the foundational principles that led to Jews studying Medicine in great numbers.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 2:24PM
O.T.,
See my above post as to that "mechanism" thingy you mentioned.
I understand you more than you know~ I used to be just like you. I believed God existed, but I didn't believe INTO Him.
There's a difference, actually. What changed?
Ahh, that is the question, the wonderful question, Occam!
I decided to give the Lord Jesus Christ a fair trial.
Yes, unlike Pontious Pilate did, I, by the Grace of God, humbled myself and said, "Jesus, if you are real, please show me, and if you promise to reveal yourself to me, I promise to be faithful to you for the rest of my life."
The rest is history! He did reveal Himself to me, He came into my very being, filled me with His Holy Spirit, and made me a new creation~ from the inside out.
He has never failed me yet, and that was almost 40 years ago. I have failed Him many a time, I'm still a ruined sinner saved by Grace, but He has always been faithful to me.
How did this come about? Another of one those Bible-idolators, that's how! Yes, a Bible believing Christian presented to me the gospel of Jesus Christ, answering all of my questions by showing me a verse in the Bible. God answered all the necessary questions from His Words in that book, and I gave my life to the Lord.
"For God so loved the world that He gave His only Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have eternal life.
For God sent the Son into the world, not to condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him." Jn. 3:16 & 17.
I used to pray that God would save Bob Dylan, my old idol, and He did.
I'm praying for you in the same way. Better watch out! A Lot of us Bible idolators are praying for you!
Sooner rather than later, you might become one of us!
Joseph| 9.19.11 @ 7:49AM
After you found Jesus you turned into this intolerant, mean person who calls everybody a punk, liar, demon, wicked, blah blah. Gee how were you before you found Jesus.
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 8:45PM
You are a punk, and a liar. You actually behave like a demon as well. Consider your constant lying about why I believe.
You're disgusting.
And a two bit coward to boot.
JimW9| 9.19.11 @ 10:59AM
Hal Colebatch states:
"(Evolution) tells us nothing about what set that process in notion, created the Earth we stand on, or created the universe from some unimaginable pre-Creation state without space or time. The idea that the Universe created itself out of nothing seems somehow unsatisfactory."
As we've all been taught, you don't get "something for nothing" (and, it would seem, something from nothing). I would agree that this causality disconnection is the most troubling and inexplicable aspect of evolution. Particle physicists tell us that on the quantum level, particles spring in and out of existence continually. Could the universe have sprung into existence based upon the same quantum principles?
Who knows - I have no idea. The only beef I hold with those who posit the ultimate causality as God is to then ask - where did God come from, what is God, how can one describe the nature of God?
For those who accept the narrative from a religious text as the endpoint of the discussion, the uncaused cause, that answer remains outside of the scientific method. To disparage those who accept this narrative with Dawkins' invective and insult is to display fear and resentment, a reflection on Dawkins far more than on the narrative.
The religious narrative may be right and it may be wrong. The narrative I subscribe to is this: I only accept as real that which can be verified in the natural world, for I have no other way to protect myself from delusion. So ANY religious or other non-scientific narrative may be true - but may as well be false without natural world verification.
axbucxdu| 9.19.11 @ 10:10PM
The Scientific Method looks suspiciously like an algorithm. Furthermore, the belief of its practitioners is that scientific pursuits are also logically consistent. It is supposed that for the religiously rational, it makes no sense wasting time with something that is say, "delusional". OK so far...but when taken together, these assumptions create a problem that escapes any solution.
The scientific dilemma then is this: The set of scientific truths is permanently larger than its corresponding set of proofs, or what can be verified in the "real" world. Either you accept this as true, or you are forced to accept without any worldly confirmation whatsoever that scientific analysis is both procedural (computable) and logically consistent.
The land of make believe "corrupts" everything, including science. Science itself says so. Welcome to the rabbit hole.
Rather than restrict my reality to proof alone, I find it pays to use Werner Heisenberg's advice: by recognizing a danger (e.g., that caused by unsupported belief) one can consider it thus half removed.
DLB| 9.16.11 @ 6:40AM
"There is no end point or improvement that evolution aims at."
How, exactly, do we know that?
potkas7| 9.16.11 @ 7:26AM
Darwin had a brilliant insight: organisms change over time in response to their environment, but it was another century before we identified DNA as the mechanism by which change comes about. That gave us two elements of Aristotle's system of causes: the Efficient Cause, what brought it about and the Material Cause, what's it's made of. But there are yet two more causes usually ignored by Darwinist-materialists: the Final Cause, the 'that for the sake of which' i.e. What's it for? And the Formal Cause, the underlying pattern.
We are all comfortable with variations in DNA as an explanation for change. We speak of DNA as a 'Blueprint,' or liken it to a 'Computer Program,' without consciously thinking of the fact that both of this things share a common characteristic: they are goal-directed, they have a purpose and an end point.
Science has filled our lives with wonderful gadgets for which we are all grateful. Science describes. But there are questions that the scientific method seems ill-equipped to answer. Questions of Why? Most famously of the Cosmos: 'Why is there Something instead of Nothing?'
Bob| 9.16.11 @ 7:40AM
"there are questions that the scientific method seems ill-equipped to answer. Questions of why?"
There are questions science is not equipped to answer... YET, the answer is better science. Questions of why appear to be deep and meaningful simply because they puzzle us, you have to realise that a lot of it is symantecs, the fact that the english lanuage allows it to be asked doesnt mean it has an answer.
potkas7| 9.16.11 @ 7:52AM
"...There are questions science is not equipped to answer... YET, the answer is better science...you have to realise that a lot of it is symantecs, the fact that the english lanuage allows it to be asked doesnt mean it has an answer..."
I don't know that that is true. There may be an answer but because we don't like it we refuse to acknowledge it. I'm sure you'll agree than there are many people who, when confronted with an answer they don't like, stick their fingers in their ears and go ,"Nah, Nah, Nah, I can't hear you."
Old Soldier| 9.16.11 @ 8:48AM
"We are all comfortable with variations in DNA as an explanation for change. "
No we aren't. Variation in DNA (through selective breeding) explains Micro-evolution. Clydesdale and Arabian horses and different due to breeding selection - but they are still horses and can still be bred to each other. Same with different breeds of dogs and wolves and with different races of people.
Variation of DNA doesn't begin to explain Macro-Evolution. It doesn't explain why humans are locked into 46 chromosomes (numerical disorders results in severe disabilities such as Down Syndrome) while our primate cousins have anywhere from 16 to 60 chromosomes and none of them can breed between species.
What happened? It wasn't just selection. Something bigger happened and science has not explained it yet.
potkas7| 9.16.11 @ 9:10AM
I'm sorry, but isn't this exactly what I said?
We see variation; we learn that DNA explains why bird beaks vary or livestock can be bred and their characteristics changed; We understand cause and effect but not the Why that underlies it.
Old Soldier| 9.16.11 @ 9:13AM
We understand the cause of adaptation. We don't understand the cause of Macro-Evolution.
potkas7| 9.16.11 @ 9:41AM
Yeah, and...?
From your responses I get the impression you're trying to express some kind of disagreement with me but I'm darned if I can figure it out.
mames| 9.16.11 @ 1:09PM
Macro is the major disputed issue. In order for evolution to truly work evolving a new species from another is needed and so far no evidence has been witnessed directly or indirectly by anyone. DNA studies and fossil studies have yielded no evidence for such ocurrences which is why evolution is now being questioned by informed scientists in spite of the irrational, absolutist objections of the "holy" inquisitors for evolution.
diviz| 9.16.11 @ 10:12AM
There is no such thing as a distinction between "micro" and "macro" evolution. Nor has anyone proposed a mechanism by which a cell can distinguish when it has evolved to much for the comfort of creationists.
Speciation has beeen observed. And taking the example of horses: clydesdales and shetland are physically unable to mate given enough generations they will be gentically incompatible as well.
DaveD| 9.16.11 @ 11:22AM
"Species" is one of those words that is extremely hard to get a handle on. A fox and s snake are two different species. So also is a chimpanzee and a gorilla. But there is a lot of difference - even the ignorant and uninformed can see it - between a fox and a snake and not so much between a chimp and a gorilla.
Cynically, I think evolutionists continue to use the word "species" because they can then use it to confuse the issue when attempting to defend their faith.
When you say, "Speciation has been observed," you are not talking about a change of the magnitude of snake to fox, nor are you even describing a more minor change between chimp and gorilla (or bonob0 for that matter).
Instead you are trying to impress me with flies that tend to hover one foot off the ground as opposed to their cousins which fly at about three to four feet up, and you call that speciation. Or you measure the thigh bone of a bird and find one 10% longer and you call that speciaition. Or you get red flowers instead of pink flowers, or four-leafed clovers instead of three-leafed clovers.
With these tiny, and allbeit interesting things, you then extrapolate to suppose that something major and profound, like phylum chordata, could differentiate out through the same mechanism observed in the minor and somewhat obscure changes you observe in nature. Which is a trermendous leap of faith for which you have not one shred of emprical evidence to back it up.
So I ask you, how is evolution different than the belief in the God of the Bible, or Allah, or Hindu reincarnation? Your evidence - what evidence?
To be an evolutionist is to engage in the easiest science known to mankind. All you have to do is lean back, light your pipe, sip your favorite adult beverage and let you mind wander. No need to any heavy lifting, just dream away. After all, major speciation occurs so rapidly that it cannot be observed in geological time (see the Cambrian explosion). And the fossil record is necessarily incomplete because not everything fossilises so your speculations are covered here also. So you can day dream your way into a science and get paid to do it - what a racket.
Darin| 9.16.11 @ 12:36PM
Micro - small change, like a bird developing a harder bill to crack open seeds.
Macro - big change, like a rabbit becoming a cow.
Only the clueless would fail to see the distinction between the two terms. DaveD blows up your lame "speciation" excuse, so you've got nothing.
Vern Crisler | 9.16.11 @ 10:02AM
Ridiculous. Darwinism is MUCH more than the mere claim of "change" over time. It also claims that this "change" leads to scaler complexity -- for which there is not a shred of proof. Darwinists, as usual, confuse necessary conditions with sufficient conditions.
Darin| 9.16.11 @ 6:57AM
The problem with evolution is that it takes evidence of micro evolution (animals adapting to their environment) as evidence of macro evolution (monkeys becoming humans).
There is substantial evidence for micro evolution. There is zero evidence of macro evolution and in fact numerous examples of attempted fraud to "prove" macro evolution (e.g., piltdown man).
Old Soldier| 9.16.11 @ 8:53AM
I should have read all the comments before adding my own. Yours was far more succinct.
JimH| 9.16.11 @ 10:06AM
We do see vestigial leg bones in some snakes and whales. I’m sure there are other examples. If you take fossil evidence as points on a graph, we infer evolution by drawing a line through these points. There is no observed continuum in the fossils themselves though we do seem to be filling in some gaps. Either macro evolution occurs, albeit via a process not understood or the Creator has a bit of a sense of humor.
DaveD| 9.16.11 @ 11:25AM
"Either macro evolution occurs, albeit via a process not understood or the Creator has a bit of a sense of humor."
Or maybe, just maybe, if you look at the fossils without preconditions you end up with a completely different story.
mames| 9.16.11 @ 1:33PM
vestigial is a wishful term it may be a micro change or the "vestigial" served a function we do not yet understand.
JimH| 9.16.11 @ 3:31PM
I think one may be limiting the Lords capabilities by saying that he could not have put in place a macro evolutionary process from which new species arise. To say that these creatures just spontaneously appeared without any sort of antecedent or that creatures perfectly adapted to the conditions extent when they showed up seems unlikely. Darwinist evolution says that there is no goal in mind and it is all an elaborate feedback process. Life has not only changed size and shape; new species have also become increasingly sophisticated in their construction. To me this means that there is intelligence at work. I like to think that those 18th century scientists and philosophers were closest to the truth who believed that God created a marvelous complex and beautiful universe, and gave us intelligence so that we might try to appreciate it.
Seek| 9.16.11 @ 2:56PM
Evolutionary biology does not argue that monkeys became men. You're misrepresenting the issue.
Rob Schapiro| 9.16.11 @ 7:13AM
"There is no end point or improvement that evolution aims at."
How, exactly, do we know that?
Good question DLB. We know it because the main driver of evolutionary change is the need to adapt to a particular environment. Check out the leopards adaption. African leopard- very short yellow hair. Arctic leopard- very long white hair. Is that their final adaption? No. As their environment slowly alters, so will the Leopard. Eg become smaller if food becomes scarce. There is no end point to adaption.
DaveD| 9.16.11 @ 7:55AM
You start out with a leopard and, voila, you end up with a leopard. Shazam, what a process. It is able to take a leopard and create another leopard. Am I impressed, or what.
Rob Schapiro| 9.16.11 @ 1:54PM
Its only another Leopard because of the short time frame in evolutionary terms. Eventually neither leopard will look anything like the other but they will have a common ancestor. And specialization within a species is the main point of evolutionary change- to adapt to changing conditions.
DaveD| 9.16.11 @ 3:52PM
So how many years, do you think, before one or the other of them turns into a dog? Or will they both still be leopards 100,000 years from now?
I know, I know, neither you nor I can answer that question because we won't be around long enough to find out. Not to mention that the environmental conditions promoting one leopard in favour of another won't be the same - especially as AGW is about to destroy the planet.
So all we have left is speculation and who is to say your guess is better than mine? If I were you I wouldn't believe me and I certainly don't think your guess is worth beans. But remember, it's just a guess.
Rob Schapiro| 9.16.11 @ 6:22PM
I'm afraid its not just a guess Dave D. DNA and especially microcondial DNA leaves a genetic trail that can be followed back millions of years. Unless you are prepared to reject that science you have to accept the slow parting of species due to adaption in different environments or other pressures. Also, I seriously hope you do not believe the AGW scam. For God sake wake up!
DaveD| 9.17.11 @ 1:01AM
Actually, I am more inclined towards AGW than evolution since, as see it, AGW has more hard science behind it. But I don't buy into AGW either.
If by a mitochondrial genetic trail you mean comparing various living cells today and inferring evolution from the differences in DNA (between reptiles and mammals for instance) - I'm not buying into that - that's arguing in a circle. If, on the other hand, you are inferring that million year old DNA can be extracted from the fossil record I'd be most curious to know how they managed that feat.
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 1:06AM
The reality, Rob, is that few if any of the commentators posting here have ever taken university-level courses in Evolutionary Biology, which is why they characterize it as postulating that "Humans evolved from monkeys" or question why apes never learn to read! The advances in our understanding of DNA, as you have noted, have only confirmed what the fossil records have long pointed to.
Nor does one have to reject faith in God and his purposeful Creation to appreciate what Science continues to reveal, as Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome Project, forcefully lays out in his brilliant work, "The Mind of God".
W| 9.17.11 @ 8:26AM
RCV,
Collins' book is terrific. He especially credits CS Lewis, among others such as Mother Theresa's life, for his path from atheism to belief in God. I also liked Athony Flew's memoir of his conversion from atheism to belief in God. He was the world famous atheist.
Old Soldier| 9.16.11 @ 8:50AM
Yet they all remain leopards and can still inter-breed. You are explaining specialization - not evolution.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 3:23PM
Thank you, Old Soldier. You've got it right.
Yet, people will believe what they are destined to believe.
The explanation that God gave us is very clear, though.
In Genesis He actually lets us know exactly how He created Mankind, and how He created the animals.
He created Mankind in His Image, in the Image of God. Gen. 1:27.
And the animals He created, "each according to its kind." Gen. 1:24 & 25.
Man in God's Image.
That is why we have the ability to reason, and logic.
And it is why your comment, Old Soldier, proves true. They are explaining specialization, not "evolution."
Ron Artese| 9.17.11 @ 12:29AM
The Lord is the potter. The potter makes many vessels. Some vessels are made to be broken. Like the Canaanites & the Philistines, or the great lizards from Adam's time. It is the way of the Lord.
Deb| 9.16.11 @ 8:52AM
While their is natural selection at work, has the Arctic leopard seen an increase in genetic information?
Has the African leopard seen an increase in genetic information?
Old Soldier| 9.16.11 @ 9:01AM
Greg Bear's Sci-Fi explanation of macro-evolution in "Darwin's Radio" is more plausible than anything "Biology" has told us yet.
Kenny| 9.16.11 @ 7:16AM
Friend, it is far more than "the unique quality of the human brain" which neo-Darwinism fails to explain.
It is all of cell biology; it is presence of information in the genetic code; it is the beginning of life itself.
And as Darin above says, there is zero evidence of macro evolution. Zero.
Michael Tomlinson| 9.16.11 @ 7:31AM
Dawkins is a typical neo-fascist, but this doesn’t excuse the authors tedious intolerance that is typical for the arrogant who think they’re better than others.
potkas7| 9.16.11 @ 8:19AM
Is there a point being made here? If so what it is is not clear.
Papa Midnight| 9.16.11 @ 7:31AM
Its ironic that you would start your article with the quote "It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant..." as if it is some reactionary diatribe and then you go on to demonstrate pure ignorance towards the subject. Evolution does not claim to explain the origin of life or the universe for that matter, it is simply how simple life forms become complex. Evolution does not "fail to explain" the development of the brain, you simply fail to comprehend the explanation, there are numerous factors e.g. inquisitive exploration, energy savings due to cooked meat, use of tools IS observed in lower apes. As for art, what other creature is successful enough to spend the time we do on liesure?
And to Darin: The micro-macro issue is pure strawman, what do you think would result from hundreds of thousands of years of slight adaptations? Do you seriously think some tiny controversy within the field of biology justifies a belief in magic? (creationism)
Darin| 9.16.11 @ 8:11AM
Evolution is the strawman based on Darwins observations of birds on a remote island. Darwin said there should be ample fossil evidence showing changes, yet none has been found in over 150 years. Darwin had zero understanding of the complexity of the cell. In his day, the cell was thought to be just a blob. In truth (as revealed via powerful microscopes) the cell is highly complex. It takes a big imagination to believe this (and more) level of vast complexity and interaction happened by chance. The "tiny controversy" is the core basis of evolution, so it's not so tiny. It's the bedrock upon which evolution is built. And an honest evaluation of the evidence shows that bedrock is made of sand. I don't have enough faith to believe evolution is true. I do have enough faith to believe the universe was created by God.
diviz| 9.16.11 @ 10:16AM
Vast and copous amounts of fossil evidence and long fossil records have been accumulated. These are frequently on display in museums and can be referenced inn numerous books.
Darin| 9.16.11 @ 10:27AM
If you mean fossil evidence and records that do not support evolution as a change between species, I agree.
Les Nesman| 9.17.11 @ 1:06AM
What I can't figure out is what all these fossils are doing on my ranch. I'm looking at sea shells here in SW OK which has got to be 1000 miles from any ocean. Some say the devil put them there to confuse me, & it worked. How'd they get here in the last six thousand years? And they're coming from a cut 30 feet under the surface too. I don't know about species change, but somebody's got some explaining to do.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 3:31PM
Darwin was a rebel against God. His theories are just that, rebellion.
Dinesh D'Souza writes of him,
"When his young daughter Annie died at the age of 10, Darwin came to hate the God whom he blamed for this. This was in 1851, eight years before Darwin released his Origin of Species.
Around the time of Annie's death, Darwin also wrote that if Christianity were true then it would follow that his grandfather Erasmus Darwin and many of his closest family friends would be in hell. Darwin found this utterly unacceptable, given that these men were wise and kind and generous. Darwin's rejection of God was less an act of unbelief as it was a rebellion against the kind of God posited by Christianity. A God who would allow a young girl to die and good people to go to hell was not anyone that Darwin wanted to worship.."
Darwin was a fraud. Because of him, our school children are being taught that we evolved from apes, instead of being Created by a kind and loving God.
He served his Master well. But the Master, my Master, the God of the Universe, is truly Lord, and Creator!
Ron Artese| 9.17.11 @ 12:33AM
If evolution was true, humans should be smarter than they were before. But that is clearly not the case. Ergo, evolution is wrong. Also, if evolution was true, we should see apes & monkeys using tools & language. But, they do not, therefore evolution is false.
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 1:50PM
Heh, and just what are the apes still doing around?
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 3:39PM
Humans didn't evolve from modern apes, Margie. We have the fossil record of human evolution. Both modern apes and other primates, including humans, evolved from common ancestors. It would be nice if you did at least some minimal reading about evolution before you purport to critique it.
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 8:31PM
Keep calling God a liar. It's your destiny so far.
He gave us His Word, and told us exactly what He did:
"And God said, "Let the earth bring forth living creatures according to their kinds: cattle and creeping things and beasts of the earth according to their kinds." And it was so.
And God made the beasts of the earth according to their kinds and the cattle according to their kinds, and everything that creeps upon the ground according to its kind. And God saw that it was good.
Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth."
So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him; male and female He created them." Gen. 1:24-27.
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 8:57PM
It's not God who is speaking Margie, and he's not therefore "lying". As anyone who can read can notice, there are two different creation stories in Genesis, with a number of differences between them. They obviously come from two different oral transmissions of the same inspired story, which over the generations got the details garbled, as with the telephone game. They can't both be inerrent. (Did fruit trees come before or after Adam? Was Eve formed at the same time as Adam, or later, out of one of his ribs? Etc etc)
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 2:30PM
I was referring to you, RCV, not brother Ron, above!
The Words of God are only untrue to those who do not believe in Him.
Anyone who can say that the Bible contains the written Word of God is not of God themselves.
What do you say to Jesus' own Words here, then:
"It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you that do not believe." Jn. 6:63 & 64.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 2:31PM
Correction to above: Anyone who can say that the Bible does NOT contain the written Word of God is not of God themselves.
DaveD| 9.16.11 @ 8:14AM
"... what do you think would result from hundreds of thousands of years of slight adaptations?"
I will accept what the fossil record shows. After millions of years of slight adaptations, a cockroach is still a cockroach. It may be improved here and there but it is still identifiable as a cockroach. Nothing has happened, no slight adaptation, no accumulation of slight adaptations have managed to do anything other than produce a better cockroach.
The notion that somewhere along the line, a slightly improved cockroach lost enough of its cockroachness to become something else is a tremendous leap of, dare I say, faith.
Evolution is one of those sciences where even its proponents use the word "believe" to describe it. Why? If the science was so strong, the evidence so overwhelming, why does an atheist evolutionist, Dawkins, use faith-based terms when describing it? Is that all evolutionists have got, a faith that undirected change can be held accountable for life as we know it?
It is not through faith that I know the earth to be a sphere. It is not through faith that I know that the earth revolves around the sun and that the sun is incredibly huge and not much different than billions of other stars in the galaxy. It is not through faith that I know that what goes up must come down. Faith doesn't tell me that oil and water do not mix. Faith doesn't tell me I need oxygen to live.
But faith appears to be primary requirement for those of us who earnestly believe that life as we know it arose from the steady accumulation of undirected itsy bitsy teeny tiny changes. Pshaw!
Kingofthenet| 9.18.11 @ 5:02PM
So DNA KNOWS how to stop the changes before a cockroach becomes another type of bug, how clever of it!
DaveD| 9.18.11 @ 11:19PM
On the contrary, Cockroach DNA only knows how to make cockroaches. It doesn;t know how to make bumblebees.
Deb| 9.16.11 @ 8:54AM
Where have you seen an increase in genetic information?
Vern Crisler | 9.16.11 @ 10:05AM
Brilliant question, Deb.....
RT| 9.16.11 @ 7:48AM
The *theory* of evolution is junk science and junk religion.
Junk science: it violates nature's most fundamental law, the second law of thermodynamics, which states that the Universe is winding down, not up.
Junk religion: it cannot be reconciled with the book of Genesis because evolution requires death and there was no death in the Bible until after man sinned, which was after creation was completed.
Evolution is simply a form of modern day paganism, a dogmatic belief in a ridiculous hocus-pocus system dispite one scintilla of supporting evidence where, were it true, the evidence would be overwhelming. Honk if you understand that punctuated equilibrium is bullshit.
-#- rr| 9.16.11 @ 9:00AM
This subject should bring out all the religious troglodytes--believers of intelligent design-- like the above RT.
John Navratil| 9.16.11 @ 9:37AM
-#- rr,
Please tell use your belief and why it is held.
RT| 9.16.11 @ 5:40PM
No, no -#- rr, you're the troglodyte. It says so on the grafitti that Darwin, your flea-bearded fool of a god, wrote on the on all the transition-state fossils that he found in abundance.
diviz| 9.16.11 @ 10:29AM
The 2nd law of thermodynamics states that the entropy of a closed sytem can only increase. The entropy of an open system, one where energy enters the system, such as the earth on an orgnaism can decrease becasue the energy can be used to decrease the entropy within the system. Evolution therefore does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Darin| 9.16.11 @ 12:46PM
The Second Law of thermodynamics states that while quantity remains the same (First Law), the quality of matter/energy deteriorates gradually over time, otherwise known as entropy. The universe is a closed system based on the First Law (matter cannot be created or destroyed, only changed in form). If you define the universe as an open system, where new matter/energy is created, you are by definition saying there is an external source adding that matter/energy. So you're saying evolution does not violate the Second Law because of what God does. In other words, you're making a non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"). Make up your mind.
Occam's Tool| 9.18.11 @ 12:08PM
Prigogine systems, folks. Look them up. 1977 Nobel Prize in Chemistry, Ilya Prigogine.
RT| 9.16.11 @ 5:42PM
diviz,
The second law of thermo is a universal law, applying, as it does, to the universe. The universe is a closed system. The *theory* of evolution therefore DOES violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics.
Zebulon| 9.17.11 @ 12:36AM
There are only two thing that are infinite, the universe & human stupidity. But I am not sure about the universe. But if it is the universe, then your argument is a goner. Apologies to Albert.
Rustywheeler| 9.21.11 @ 3:52PM
Christ's sake. This old chestnut.
The theory of evolution does not violate the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Evolution occurred ON EARTH, not "in the Universe," and the earth is an open system orbiting a giant battery which constantly floods the surface with energy.
>sighs heavily
Kingofthenet| 9.16.11 @ 11:31AM
That second law of Thermodynamics refers to a CLOSED system, the Earth/Solar System is hardly closed we receive Energy from the Sun every day.
Darin| 9.16.11 @ 12:48PM
The sun is following the First Law of Thermodymanics by changing the form of matter/energy. The quantity does not change. The universe is a closed system.
diviz| 9.16.11 @ 1:11PM
The subject is evolution, which has only been observed on earth. The earth is not a closed system it gains energy from the sun and radiates energy into space.
RT| 9.16.11 @ 5:54PM
Again, diviz, the system is the universe. Or, for you adle-brained Darwin worshipers, if it makes it simpler for you, you could "stipulate" that the system is the earth and the sun. That wouldn't make it so, but if you're going to carve out the earth then I should be able to carve out the earth and the sun. In either case (i.e. the universe or the earth plus the sun) it is a closed system, which adhears to the immutable the 2nd LAW of thermo, of which the flea-bearded *theory* of evolution is in violation.
Kingofthenet| 9.17.11 @ 1:02AM
You don't understand basic Science. We have NO idea IF the Universe is open or not...you fool. Or do you have proof? But it really doesn't matter because the Solar System is NOT a closed System,it has energy coming and going, you want a closed solar system, maybe you can have your 'ShyGod' put is in a solar system sized snow-globe...
RT| 9.16.11 @ 5:59PM
Kingofthefalsepremises,
The earth plus the sun is a closed system, as is the universe. (If you get to separate the earth from the universe then I get to separate the earth plus the sun therefrom as well. That's only fair.)
Kingofthenet| 9.18.11 @ 1:02PM
Even in a closed system 'Evolution' can take place, it only means there will be a limit on how far it can go. This is common sense, if you had a sealed system and grew bacteria, and it was large, you 'could' grow 10,000 of generations before toxins or lack of food would become an issue.The 10,000 generation 'could' have changes from the original, that's evolution in a closed system.
Seek| 9.16.11 @ 2:58PM
RT: Creationism is the ultimate junk science.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 3:35PM
I thought you weren't an atheist?
Are you now going to take back your thorough excoriation of me?
Or are you going to claim you believe in God, but not that He created the Universe?
RT| 9.16.11 @ 5:43PM
Seek, no, you're the ultimate junk "scientist."
Vacogito| 9.16.11 @ 8:30AM
Let me paraphrase Pope Benedict who was paraphrasing Origen who wrote a series of essays around 212 A.D.: The early church fathers did not believe that the account of creation was meant to be a literal description of how the universe was created. Rather it is prophetic in nature-- showing us the true nature of our relationship to God and creation's relationship to God. Both atheists and fundamentalists have gotten bogged down in Genesis as a literal interpretation of how the universe and our world was created. It leaves both of them looking silly and shallow.
donserge| 9.16.11 @ 8:54AM
While Origen did create a new science, Biblical theology, he was repudiated by many of the post-Constantine church fathers. Even Jerome who initially highly thought of him came to regard Origen as heretical . I am surprised that Pope Bendict would refer to him.
Belloc| 9.16.11 @ 9:53AM
Origen has been deeply studied by theologians like Hans urs von Balthasar (who has profoundly influenced JPII as well as BXVI). They are well aware of his lapses, but have revived his valuable insights.
Vacogito| 9.16.11 @ 2:40PM
Here is a quote from the Pope's 2011 Easter Vigil message concerning creation and the Genesis account:
"In the liturgical tradition all these readings were called prophecies. Even when they are not directly foretelling future events, they have a prophetic character, they show us the inner foundation and orientation of history. They cause creation and history to become transparent to what is essential. In this way they take us by the hand and lead us towards Christ, they show us the true Light.
"At the Easter Vigil, the journey along the paths of sacred Scripture begins with the account of creation. This is the liturgy's way of telling us that the creation story is itself a prophecy. It is not information about the external processes by which the cosmos and man himself came into being. The Fathers of the Church were well aware of this. They did not interpret the story as an account of the process of the origins of things, but rather as a pointer towards the essential, towards the true beginning and end of our being."
He does not quote Origen in particular but must be thinking about him when he says Father's of the Church. It was Origen who wrote about the creation story as prophetic in nature.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 5:31PM
"It is not information about the external processes by which the cosmos and man himself came into being."
Really? The Papacy said that, eh?
Well, he's a liar. But no surprise there. The Papacy were blood thirsty murderers of Bible believing Christians for many centuries.
One either believes what God says, or they believe the lying Papists.
Easy choice for me!
MOS 1 1 2 | 9.16.11 @ 6:25PM
I retract my statement of respect for you. The hatred for the Roman Catholic Church just spewed out of you. The internet shows me that hatred for the Church abounds among fundamentalists, atheists, Jews, Muslims. How naive I was thinking that anti-Catholicism had waned.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 7:09PM
Either you reject the lies of the Papists~ and believe in the Words of God~ or you reject the Words of God, and believe the lies of the Papists, MOS 1 1 2.
Truth is Truth.
No one can serve two Masters.
"No one is able to serve two lords; for
either he will hate the one, and he will love
the other; or he will cleave to the one, and
he will despise the other..." Mt. 6:24.
Is not the above statement by the Papist an outright lie against the Word of God?
Is it~ or isn't it?
You must answer to Him.
Joseph| 9.16.11 @ 7:10PM
MOS 112.
You must be new here. Read some of Margie's greatest hits. Since you disagree you are a liar, punk, devil, liberal, leftist, coward, and so forth.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 7:26PM
So, I see that there isn't enough of you, foul spirit~ you have to pretend to be another troll.
Named "George". Tell me~ will Paul and Ringo soon be appearing as well?
LOL.
Just which of the Words of God that I have posted are false according to you, resident anti-Christ troll?
Joseph| 9.16.11 @ 8:14PM
I am not anti-Christ. I believe Jesus is God. This is basic Christianity. You are a phony. You do not believe in the divinity of Jesus, yet you profess to be a Christian.
You are not a Christian by any definition of normal and rational people. You are certainly not a Christian in the spirit of loving your neighbor and getting along with people. You insult everyone, call everyone a liar, punk, coward, and so on. It is a complete waste of time to point out all your factual errors because you have a closed mind and know only how to insult. You have created your own religion: The Cult of Margie, as others said you are the Mullah, nobody can disagree with the Mullah.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 8:23PM
You're a lying sack of garbage, troll.
Which of the Words from Scripture do you reject, that I have posted, hmm, liar?
Joseph| 9.16.11 @ 9:50PM
You prove my point.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 11:23PM
I see. So you DO reject the Scriptures.
Satan| 9.17.11 @ 11:56AM
Keep up the good work Margie.
(YHVH)| 9.17.11 @ 5:46PM
I created her a human with free will.
I created you an angel with free will.
Which of you has done more good?
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 8:35PM
Good deeds can't save you. Is. 64:6.
Jesus commands you to repent and believe the gospel of Jesus Christ. Mk. 1:15.
Without faith, it is impossible to please Him. Heb/ 11:6.
Occam's Tool| 9.17.11 @ 9:15PM
Actually, according to Scripture, angels do NOT have free will. That's one of the reasons humans are ranked above angels in potential. Thanks for playing.
Bureau of Mensa Accountability| 9.18.11 @ 4:42PM
Dear Sir,
Please offer proof through citation of scripture so accorded.
Thank you.
Sincerely,
BoMA
George| 9.16.11 @ 7:08PM
The more you talk Margie the more you convince people of evolution.
Kingofthenet| 9.18.11 @ 4:59PM
Man this is like watching a Pigeon and Mr.T fight over a French Fry in the parking lot of McDonalds...
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 5:33PM
donserge you are surprised? The cult of Catholicism sticks together~ they have never repented of the myriad of false teachings they have foisted upon the dumb sheep that listen to them.
If they did repent~ there would be no Popery!
RCV| 9.16.11 @ 7:31PM
Yes, and those "dumb sheep" include Rick Santorum, Rudy Guiliani, Sam Brownback, Marco Rubio, Mother Theresa, John Paul II, William Buckley, Bobby Jindal, Samuel Alioto, John Roberts, Antonin Scalia, Clarence Thomas, Newt Gingrich, Paul Ryan, Pat Toomey, Robert Bork --
"Dumb Sheep" every one of them!
Only Margie -- who doesn't believe in the divinity of Jesus Christ -- is smart enough to see her own "truth".
Margie, you are an unmitigated bigot of the worst sort.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 7:39PM
And here we have the lying Episcopalian Obama suck up Leftist lawyer, RCV.
The Papist praising, lying hater of Bible believing Christians, who goes around confounding God's Truth at every turn.
You are a defender of lies, who claims that the Apostle Paul was not appointed by God~ and you say that Homosexuality is not Sin.
YOU are a fraud!
AND you lie again saying I do not believe in Jesus' Divinity~ and that I am not a Christian!
Being that you are a lying modern day Papal Inquisitor of Christians~ you have absolutely no credibility, either in the eyes of Man or God!
As always, RCV the liar and former Leftist lawyer
twists the words of conservatives and Christians here constantly.
He sucks up to and wins the favor of some so called Christians here who are Catholics and Darwinists. They are utter sell-outs!!
Yes, they are dumb sheep if they choose to believe liars in place of the Word of God.
RCV| 9.16.11 @ 7:45PM
Do you believe that Jesus is God, Margie?
RCV| 9.16.11 @ 7:51PM
Margie, a Christian is a person who believes in the divinity of Jesus Christ. You don't. Just as Muslims do, you believe that Jesus Christ was created by God, but is not God himself.
Even if we defined a Christian more broadly, as one who follows the teachings of Christ -- even if they don't believe Christ is God -- you wouldn't qualify, given the venom that you spew at anyone who disagrees with you. "Love thy neighbor as thyself" is not exactly your watchword.
I believe that Jesus Christ is true God and true Man, of one being with the Father. As the Apostle John taught us, He "became flesh and lived among us." I'm not sure why you choose to reject this teaching about the essential nature of Jesus Christ, but you do, as is your perogative.
I wish you no malice, despite your hostility and the scorn you heap upon all who disagree with your unique theology. God bless!
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 7:53PM
Keep lying, RCV.
You condemn yourself.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 7:57PM
I do NOT believe what this lying scumbag says I do.
I believe every Word of God, as it is written by God's Holy Spirit in the Bible.
I believe that the men that God used to write the Bible spoke His Truth.
RCV does not, as I have posted, above.
His posts have spoken for themselves. He is a liar and master manipulator~ but he cannot, by the Grace of God, manipulate me!
And that is the last time I will acknowledge this ungodly liar.
Chaim Goldman| 9.17.11 @ 12:49AM
What I like about Christians is, how they follow the commandments. The ones about lying, the bearing false witness, the adultery. The adultery is an important one here in our community, unfortunately some Christians are mixed up in it. But I digress. The golden rule is a good one. Doesn't matter if he is Presbyterian, Catholic, Baptist, whatever, you're going to meet a good guy. So let's not here about any more arguments amongst the Christians as to whose church is best. Because that is an argument you're going to lose.
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 1:33AM
Kind of brings to mind the arguments over whether one whose conversion was by a Reform or Conservative Rabbi is really Jewish in the eyes of an Orthodox! Or the old joke about the man on a desert island who is rescued, and asked about the two buildings he constructed "The first is the synagogue I go to every Sabbath.". And the other? "That's the synagogue I wouldn't be caught dead going to!,"
All religions have their interfaith squabbles!
But you are right, Mr Goldman. As a great Rabbi once taught- "The greatest Commandment is this: You shall love God with all you heart, your mind and your soul. And the second is like unto the first: you shall love your neighbor as yourself. On these two commandments rest all of the Law and the Prophets."
Chaim Goldman| 9.17.11 @ 2:32AM
There are only two rules.
Rule 1. Do not violate the rights of others.
Rule 2. Do everything that you have agreed to do.
In general I have found people of all faiths, & even the faithless, to follow these rules, most of the time. No paper or temple can hold these rules; these are rules of the mind & heart. There are many who claim a religion, who do not follow these rules. I suspect these people know what Sheol is, right now. Live the rules, live well. Break the rules, live poorly.
W| 9.17.11 @ 8:29AM
Chaim, you sound like Pascal. Well said.
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 1:56PM
Sorry, but those aren't the Words of God.
He says I should preach the Gospel of Jesus Christ~ even in the face of others lying about my person, my character, my very being.
And I will obey Him rather than Man.
No matter how high and lofty their words may be.
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 8:45PM
You cannot reject God's Words and think you can enter Heaven. Since you lie concerning the Word of God, you are not right with God.
You claim that the Apostle Paul is not appointed by God!
You claim that Homosexuality is not Sin!
You need to repent!
"Jesus answered him, "If a man loves Me, he will keep My Word, and my Father will love him, and We will come to him and make Our home with him.
He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the Word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me. Jn. 14:23 & 24.
No one who lies can enter the Kingdom of God!
"But nothing unclean shall enter it, nor any one who practices abomination or falsehood, but only those who are written in the Lamb's book of life." Rev. 21:27.
"Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood." Rev. 22:15.
"Think not that I have come to abolish the Law and the Prophets; I have come not to abolish them but to fulfil them.
For truly, I say to you, till Heaven and Earth pass away, not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is accomplished.
Whoever then relaxes one of the least of these Commandments and teaches men so, shall be called least in the Kingdom of Heaven; but he who does them and teaches them shall be called great in the Kingdom of Heaven.
For I tell you, unless your righteousness exceeds that of the scribes and Pharisees, you will never enter the Kingdom of Heaven." Mk. 5:17-20.
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 1:54PM
The Golden Rule isn't in the Bible.
And this isn't an argument about which church someone should go to.
It IS about whether you believe God's Word~ or you call Him a liar and thumb your nose at Him.
Those who thumb their nose at Him and call Him a liar are those who believe Darwin rather than God.
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 3:57PM
Margie, you don't worship God. You worship the Bible. And you do so without even a scintilla of understanding of how it came to be in its present form, its history, and the various components that make up this wonderful book.
It isn't God speaking. It is a collection of inspired writing, written by human beings. "The Bible" is a diverse conglomeration of very different forms of literature. Many parts of the old Testament -- including the Psalms -- are prayers TO God. Obviously, God didn't write them to worship himself. Nor did God "write" or "dictate" the erotic love poem, Song of Solomon. And when Christ and St Paul talked about "scripture", they weren't referring to ANYTHING in the New Testament, which hadn't been written yet. They were talking about the Law and the Prophets.
As to the New Testament, we have pretty solid evidence of the human beings who wrote each of the "books" that the Church -- upon which you heap your daily venom -- decided to include. We know that St Paul, a human, wrote his own epistles, or at least most of the ones ascribed to him. And while he was appointed by God -- Jesus -- to preach his Gospel, he was no more infallible than any of the Popes who followed him. He was a human being, not perfect, and subject to the same perjudices and human imperfections of all of us. Jesus chose him wisely to spread his Gospel, because he was a persuasive organizational genius. He recognized that if Jesus's message of love of God and our fellow humans was to spread beyond the confines of the Jewish community, adherence to the rituals of the Law (including circumcission, Kosher dietary rules, ritual bathing and temple sacrifices) could not be required of converts, and was extraneous in any event to Christ's central message. He understood that Christ wanted us to get away from obsessive focus on the proscriptions of the Law, and concentrate on what God really intended for Mankind -- love of our Creator and his creation, most especially, our fellow human beings. The rest of the stuff was detail.
Charles Darwin was a brilliant human being, who used the brain and reasoning that God gave him to provide all of mankind with wonderful insights into the mechanisms of life which God has given us.
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 8:48PM
"It isn't God speaking. It is a collection of inspired writing.."
You lie!
"First of all you must understand this, that no Prophecy of Scripture is a matter of one's own interpretation, because no Prophecy ever came by the impulse of man, but men moved by the Holy Spirit spoke from God." 2 Pe. 1:20 & 21.
Who are you to judge anyone when you are a liar and a wicked human being who perverts the Truth of God?
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 9:02PM
Who am I? Like you, a lowly human being trying to figure this all out with the tools God left us with.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 2:35PM
RCV is a blatant liar.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 3:09PM
"Margie, you don't worship God. You worship the Bible."
I'll simply repeat my post from above to Occam's Tool, in which I mentioned your deceitfulness, RCV:
My post to O.T.:
"Be careful, and pray. Many, many people do not take His Words seriously.
Some, like the RCV's and so-called Liberal Christians make a mockery of the Word of God.
They discard what they wish to in order to try and justify themselves and their sin.
They mock people like me who believe every Word of God~ they call me a "Bible idolator" and accuse me of worshipping the book, and not the Lord.
This is sick and perverted. Why?
Because Jesus says that His very Words are Spirit and Life.
And where are His Words found? In the Bible.
"It is the Spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail; the words that I have spoken to you are spirit and life.
But there are some of you that do not believe." Jn. 6:63 & 64.
These men are wicked men.
God forgives ignorance, but not blatant wickedness.
"The house of the wicked will be destroyed, but the tent of the upright will flourish." Prov. 14:11.
You are witnessing spiritual warfare here, O.T."
DaveD| 9.17.11 @ 11:29PM
"The Golden Rule isn't in the Bible."
What, pray tell, do you call: "Love your neighbor as thyself?"
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 3:05PM
What, pray tell do I call it?
Jesus' Commandment. What do you call it, David?
DaveD| 9.18.11 @ 11:21PM
Interestingly enough, you can find it (the golden rule) in the old testament as well as the new.
victor| 9.19.11 @ 3:56AM
DaveD:
"Interestingly enough, you can find it (the golden rule) in the old testament as well as the new."
Interestingly enough, I looked up the golden rule in Strong's Exhaustive Concordance and could find neither in the old testament nor the new.
Can you show me where it specifically says "the golden rule"?
thanks
much appreciated
Joseph| 9.19.11 @ 7:51AM
Victor, so what, does that mean you do not follow it, or do you object to it.
DaveD| 9.19.11 @ 1:20PM
I am not exactly sure why I am responding to you, but:
"You shall not take vengeance or bear a grudge against your kinsfolk. Love your neighbor as yourself: I am the LORD." - Leviticus, 19:18
"The stranger who resides with you shall be to you as one of your citizens; you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I the LORD am your God." - Leviticus 19:34
""Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them"
- Matthew 7:12 (see also Luke 6:31).
Which of those three are or are not an expression of what is commonly known as "the Golden Rule?" If one or more are not, why is(are) it(they) not a representation of "the Golden Rule."
Instead of merely quoting the Bible ad nauseum, perhaps you should take some time to try to understand it.
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 8:43PM
I'm not sure why I'm responding to you, (it's sooo beneath me), but I suggest you be about the business of speaking the truth to the liars here, who do nothing but attack Bible believing Christians.
Why is it that you don't seem to mind that? Are you a Papist as well?
Perhaps you ought to humble yourself just a tad bit and care about what the Bible says and what it doesn't say. Have you ever heard of defending the Gospel?
Guess not. Papists defend the Pope, and other Papists, but NOT the Word of God.
DaveD| 9.19.11 @ 10:02PM
Until I ran into you here, I had only encountered the words "papist" and "popery" in 16th and 17th century historical fiction. Who are you kidding?
And better yet, why is it you can never answer a direct question put to you? Why is it that instead of answering questions, or, heaven forbid, actually engage in a discussion, all you can do is accuse others of being "papists?" Especially when you have no idea who it is you are talking to.
FWIW dear heart, I have attended six masses in 64 years of life: one Christmas Eve service, three funerals and two weddings. If that makes me a "papist" then so be it. At one of those funerals, I sat next to a practising jew - guess that makes him a "papist" too - he will be much amused when I tell him that.
"Perhaps you ought to humble yourself just a tad bit and care about what the Bible says and what it doesn't say" - you really should take your own advice, you know. Spend some time meditating on Luke 6:35-37 as well as Mat 7:1-5.
Margie| 9.20.11 @ 2:16PM
Take your condescending claptrap and stick it where the Sun don't shine. lowlife.
Then, repent!
You know full well what a Papist is.
You're a joke.
Margie| 9.20.11 @ 2:16PM
Take your condescending claptrap and stick it where the Sun don't shine. lowlife.
Then, repent!
You know full well what a Papist is.
You're a joke.
Margie| 9.20.11 @ 2:16PM
Take your condescending claptrap and stick it where the Sun don't shine. lowlife.
Then, repent!
You know full well what a Papist is.
You're a joke.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 6:01PM
Don't forget that this so called "Early Church Father" named Origen, was a false teacher and heretic who went completely against the Word of God and taught that there was no Hell, and that the Devil himself was going to attain unto Salvation!!
He was a whack job to the utmost.
And Catholicism venerates this fraud (among many hundreds of others).
This man, who taught against the written Word of God and taught that Satan would be redeemed, also gave us the unbiblical teaching of "The Trinity." Which is also nowhere to be found in the Bible.
Consider the source!
Joseph| 9.16.11 @ 7:12PM
Margie, do you believe that Jesus is divine, that He is God?
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 8:47PM
Do you believe what the Papist, Origen says~ that Satan will be redeemed?
Joseph| 9.16.11 @ 9:52PM
Keep avoiding the question. Is Jesus God?
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 11:22PM
Does that mean that you believe Satan will be redeemed?
LOL.
Jokester.
Chaim Goldman| 9.17.11 @ 12:59AM
Whenever I here talk like this, it is from somebody with a head full of bad wiring & a heart full of pain. Or, somebody that could use some temple time or churching up, depending.
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 1:57PM
Whenever I hear talk like yours, I suspect a TROLL.
LOL.
Jesus Christ is Lord.
Who do you think YOU are?
Nick| 9.17.11 @ 11:38PM
Margie,
Jesus Christ is GOD.
"Simon Peter, a servant and apostle of Jesus Christ,
To those who have obtained a faith of equal standing with ours in the righteousness of our God and Savior Jesus Christ."
- 2 Peter 1:1
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 3:10PM
Are you trying to deny that Jesus is the Son of God, Nick?
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 4:47PM
No, he's simply affirming that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit ARE the one true God. Do you not believe this? Do you think there is more than one God? And if not, then if Jesus is not of one being with the Father, he must not be God. Is that what you believe, Margie?
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 6:48PM
Do you believe that Jesus Christ is the Son of God, RCV?
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 7:45PM
I believe that Jesus Christ, the Son, together with the Father and the holy Spirit, are the one God. This is what Christians believe.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 8:17PM
RCV:
Christians believe EVERY WORD OF GOD.
Nick| 9.18.11 @ 5:11PM
Margie,
To elaborate on what RCV posted:
Don't you mean is Saint Peter trying to deny that Jesus is the Son of God? Because, I only quoted his words, as inspired by the Holy Spirit, from Sacred Scripture.
But, to answer your question, no, I am not denying that Jesus was the Son of God, and was God. Begotten, not made, One Being with the Father. "[Christ] and the Father are One." (John 10:30)
Along with the Holy Spirit, the Lord, the giver of Life, who proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the Father and the Son he is worshiped and glorified. He has spoken through the Prophets.
God Bless!
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 6:51PM
Oh! Yes, you must be denying that!
Using you Papists' twisted Inquisitory methods, if you say Jesus is the Son of God~ you MUST be prosecuted until you confess that He is God!
Just a taste of your own despicable medicine, Papists!!
Nick| 9.18.11 @ 7:30PM
Margie,
I haven't prosecuted you. I just posted a fact.
Although, you did seem to be avoiding answering the question. But, now I see what you were doing. Kudos. Very effective.
Except, that I answered your question right away.
God Bless!
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 8:04PM
Uh, when you Papists continue the constant questioning of "Do you believe Jesus is God", ad infinitum, it's prosecution.
Jesus is the Son of God, and Son of Man. That's what the Bible says. Even Jesus proclaimed that His Father is greater than Him.
Catholicism can't stand that!
Because you teach (falsely) that Mary is the Mother of God.
Mary is not the Mother of God, she was the Mother of Jesus.
Nowhere in the Bible does it say what Catholicism teaches.
The false teaching of your Religion does not like to say that Jesus is the Son of God, because it blows out of the water the false teaching that Mary is "the Mother of God."
Thus the prosecution by the Cult of Catholicism with the constant "You must say that Jesus is God!"
Jesus is LORD. The Bible says He is the Son of God.
Look it up. Jn. 3:16.
Your Cult doesn't "allow" anyone to say He is the Son of God, but He is!
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 9:05PM
I guess the Apostles John and Peter were wrong!
You don't have to say anything, Margie. We're just trying to find out what you believe about Jesus's nature, and you've made it quite clear you believe he is the Son of God, but not God himself -- indeed, as you say, lesser than the Father.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 10:07PM
Of course you prove my point.
Like a good Papist, you say that anyone who says Jesus is the Son of God isn't a Christian!
Repent, liar!
The Word of God proclaims:
"If we receive the testimony of men, the testimony of God is greater; for this is the testimony of God that he has borne witness to his Son.
He who believes in the Son of God has the testimony in himself. He who does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne to his Son.
He who has the Son has life; he who has not the Son of God has not life.
I write this to you who believe in the Name of the Son of God, that you may know that you have eternal life." 1 Jn. 5:9-13.
And Jesus Himself says:
"You heard Me say to you, 'I go away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I go to the Father; for the Father is greater than I." Jn. 14:28.
Deal with it.
Nick| 9.19.11 @ 1:20AM
Margie,
I never asked you once if you believed Jesus is God. I just poked my nose into the conversation.
"Jesus is the Son of God, and Son of Man. That's what the Bible says."
The Bible also says that Jesus is God. Sts. Peter and John say it. Saint Paul says it to the Romans:
" [...] to [the Israelites] belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 9:5)
And, in Paul's Letter to Titus:
"[...] awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ [...]." (Titus 2:13)
And, from the Letter to the Hebrews, which I know is one of your favorites:
"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days He has spoken to us by a Son, Whom He appointed the Heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of His nature, upholding the universe by His word of power. When He had made purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name He has obtained is more excellent than theirs.
"For to what angel did God ever say, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee'? [Begotten, not made]
"Or again, 'I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son'?
"And again, when He brings the First-born into the world, he says, 'Let all God’s angels worship him.' [Only God can be worshiped]
"Of the angels he says, 'Who makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.'
"But of the Son he says, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy comrades.'" (Hebrews 1:1-9)
You are twisting Scripture and wrenching it out of context, just so you don't have to admit that Our Lady was the "Mother of God." The Theotokos, i.e., God-bearer.
"Your Cult doesn't 'allow' anyone to say He is the Son of God, but He is!"
Excuse me?
Your catechism classes must have been really bad!
Catholics proclaim that Christ is the "Son of God" every time we attend Holy Mass, when we recite the Creed: "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, One Being with the Father."
Jesus Christ is Son, Lord, and God. The Bible and the Catholic Church say so. That's good enough for me.
God Bless!
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 9:09PM
As to your pesky and ridiculous constant question"
My posts speak for themselves. Are you blind?
I post the Words of God here more than anyone, and I believe every single Word of God.
You seem to have a problem with that, because you do not believe then yourself.
Now~ why is it that you reject Bible believing Christians who believe every Word of God?
Oh, that's right! It is because we reject the heretics like Origen~ the liars whose consciences are seared~ who teach abominations such as that Satan is going to be redeemed~ no, he isn't going to Hell for Eternity like GOD says He is!
Origen is a liar.
God IS Truth.
Repent!
Joseph| 9.16.11 @ 9:53PM
Forget Origen, Is Jesus God?
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 11:21PM
Yeah, I've forgotten Origen, have you? Do you admit the Papist was a liar and a fraud?
No?
I didn't think so! And if you cannot, or if you agree with him, then YOU are like him~ and it shows!
Get thee behind me, Satan!
Nick| 9.17.11 @ 4:23PM
Margie,
Actually, Origen never taught this as doctrine. He speculated and hypothesized about the Universality of the Redemption and the Final Restoration, among other things. The Catholic Church rejected these ideas.
It was later on that others, calling themselves disciples of Origen, taught some of his hypotheses as fact. Some of them used these false ideas to invent heresies. They were condemned by Church councils.
Origen, unlike Tertullian, was not a schismatic, nor did he embrace any heresy.
Hope that clears things up.
God Bless!
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 8:52PM
Ahh, the Papist returns to pump up the Papists as usual.
He DID teach such perversions~ you lie.
You always try and re-arrange history.
You're a liar.
Nick| 9.17.11 @ 11:05PM
Margie,
"He DID teach such perversions~ you lie."
Prove it. Don't merely assert it. When did he teach it? And, to whom? Dates and places, please.
May the love of God be with you and bless you.
Yours in Christ, Nick
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 3:12PM
Stop patronizing me, it makes me sick.
You know full well what he taught.
And as to assertions, Catholicism is full of them, and like you, reject the Word of God in place of them.
Nick| 9.18.11 @ 5:15PM
Margie,
"You know full well what he taught."
No, I do not. I don't claim to be an expert on any of the early Church Fathers. But, I know more than you seem to know. And, I know how to research from credible sources.
Also, I'm not patronizing you. I wouldn't know how. I sincerely wish the best for you and Victor.
God Bless!
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 6:54PM
What a punk.
What a liar!
LOL.
That's all you do is claim to know this and that~ and all you do is back the liars who persecuted Christians (Bible believing ones).
You consider them heretics, just as they did~ and it is why they tortured and killed them for centuries.
Their blood is on their hands~ and YOU lie just as they did.
Nick| 9.18.11 @ 7:21PM
Margie,
May I assume that you can't provide the dates and places for which I asked?
Also, I claim no such thing. I know some things. But, most of the time, I have to go look these things up, like I did with Origen. I just pass on the facts, that's all.
Again, repeating the same calumnies against the Catholic Church is not going to make them come true.
God Bless!
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 7:53PM
You can assume that anyone with a brain.. no.. half a brain, and isn't a cult member, can go online and google up the perverted Origen's teachings and writings.
Now, Nick~ just because you WANT something to be untrue~ doesn't make it so, now does it?
May I assume you have no intention of repenting from being a modern day Papal Inquisitor and liar?
Nick| 9.19.11 @ 12:10AM
Margie,
Yes, I did research Origen's life. I knew a little about him, beforehand, but, I wanted to get my facts straight. That's how I learned that he didn't claim that Satan would go to Heaven, he hypothesized about universal redemption. Which was never a doctrine of the Catholic Church, by the way.
This why we need the Catholic Church, to protect the Deposit of Faith.
What I "WANT" has no bearing, one way, or another, on what is historical fact. I only care about empirical evidence. You have shown me none.
Finally, as I am neither a "modern day Papal Inquistitor" or a "liar," I have nothing of which to repent.
God Bless!
victor| 9.19.11 @ 4:04AM
Nick:
"he hypothesized about universal redemption. Which was never a doctrine of the Catholic Church, by the way."
Sorry Nick, but you've been busted!
The Second Vatican Council maintained the doctrine that all will be saved in the Apokatastasis or Final Restoration of All Things. The following is taken from the constitution Gaudium et Spes (1:45, 2:57).
· While helping the world and receiving many benefits from it, the Church has a single intention: that God’s kingdom may come, and that the salvation of the whole human race may come to pass. For every benefit which the People of God during its earthly pilgrimage can offer to the human family stems from the fact that the Church is ‘the universal sacrament of salvation’ simultaneously manifesting and actualising the mystery of God’s love.
http://www.romancatholicism.or.....vation.htm
Nick| 9.20.11 @ 2:25AM
Victor,
Sorry, but, that website is not Catholic, Roman or otherwise. After a quick perusal, it seems the authors of this site are sedevacanists. Sedevacanists believe that there has been no Pope since, depending on which sect it is, Pope Pius X or Pope John XXIII. These are schismatic groups who are not in communion with the Holy See.
That being said, the quotes from Gaudium et Spes are accurate. It's too bad that website cut of the whole quote from 1:45.
"The Lord Himself speaks: "Behold I come quickly! And my reward is with me, to render to each one according to his works. I am the Alpha and the Omega, the first and the last, the beginning and the end. (Rev. 22:12-13).
The quote from 2:57 is in a section called The Circumstances of Culture in the World Today. Neither quote is discussing Apokatastasis, by the way.
Also, the authors of Gaudium et Spes got this language from the Sacred Scriptures:
"This is good, and it is acceptable in the sight of God our Savior, who desires all men to be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth." (1 Tim. 2:3-4)
Saint Paul was not teaching universal salvation, nor is the Catholic Church. If the authors of that website had bothered to click on the second link they provided, and read all the way to the end, they would have discovered that Apokatastasis was declared anathema at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 543.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/01599a.htm
I must admit, though, that that same article, from the Catholic Encyclopedia, says that Origen did teach this doctrine. The article that I read (skimmed quickly, really,) said that Origen put the idea out there, for discussion. So, I don't know which article is correct.
Please tell Margie that I apologize, and that I was wrong. Origen may have indeed taught this as doctrine. But, the Catholic Church never did.
And, you'll notice that the Church never canonized Origen. Again, this is why we need the Church. To guard the Deposit of Faith from false teachings, like Apokatastasis.
Finally, just because a website has "Roman Catholism.org" as its URL, doesn't mean that it's an official Church website. Instead of reading snippets, out of context, you can read all of Gaudium et Spes here:
http://www.vatican.va/archive/.....es_en.html
Joseph| 9.20.11 @ 11:27AM
Nick.
You are trying to be reasonable and fair to people who are not reasonable but only want to attack Roman Catholics. You are wasting your time dealing with bigots. But I admire your patience.
Nick| 9.20.11 @ 7:58PM
Joseph,
It's never a waste of time to share the Good News of Jesus Christ, in my opinion. But, yes, it does take patience. Thanks for the compliment.
God Bless!
Brian Mc| 9.16.11 @ 8:41AM
You lost me at, "Biology tells us that that process was evolution". In all these years, with all the advancements and technology, not a single shred of empirical evidence has been found. Though, some have been fabricated. Your remark empowers the falacy.
canuckistani| 9.16.11 @ 12:55PM
I wonder why we even try to reconcile the differences between intelligent design and evolution. Who cares?
We cannot prove either theory, so both are right, and both wrong. QED
The critical difference between religious interpretations of God is far starker than this academic meatgrinder of a debate.
The Church has interfered with scientific exploration for thousands of years, and will continue to do so for reasons that escape me, other than defending a hegemony on reason.
For one thing, the Church's pronouncements on the genetics of blacks, women and Jews has had exponentially deadlier consequences for the people than 1000 Dawkins.
Ask Willard about the mark of Cain and any redneck about miscegenation to see if their Bible underwrites these beliefs. Betcha they can recite them with sweaty fervor.
The world created in 6 days? Possible. Abraham 700 years old? Old math or new math?
It is interesting these fabulous stories ended right around the time of the establishment of the scientific method.
John Navratil| 9.16.11 @ 2:17PM
canuckistani,
Others may, but I do not attempt to reconcile ID with Darwinism. I observe what I see as a failure of Darwinism to explain macro-evolution. ID is a hypothesis which is just a non-falsifiable as Darwinism, in my mind. That doesn't make the question uninteresting.
You might look into Frederick Sanger and his work with the bacterial virus 0X174 in which he discovered that the DNA was not long enough to encode the virus and that overlapping parts of the DNA had to be interpreted separately. As this virus is rather specific in what it infects, the implication is that genetic decoding is, itself, rather specific.
It will get you thinking about chance, probability, the relative finiteness of the universe and the complete improbability of random chance to be at play at the macro evolutionary level.
Sanger's comment was "Something rather subtle seems to be at work." Darwinism cannot explain that subtlety.
JohnC| 9.16.11 @ 8:42AM
The author correctly points out that man’s ability to do abstract thinking and art is unique and can in no way be explained by blind evolution.
But an even more unique human characteristic is having a free will to live morally (with God’s help) and to develop one’s conscience -- whereas animals live by instinct. This is why Jesus tells us we need to be spiritually born-again and thus saved from our innate corporeal (or animal-like) nature.
This formation our conscience is really a spiritual (moral) evolution in our spirit by God in order to prepare us for heaven where goodness and love reign. Of course man can choose to ignore God’s commandments and teachings and follow a sinful and self-centered life and, if so, becomes like an animal or even worse.
Crafty Bernardo| 9.16.11 @ 1:53PM
That's not entirely true.. there are birds and primates that create "art" and do things that are in no way about basic survival. And there's plenty of evidence that dolphins do abstract thinking (many in captivity show very distinct traits of depression and suicidal tendencies, indicating some existential thought process is going on there.
Man is very good at art and abstract thinking, but we are not alone in the animal kingdom in those pursuits.
And the author's conclusion that Evolution is flawed because "man is special and evolution cannot explain that" is frustratingly impossible to debate. Well, yes, man is special. Every single species is "special".. they all have a singular combination of attributes that makes them "special".. our strength is intelligence, and, yes, we're "special" because of that... but that, in no way whatsoever, pokes any holes in evolution. "Well, you cannot explain how "special" man is with evolution"... no, I guess the theory of evolution does not conform to an individual man's egotism... And it never will, so I guess you've got a silver bullet forever and everl...
Same with the whole "well what existed before the big bang! HA!!! God must've done it!" The second science has a fairly good grasp on what happened before the big bang, it'll be "yeah, but what was there before THAT.. HA!!! God!!!" and so on, and so on, and so on...
It's just the fall-back position, like trying to peg someone down because they cannot tell you exactly what number infinity is.. it's literally an impossible task.
Drake| 9.16.11 @ 9:09AM
"human beings have brains that are ... far larger than is needed for mere species' survival"
Why then did early modern humans (formerly refered to as Cr-Magnon man) have brains larger on average today? They were the last humans who all regularly lived in danger of being hunted by predators and killed by the animals the were hunting. A dumb mistake at the wrong time meant instant death and elimination from the gene pool.
Once we gave up hunting Mastodons in favor of farming and fishing, stupid people could reproduce and we got dumber as a species.
donserge| 9.16.11 @ 9:18AM
Hey Drake....I still hunt and fish (even as an 'old' man)....does that make me smarter than most folks?
John Navratil| 9.16.11 @ 9:41AM
donserge,
"Well ya see, Norm, it's like this... A herd of buffalo can only move as fast as the slowest buffalo. And when the herd is hunted, it is the slowest and weakest ones at the back that are killed first. This natural selection is good for the herd as a whole, because the general speed and health of the whole group keeps improving by the regular killing of the weakest members.
In much the same way, the human brain can only operate as fast as the slowest brain cells. Excessive intake of alcohol, as we know, kills brain cells. But naturally it attacks the slowest and weakest brain cells first.
In this way, regular consumption of beer eliminates the weaker brain cells, making the brain a faster and more efficient machine. That's why you always feel smarter after a few beers. "
- Cliff Clavin, "Cheers"
Patrick Felicitas| 9.17.11 @ 1:13AM
That was awesome.
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 1:11PM
Brilliant!
W| 9.18.11 @ 9:12AM
John,
Where do you get the collected wisdom of Cliff? In real life John Ratzenberger is a conservative, and very intelligent.
John Navratil| 9.18.11 @ 12:10PM
W,
I can't remember. Someone sent this to me at one time and I googled to find it for posting.
It says something about my personality that I found this worth remembering.
I find it heartening that more an more actors are "coming out". I haven't gotten around to reading David Mamet's book. My brother has and I'm looking forward to a good read.
W| 9.18.11 @ 12:33PM
John
One of the writers of Cheers was Rob Long. He writes for National Review. He wrote parodies that are hilarious, such as Larry King interviewing Hillary, Slick Willie, and others, and did a great bit on the negotiations between Hillary's attorney and Bill's attorney. So there was at least one conservativea writer on that show.
John Navratil| 9.18.11 @ 12:47PM
W,
The Long View is one of my favorite columns in NR. I think my favorite was the "interview" with Obama in Air Force One circling the Statue of Liberty. I didn't know he wrote for Cheers.
I don't watch much television. The last show I watched with any regularity was Northern Exposure, although I try to catch BBC's Mystery.
W| 9.19.11 @ 12:47PM
John,
I wish Long would put out a book with all his columns. They are hilarious.
Like "House" and "Simpsons" and "Fraser."
Old Soldier| 9.16.11 @ 11:23AM
If you are hunting elephants and hippos with a spear, yes.
Mike| 9.16.11 @ 9:14AM
Mr. Dawkins is being deceptive here. He does not believe in Darwinian evolution. His most successful book, The Selfish Gene, proposes something completely counter to Darwinian evolution.
Seek| 9.16.11 @ 3:00PM
I seriously doubt that you read "The Selfish Gene." I have -- several times.
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 5:03PM
Absolutely untrue. You must have read critics of the book rather than the book itself, which is brilliant. Dawkins acknowledges his mistake in using the term "selfish" and its unintended implications.
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 5:03PM
Absolutely untrue. You must have read critics of the book rather than the book itself, which is brilliant. Dawkins acknowledges his mistake in using the term "selfish" and its unintended implications.
tadcf| 9.16.11 @ 9:17AM
Protons come into existence out of nothing, and similarly disappear. This lack of knowledge is the reason it's shear folly to have non-scientific writer criticizing scientific matters.
John Navratil| 9.16.11 @ 9:45AM
tadcf,
That's pretty patronizing, don't you think? Sound like "I'm sorry, you are just too uneducated to discuss anything of significance with me."
Don't denigrate, educate.
Texas Engineer| 9.16.11 @ 9:18AM
"One man's theology is another man's belly laugh."
The Notebooks of Lazarus Long
Robert A. Heinlein
Patrick Felicitas| 9.17.11 @ 1:14AM
That was a good one too.
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 2:00PM
And most men's theology is taking them straight to Hell.
"The time is fulfilled, and the Kingdom of God is at hand; repent, and believe in the gospel." Mk. 1:15.
Hank Rearden| 9.16.11 @ 9:31AM
Evolution is not a science. It is a conjecture, as yet unproven. Darwin said that evolution proceeds by numerous small changes. To be a science, evolution must define what "numerous," "small," and "change" are. How much evolution occurs per unit time? What is a unit of evolution? How many units of evolution are required to accomplish a change? What can be evolved and what cannot be evolved? What causes random mutations? At one time, it was thought to be cosmic rays. Is that still true? It has been suggested that the current theory of evolution is like alchemy. The alchemists tried to turn lead into gold by combining various compounds. They had no understanding of the atomic theory of matter. Once we have the atomic theory of matter, we CAN change lead into gold, although it is not a very efficient process. My suspicion is that evolution is in the same condition - that there is a whole theory that we have not yet even imagined, that, once we understand it, we will understand "evolution." Perhaps, for instance, "intelligence" is a force in the universe. That is just a suggestion. It is amazing that variation within a species, misleadingly called microevolution, leads people to think that macroevolution, the creation of a new species, has been demonstrated. If variation within a species demonstrates anything, it demonstrates the STABILITY of species, not their malleability. The only observations we have on mutations is that virtually all of them are deleterious to the organism experiencing them. This again demonstrates the stability of life, not its malleability. Most mutations would be selected out, not selected in. I don't think that most evolutionists understand just how high a standard randomness is. If in an animal, a leg gets longer, what about the other three legs? Or are legs a "set" and all move together? If this is the case, I have never seen it claimed. And if the legs are a "set" what about the pelvis? What about the heart to provide the blood for these bigger legs? Or is the entire animal a "set?" If it IS a set, what does Darwin's claim of "numerous, small changes" mean?
JohnC| 9.16.11 @ 9:46AM
Christians make a mistake when they take everything in the Bible literally. For example, when Jesus said, He is the bread of life, it is obvious bread here means spiritual nourishment – His spirit within us.
In the Old Testament the names, numbers, days and years obviously have a symbolic meaning too. Adam and Eve, for example, probably is the Church prior to the Fall and other names (Cain and Abel) being offshoots of the original church but with different and more misguided doctrines (because of the Fall).
Once this is understood Genesis and what follows becomes much easier to understand and undercuts the pure evolutionists.
Vern Crisler | 9.16.11 @ 10:08AM
So does that mean the story of the crucifixion and resurrection of Christ are also symbolic? What is your non-arbitrary standard for determining what is history and what is symbolism?
diviz| 9.16.11 @ 9:54AM
Why do some Christians seem to be so desperate to have scientific validation for their beliefs? The social controversy would evaporate if those who dislike evolution simply accepted the caveat that their beliefs are not based on science, math or material evidence but are rather based on religious faith.
George S| 9.16.11 @ 11:04AM
We do not dislike evolution, we just cannot see how a horse evolved from a fish (never mind man from the ape). Since evolution has yet to explain life on earth, we will treat it for what it is -- a theory on how a species adapts to environment. It is one thing to note the changes in the beaks of birds on a remote island and quite another to explain the emergence of a large number of new species suddenly appearing, remaining unchanged for millenia and then disappearing.
And if man did evolve from a subspecies, there would have to be (hundreds/thousands/millions?) of mutations in order to just survive for that mutation to find another mutation to mate with, thus giving form to a species variant. Those life forms would have left fossils. They do not exist. That is why the theory is accepted in its limited form and why we resist the broad interpretation.
DaveD| 9.16.11 @ 11:45AM
George S - spot on. If life as we know it arose from a series of small and tiny changes there have to be gobs and gobs of dead ends. Especially if the process is non-directed. Where are they? They certainly didn't fossilise,and why not. Even if fossilisation is a rare event, weren't the corrupt as likely to fossilise as the superior? Where are the mutants?
Molly Beich| 9.16.11 @ 1:32PM
Yes, that would be convenient, wouldn't it? Except that my dislike of evolution is entirely based on science, math, and material evidence rather than on religious faith. The science is complete nonsense, the math proves evolution's impossibility, and the material evidence shows not a shred of support.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 3:44PM
"Why do some Christians seem to be so desperate to have scientific validation for their beliefs?"
You've got it backwards. Unbelievers are the desperate ones who seek to explain away their unbelief using so called science.
And Darwinism isn't even science!
There is absolutely NO scientific "evidence" for anything he says.
The Creation itself speaks to the proof of a Creator. And science is the knowledge that proves His existence by the things that were made.
It's just that Mankind is faithless, and seeks to believe a lie.. at least those who are destined to do so.
"Ever since the Creation of the World His Invisible Nature, namely, His Eternal Power and Deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse.." Rom. 1:20.
"All these things My Hand has made, and so all these things are Mine, says the LORD. But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at My Word." Is. 66:2.
9thID| 9.16.11 @ 10:08AM
The theory of Evolution cannot, and never will, explain why man is “special”. Only Creationism can explain the vastness and diversity of Creation using science. Everything cannot evolve from Nothing.
Darwin’s worst fears for the proving of his speculations have come true in that although the fossil record should be full of transitional species, there are ZERO. What I find “tiresome” is that very few years a new “missing link” appears, but they are eventually, and always, shown to be frauds or “overly-enthusiastic imaginations” or grasping at straws by their “discoverers”.
Evolution, like man-caused global warming, is only kept alive by its stranglehold on academia and the research dollars given only to its adherents.
As with journalism, science is dead...
diviz| 9.16.11 @ 10:19AM
there are many transitional fossils
Darin| 9.16.11 @ 10:32AM
Such as?
DaveD| 9.16.11 @ 11:41AM
"there are many transitional fossils"
A statement that is funny, thanks for the laugh. The "completed"sequence of reptile to mammal is at one spot known by a single tooth, and at another spot by an inch and half of jawbone and a single tooth.
Now I am fully aware that reptilian teeth differ from mammalian teeth and that they can be used to determine the difference. But ONE TOOTH, or a short length of jawbone and ONE TOOTH. Get serious. How do you know that there were ever more than one of them? How do you know that this particular critter reproduced? How do you know that this was a superior trait? How do you know that mammary tissue followed along with the change in teeth? How do you know that a vagina developed at the same time? How do you know that a cold blooded animal transition to a warm blooded animal and that this transition was marked by a change in its teeth?
Strikes me you are asking an awful lot out of ONE TOOTH.
diviz| 9.16.11 @ 12:00PM
From a single tooth a great deal can be deduced such as dies and hunting technique as well as what species are closely related to the creature that bore that particular tooth.
Endothermic metabalism is not deduced from dentition but rather from other features such as Haversian canals.
An entire creature is not postulated based upon one tooth but rather on the way that tooth will fit into the rest of the fossil record. This is why evolution theory is useful and creationism is not. In creationism a tooth could magically appear in a rock without conext or mechanism, but evolution provides a context for making deductions the animal that it came from and how that animal related to other animals.
Darin| 9.16.11 @ 12:53PM
Amazing how you can drone on and on yet say nothing. Love it how you come in with a preconceived notion (evolution) and make the evidence fit your theory. Also neat how you say nothing to bolster your theory yet manage to send a pot shot at creationism (comparing it to magic). You've Alinsky's Rules For Radicals on your shelf, don't you?
Seek| 9.16.11 @ 3:02PM
Actually, I don't compare creationism to magic -- that would be giving magicians a bad name.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 3:46PM
This from the man who excoriated me for inferring that he was an Atheist judging by his posts!
LOL.
RT| 9.16.11 @ 6:03PM
To really give magicians a bad name you could call them "Seek."
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 6:24PM
But he isn't an atheist, oh no, of course he isn't!!
Seek| 9.6.11 @ 3:54PM
In no way have I stated here or in any other public forum that I am an atheist. You have willfully misrepresented my views. In any event, my belief or disbelief in God has nothing to do with my ability to render a sound judgment about Sarah Palin.
Margie, if this magazine ever initiated a J. Gordon Coogler award for the most consistently absurd posts, you would be the consensus winner."
Who is the winner now?
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 8:56PM
Oh, yoo-hoo... Seek?
DaveD| 9.16.11 @ 4:00PM
You still neglected the key question: How do you know that there were more than one of them when all you have is ONE TOOTH?
Better yet, how do you know this critter wasn't a mutant and itself an evolutionary dead end?
You only like the ONE TOOTH because it fits into your preconceived notion of what you're looking for. By itself, the ONE TOOTH teaches us nothing.
diviz| 9.16.11 @ 4:46PM
By itself, islated and without context, one tooth provides little information. Just like onserving a single poton, neutrino, star or crystal provides little information. But taking that one tooth, particle, star or crystal and putting it in context (ie evolution, atomic, stellar) with other pieces and millions of other observations and a great deal of information can be deduced.
For you, no that one tooth will always be meaningless. Just like a mineral sample would be meaningless for you. But to a scientist with a theory, that sample can lead to vast discoveries.
DaveD| 9.17.11 @ 1:21AM
If I have this straight, first you start with the assumption of evolution and then the ONE TOOTH makes sense. Then you turn around and say this proves evolution. Wanna try that again?
A single proton can tell you a great many things. It has a measurable mass, a measurable electric charge, a velocity vector, and a variety of other whimsically named properties in the quantum zoo. The proton's behavior might be linked to another proton and you can learn about it, the unseen proton, by examining the one in hand. Meanwhile, a single tooth is, well, a single tooth.
BTW, don't presume that you are the only educated person in the discussion.
DaveD| 9.17.11 @ 1:22AM
IDle curiosity prompts this next question. Assuming "But to a scientist with a theory, that sample can lead to vast discoveries," then pray tell, what vast discoveries have been made using evolutionary theory?
Al Adab| 9.16.11 @ 1:58PM
9th:
Your comment about man being special is exactly why the statist Left is so attached to the Faith of evolution. If man is simply another animal then he possess no rights by virtue of his humanity. He rights derive from powers over him like the village chief or the government not from outside his realm as in a Creator. Government then is justified in imposing its will through force on whomever it chooses. That is the larger issue underlying the debate.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 3:53PM
Excellent, brother Al Adab.
And it also explains the rebellion of Mankind, in that it is easier and more pleasing to the flesh to believe a convenient lie such as Darwinism, and it gives excuse to their minds to allow themselves to obey sin, rather than God.
After all, if Darwin is right and we are all just a bunch of monkey's uncles, then we are permitted to do as we please as animals would, with no consciences, and no knowledge of the Creator, Who is to Judge us all on that Day.
Animals can not be judged, they have no awareness of their Creator as we do, only instinct~ which He also gave them.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 4:18PM
Also, Al Adab~ you will find this interesting. It is to your point concerning government, above.
Some comments by C.S. Lewis that you may already have read:
"Commenting on this book, which is so damning of modern science, Lewis later wrote,"'Scientists' as such are not the target . . . What we are obviously up against throughout the story is not scientists but officials." This is an important distinction for Lewis. Scientific planning is not necessarily evil, "but 'Under modern conditions any effective invitation to Hell will certainly appear in the guise of scientific planning'--as Hitler's regime in fact did." Elaborating on this theme in God in the Dock, Lewis concluded, "Again, the new oligarchy must more and more base its claim to plan us on its claim of knowledge. . . . This means they must increasingly rely on the advice of scientists. . . . Now I dread specialists in power because they are specialists speaking outside their special subjects. Let scientists tell us about science. But government involves questions about the good of man, and justice, and what things are worth having at what price; and on these a scientific training gives a man's opinion no added value. . . . On just the same ground I dread government in the name of science. That is how tyrannies come in. In every age the men who want us under their thumb, if they have any sense, will put forward the particular pretension which the hopes and fears of that age render most potent. They 'cash in'. It has been magic, it has been Christianity. Now it will certainly be science." In this sense, Lewis perceived science as the ultimate threat to freedom in modern society."
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 9:48PM
Al Adab,
If you are shunning me like others do, I won't speak to you anymore either.
Al Adab| 9.17.11 @ 1:48PM
I would not shun you Margie. It was late in the evening and I had miles to go... Turned off the computer at night.
Hope you get this. I'll repeat on Monday in case.
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 2:03PM
Thanks, Al Adab. You know of what I speak, so you can understand why I would say that.
Why is it that barely a soul here, and there are many Bible believing Christians who both read and post here~ but only one or two will dare to go against the liars.
Al Adab| 9.17.11 @ 5:01PM
Glad you got it. Have a good evening.
Crafty Bernardo| 9.16.11 @ 2:00PM
Two second google-search...
http://darwiniana.org/hominid.htm
Andrew B| 9.16.11 @ 10:08AM
How interesting that Dawkins would use a term like "wicked" to describe those who differ from him. How exactly can one tell wickedness if there are no fixed moral laws by which to judge it? Without an immutible standard of what is good, what does "wicked" mean?
I have to assume it means "thinking contrary to Richard Dawkins".
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 4:16PM
It was a Freudian slip. LOL.
BTW~ did you know Freud & Darwin used to correspond with one another?
Belloc| 9.16.11 @ 10:19AM
AS contributor Tom Bethell in a recent New Oxford Review article:
"It has been an article of faith — and Darwinism really is a faith — that the human genome, consisting of about three billion nucleotides coiled inside the chromosomes of every cell, was mostly “junk.” Short stretches were known to be segments (“genes”) that gave instructions for the assembly of proteins, but (said the Darwinists) the genome mostly had no meaning. And that supported evolution. If the human body was designed, presumably it would not include all the “junk” that had accumulated over the millennia. On the other hand, if evolution occurred by trial and error, then a lot of random stuff in the genome is exactly what we would expect to find.
The latest research, copiously cited by Wells (The Myth of Junk DNA, by Jonathan Wells), shows that a large proportion of this supposed junk (and perhaps all of it) is functional. Some evolutionists have tried to deny that they ever called DNA junk, but Wells has the quotes and provides them. The Genome Project, it turns out, delivered an unintended bonus. Treatments for disease, long promised, have proven to be elusive, but so has the Darwinists’ precious evidence."
JohnC| 9.16.11 @ 10:41AM
Good question Vern.
Of course the crucifixion is real and not sybolic as is the Resurrection. Jesus spoke in parables too, which were obviously intended to be symbolic. The leaders of the Church need to pray for wisdom on these matters, but many are quite obvious which the writers of the New Testament point out.
Symbolism is the underlying spiritual truth as in the, I am the bread of life example. with bread meaning spiritual nourishment.
George S| 9.16.11 @ 10:51AM
The basis of our morals are the teachings of Judeo-Christian philosophy which, in turn, form the basis of our laws. Remove God from the equation and our laws, our Constitution and other yardsticks of moral behavior are no longer traditional but reside with the wordsmiths of academia. Words can be twisted to mean anything you want if there is no moral basis supporting them.
When Darwin came along with his theory (on the origin of the species, not life) it gave the Progressives a very powerful club in which to beat religion over the head, enabling them to mock the simple-minded who (still!) believe in a Creator. Remove God from the equation with Darwinism and now you can antiquate the teachings of religion, which will then lead to the dissolution of the basis of the Constitution. Would a God-fearing people accept abortion as an unalienable right? Or the taking of their neighbor's property for the benefit of the lazy?
Darwinism is no more relevant than the General Theory of Relativity. Both attempt to quantify the unexplainable in ways we can understand or observe -- within the limitations of capability of understanding or observing. They are not answers; there will never be an answer to the question of the origin of life.
JayDick| 9.16.11 @ 10:52AM
Excellent article and comments. Seems to me that both science and religion (especially the Bible) should be considered along with any and all other possibilities when examining such basic thoughts as the origin and development of the universe in general and human life in particular.
I don't think the Bible should be taken literally, but rather in the context in which it was written. It was probably written for the people at that time. It was written so they could understand the general messages it was trying to convey considering the limited knowledge available at the time. If you study the Bible in this context, there is much wisdom in it, especially about how humans should lead their lives.
As for the science part, no remotely possible explanations should be excluded. Although advanced physics continues to find explanations for our world's characteristics, there is much we don't know. Scientists speculate on parallel universes and all sorts of outrageous possibilities. Could some of these possibilities tie in to Biblical stories and promises (e.g., life after death)? Could space aliens have visited earth and be the source of some Biblical stories and other ancient phenomena we don't understand? Can we ever fully understand the universe, how it was created, and why it has evolved the way it has? We don't know, but we should always remember that there is much we don't know and not quickly discount theories just because they sound totally outrageous. As Donald Rumsfeld said (in part), there are unknown unknowns.
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.16.11 @ 11:03AM
What a stupid conversation!
God created all of us, and I can prove it: the operative term is "enjoy".
...yes an eyeball can evolve... I guess......but the simple "enjoyment" of a beautiful sunset is a gift from God.
Thank you, Father, for the simple beauty of this sunset.
...nuff said.
Al Adab| 9.16.11 @ 2:01PM
Thank you Ken for keeping things in perspective.
BTW, I wish my eyeballs would evolve. I'm tired of buying new prescriptions every couple years.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 6:07PM
You don't mind that he calls you stupid for partaking in the conversation?
Of course it is a "stupid" conversation to him, as he is a Darwinist and defender of the Papists.
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 12:45AM
I thought terms like "Papist" and "Popery" were confined to the 17th Century. LOL!
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 2:07PM
RCV~
You have blatantly lied about my person in the most horrible manner~ you are despicable and a disgrace.
You reject the Gospel of Jesus Christ and hate Bible believing Christians.
You openly proclaim your agreement with Satan in that you say that Homosexuality is not Sin. You also say that the Apostle Paul was not appointed by God.
Therefore, you are of your Father the Devil. Jn. 8;44.
As to the Papists~ you know who they are, they are the ones who follow Popes, and not God.
And you also are a defender of the frauds.
Satan| 9.17.11 @ 3:30PM
Excellent. Keep up the good work Margie.
(YHVH)| 9.17.11 @ 5:48PM
I created her a human with free will.
I created you an angel with free will.
Which of you have done more good work?
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 6:11PM
Margie: I am not "lying" about your beliefs; I'm just trying genuinely to understand what it is you believe about who Jesus is, a question he often asked his apostles.
You have explicitly said that you reject the concept of the Trinity and the Church's teaching that God and Jesus are "of one Being", concepts which you reject as "unbiblical". You also criticize Catholics for calling Mary "the Mother of God."
This seems to me to leave two alternatives: the first, that Jesus is God, but not of one Being with God the Father. This would be polytheism. The second, which I gleaned from you own postings, is that you believe there is only one God, the Father, and that Jesus Christ is a special man, miraculously conceived by the Father for unique purpose -- to be "Lord" -- but who is not himself God.
Am I missing something here? Do you believe something different?
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 9:04PM
If it's one thing that all conservatives here know about you, RCV~ is that you're a liar.
You have to be~ you're a Leftist Obama suck-up.
You LIVE to LIE.
And misrepresent what others say. Just as you are doing right now.
You're nothing but a PUNK~ like the Papists whom you worship who pervert the Word of God~ and like all Leftists are who are Socialist scum.
You openly lie about the Bible~ and God~ you openly say the Apostle Paul wasn't appointed by God~ so therefore you are calling God a liar!
You are in open and blatant rebellion toward God for proclaiming that Homosexuality isn't Sin.
And in this comment of yours you purposefully have lied about, and misrepresented who I am and what I believe~ which I have explained at length previously.
The really perverted thing about you godless Religionists~ is that you care not a whit what anyone has to say~ it doesn't matter to you~ nor are you into "understanding" anything I or any Bible believing Christian has to say.
Because you're a pervert.
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 9:55PM
I feel very sorry for you, Margie. You are an angry, unahppy person whose idea of dialog is to lash out and call people with whom you disagree the filthiest of names. I have lengthy cordial discussions with lots of people I disagree with politically, and long fascinating discussions with people of all faith traditions, including Bible-believing Christians. I learn much through those exchanges, and I'd like to think they do too.
Why can't you do so as well? Why do you feel the need, for example, to reject the hand of friendship of Nick -- as decent and kind a Christian as you will meet -- just because you and he disagree about the nature of the Church Christ sought to establish on earth?
I'm not a "pervert", Margie, and I'm not a "liar" or a "punk" or "socialist scum" nor do I "worship Papists." I'm a happily married 64 year old man, with two wonderful decent children, who loves God and his country deeply, and has tried to live his live well, and to keep Jesus's commandment that we love our neighbors as ourselves.
I hope someday you can find peace and learn to treat your fellow men with dignity and respect. I really do. God Bless!
victor| 9.18.11 @ 6:00AM
RCV:
"I have lengthy cordial discussions with lots of people I disagree with politically, and long fascinating discussions with people of all faith traditions, including Bible-believing Christians."
That is a very telling comment as you would have referred to them as fellow Bible believing Christians, eh?
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 3:41PM
I'm using Margie's definition of the term, since she and I have very different understandings of what the Bible is. My brother, who is a pastor, is a Bible - believing Christian within her meaning. I'm a believer in Jesus Christ, as true God and true man, of obe being withe Father.
victor| 9.19.11 @ 4:12AM
RCV:
"I'm using Margie's definition of the term,"
She believes that every word in the Bible is inspired by God:
"All scripture is given by inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine for reproof for correction for instruction in righteousness" 2 Tim 3:16
"since she and I have very different understandings of what the Bible is. "
Obviously you do not agree with the verse.
"My brother, who is a pastor, is a Bible - believing Christian within her meaning. "
What sort of church is he a pastor of?
And you tell your brother that he is wrong to believe in every word of the Bible?
victor| 9.18.11 @ 6:05AM
"and to keep Jesus's commandment that we love our neighbors as ourselves."
What about Matthew 28:18-20?
"And Jesus came and said to them, "All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me.
Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age."
Do you tell the "people of all faith traditions," about Jesus Christ and His salvation plan for them?
Perhaps that is why you admire Benedict so much.
He was the one man that King Abdullah wanted to meet as he knew that there would be no mention of Jesus Christ in his desire for "inter-faith dialogue" since that would offend the muslims who consider Jesus Christ to be only a nice Jewish boy who was good to His mother and nothing to do with God.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 3:45PM
I do indeed discuss Jesus and his Gospel with them, including His reference to the Trinity. Most of those I have dialogue with are very well-versed in Christian theology, and know as much as we do about Christ's teachings. But many of them --like Margie -- do not believe Jesus is God, of one being with the Father.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 6:56PM
RCV~ I have never said that Jesus is not God you insufferable reprobate.
Begone, Satan!
You joke!
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 7:47PM
Do you acknowledge that He is God? Or do you want to just wiggle around the question?
victor| 9.18.11 @ 6:09AM
oops, forgot the citation:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/7080327.stm
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 4:15PM
RCV,
Your dripping with hatred patronizing poisonous lying words are really sickening.
Please spare me.
You are disgusting.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 4:53PM
No one comes to this blog with more venom to unleash than you, Margie. The sad thing is that you turn so many people from Christ's love because they assume all Christians must be like you -- hateful, self-righteous, judgmental, quick to hurl foul language at anyone who disagrees with your narrow, mindless conception of Christianity.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 7:02PM
Reprobate Snake, RCV:
You lie!
I speak the biblical truth. YOU just don't happen to agree with it.
You practice the most vile of hatred towards Bible believing Christians here than even Clint/Tim*.
At least he openly curses me. You speak with smooth disgusting patronizing sickening bilge.
The truth remains~ you're a snake and a lying reprobate who is on his way to Hell, as you are practicing falsehood here repeatedly against the children of God and God Himself:
"Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of life and that they may enter the city by the gates.
Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood." Rev. 22:14 & 15.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 9:14PM
I'll leave the cursing to you and Tim/Clint, Margie.
Have you ever asked yourself where your venomous hostility comes from? As anyone who as read your posts over the years knows, your two great demons in this world are Democrats -- lying socialist scum, I think you would call them -- and the Catholic Church. You've also let slip several times that your parents both are -- drumroll -- Democrats and Catholics. It doesn't take a whole lot of insight to figure out what the source of the hostility you direct towards others is.
You might consider consulting a professional of OT's credentials and deal with the root of your personal demons, instead of projecting them onto good people who simply try to discuss issues with you. Just a suggestion!
The peace of the Lord be with you!
You might seriously con
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 9:15PM
Delete last stray fragment!
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 11:59PM
The PUNK RCV ha the gall to say, "Peace be with you!"
After lying his arse off all day long and all night long here.
You're a disgrace.
victor| 9.19.11 @ 4:19AM
RCV:
"No one comes to this blog with more venom to unleash than you, Margie."
You are the picture perfect picture of a Liberal Christian.
Margie comes bearing and speaking the Truth.
You do not want to hear it.
You sound like the motto I happened to see in a church in New Jersey.
By coincidence it happened to be an episcopal church.
Is it true? Is it kind? Is it necessary?
The truth is not always kind, but it is always neccesary.
victor| 9.18.11 @ 4:43AM
RCV:
"I thought terms like "Papist"...."
Actually, "papist" is simply a description of your faith.
We Christians follow Christ, we will follow no other and put no other in his place.
You papists, on the other hand, while professing warm feelings for Christ and pretending to follow Him actually follow the pope.
This is seen whenever the teachings of Christ and the pope separate, you will invariably follow the pope.
This is also seen whenever we say that even the pope must repent of his sin, you all assert that the pope is guilty of no sin and you release the hounds of war and hunt us down with hammer and tong and call us the vilest of names and promise us a heretic's death.
Your love for the pope knows no bounds.
We have seen it in the false teachings of infant baptism, the priest's confessional and the elevation of Mary to divinity.
And now the latest, when the pope endorses evolution, all of you papists slavishly follow his lead.
When the choice comes to give up the pope or Christ, you will never give up the pope.
Contrast this with these Christians, who when given the choice of giving up Christ or their lives, they choose Christ.
http://www.persecution.com/
You cannot serve two masters.
What is it going to be?
The pope or Christ?
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 3:54PM
Victor, I'm not a "Papist" even by your definition. I left the Roman Catholic Church (its name to all who don't wish to scurrilize it). I'm an Anglican. I don't believe the Pope is infallible. I recognize that the Catholic Church is guilty of misdeeds in the past, just as Martin Luther, Cromwell, "bible believing Christians" and people of virtually all Faiths have been. (I don't know of a lot of Bhuddist atrocities.). It's the result of religious fanaticism -- the firm belief that you, and you only have "the Truth"; that everyone else has to accept what you believe, or God will be displeased; that there is no place for interfaith dialogue, because "the others" are infidels andof the devil.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 4:13PM
Anglicanism is basically Catholicism without the Pope~ yet you defend the fraud who calls himself "the vicar of Christ on earth!"
That makes you a Papist.
And, you're a liar~ you claim the Apostle Paul was NOT appointed by God to be an Apostle.
You also say~ against GOD HIMSELF~ that Homosexuality is not Sin.
This puts you in direct rebellion against GOD.
Therefore, you have no authority to judge a Christian~ ANY Christian's faithfulness or adherence to the Word of God.
I'll let my husband speak to the rest of your lying words.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 4:18PM
I have acknowledged many times that Paul was appointed by Jesus -- God, Margie -- to be an apostle. I just don't acknowledge him, or any other human, including the Pope, to be infallible.
If Anglicanism is Catholicism without the Pope, how can I be a "Papiat"? LOL!
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 5:42PM
And CS Lewis, whom you quote above, was an Anglican, Margie. And a very high Church (Anglo Catholic) Anglican at that. Was he also a devilish Papist?
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 5:58PM
Because you behave exactly as one~ a liar!
A liar who perverts the Word of God and replaces it with false teachings and wickedness.
You claim that the Apostle Paul was not appointed by God to be an Apostle.
You claim that not every Word of God is Truth.
You claim that Homosexuality is not Sin.
Did C.S. Lewis do that?
You drip with hypocrisy and slander against Bible believing Christians, just as the Papists did and still do~ you behave like a modern day Inquisitor and mock Christians for taking their stand on Scripture~exactly as the murderous torturers did to my brethren for many centuries.
Yes, you are indeed a mealy mouthed two-bit lying punk of a Papist.
"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not
bear this doctrine, do not receive him into
the house, and do not speak a greeting to
him.
For the one speaking a greeting shares
in his evil works." 2 Jn. 1:9-11.
You do not have the Doctrine of Christ, the Son of God.
RCV| 9.19.11 @ 12:06AM
No, CS Lewis had fairly conventional English views about homosexuality as sin, even though he had many friends who were homosexuals.
But he did, incidentally, share my basic views about the nature of the Bible. He called it a collection of "inspired works", acknowledged that it contained some historical errors and glaring inconsistencies (the two versions of the death of Judas, for example), and expressly viewed many of the Old Testament stories to be allegories meant to teach us basic truths (he specifically calls out Jonah and the Whale as one of these). Lewis believed that one could glean God's word by reading the Bible "in the proper frame of mind" as he put it, but that it was a collection of inspired writings, not God's own words.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 6:26PM
RCV's Posts:
RCV| 1.3.11 @ 10:32PM
I do believe His words. What we're arguing about Margie, is what are His words, and what are the words of people like you and me. St. Paul is not God, nor did he profess to be. His epistles have no more authority than the wisdom contained in them, which is a lot. But he was just a wise imperfect man, beset with the same prejudices and cultural blindnesses of other men of the time. That's what led Paul to say that women should be silent and not try to teach others. I know that's sexist nonsense, and so obviously do you. Just as you know that Paul was wrong when he taught, "Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore, he who resists the authorities resists what God has appointed, and those who resist will incur judgment." (Rom. 13:1-2)
RCV| 1.3.11 @ 10:47PM
But you don't see that is exactly what you you are doing. (see my 10:32 post above)
Sorry to quibble, but Jesus wasn't talking to St. Paul, who wasn't one of his appointed apostles. And are you claiming that His apostles, let alone every "disciple" of His who followed, was infallible? If so, you, you haven't read the Gospels.
RCV| 1.4.11 @ 11:50AM
Not at all. Paul was wise about many, many things, but surely an imperfect man. He spent most of his adult life persecuting Christians. He had contemporary attitudes about things like slavery, women and other cultural biases. But he was brilliant in many things, including church organization and evangelism. He was brilliant to realize that if Christianity was to spread universally, requiring converts to undergo circumcision and follow Jewish dietary laws wouldn't work. Christ made no mistake in choosing him to spread the Gospel to the Gentiles. (If Peter and James had had their way, Christianity today might be a small Jewish sect of little influence. But that doesn't mean Peter and James weren't faithful and true to Christ; they just weren't perfect, like you and me.)
But that doesn't make Paul God, nor his pronouncements infallible. Remember, Judas Iscariot was a chosen Apostle as well. God has his own purposes in choosing each of us for our tasks in the world.
RCV:
I give great weight to St. Paul's teachings. But it is incumbent on me, as it is on every Christian, to consider Paul's views and ascertain whether they are sound, or whether they are expressions of a human prejudice."
Margie| 1.3.11 @ 7:06PM
How do you square with this, shadow_man:
"For this reason God gave them up to dishonorable passions. Their women exchanged natural relations for unnatural, and the men likewise gave up natural relations with women and were consumed with passion for one another, men committing shameless acts with men and receiving in their own persons the due penalty for their error. And since they did not see fit to acknowledge God, God gave them up to a base mind and to improper conduct." Rom. 1:26-28.
You need to wake up to the fact that homosexuality is wrong, it is sin, and it is against both God, and yourself.
You cannot go to Heaven if you die in your sin. It is just a fact that we all have to deal with. It isn't just homosexuality, but that's the subject at hand.. you are trying to justify it but you are sadly wrong.
REPLY TO THIS
RCV| 1.3.11 @ 7:43PM
So said Paul of Tarsus, a human being, in a letter he wrote around 56 A.D. to certain Christians in Rome. Don't confuse Paul with God. St. Paul never made that mistake, and it is idolotrous for any Christian to do so.
REPLY TO THIS
Margie| 1.3.11 @ 8:27PM
Paul, a servant of Jesus Christ, called to be an Apostle, set apart for the gospel of God which He promised beforehand through His prophets in the Holy Scriptures, the gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by his resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord, through whom we have received grace and Apostleship to bring about the obedience of faith for the sake of His Name among all the nations.." Rom. 1:1-5.
Yes, THAT Apostle Paul!
Who are YOU to say otherwise?
"He who receives you receives Me, and he who receives Me receives Him who sent Me." Mt. 10:40.
RCV does NOT therefore receive Him. Or do you also choose to reject Christ's warning as well? Are you in the phony Christian camp that rejects the book of Revelation, too?
"I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End." Blessed are those who wash their robes, that they may have the right to the tree of Life and that they may enter the city by the gates. Outside are the dogs and sorcerers and fornicators and murderers and idolaters, and every one who loves and practices falsehood. "I Jesus have sent my angel to you with this testimony for the churches. I am the root and the offspring of David, the bright Morning Star." Rev. 22:13-16.
It doesn't matter what your intellectualloid mind tells you, because you are lying to yourself and others.
REPLY TO THIS
RCV| 1.3.11 @ 10:56PM
And it doesn't matter what your narrow mind tells you, either, Margie. Your self-righteousness is so unChristian in my humble opinion, but that will be a matter between you and God at some point.
REPLY TO THIS
Margie| 1.4.11 @ 11:33AM
"All these things my hand has made, and so all these things are mine, says the LORD. But this is the man to whom I will look, he that is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word." Is. 66:2.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 7:53PM
I stand by all those statements, Margie, which confirm what I've repeatedly said about Saint Paul. He was an Apostle appointed by Jesus -- you know, God -- to spread His Gospel, which he did well. He was a wise and saintly man. But he was a man, imperfect as we all are, and not infallible.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 9:52PM
So, you say he wasn't appointed by Jesus, the Son of God, yet you say He WAS?
Oops. I'm confused.
You said he wasn't appointed by Jesus, here:
"Sorry to quibble, but Jesus wasn't talking to St. Paul, who wasn't one of his appointed apostles."
Oh, and RCV~ the Apostle Paul received the Holy Spirit (you know, from GOD?) and so what he taught was infallible.
Oops!
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 10:11PM
When I was referring to "Apostle" in the first quote, I was referring to "the apostles", the twelve whom Christ choose while He was here on earth. I have always acknowledged, and praised, Christ's appointment of Saint Paul to spread his Gospel.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 10:16PM
No human, including the Pope, is infallible. The Apostles (including Judas obviously) were very fallible, as Christ himself often pointed out. Peter denied Christ three times. Paul shared all the imperfections and prejudices a man of his day did. Jesus did not. I never confuse the two.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 10:43PM
RCV says, "I never confuse the two."
Jesus (God, remember?) chose Paul to be one of His Apostles. Therefore, the words that he spoke are to be heeded, no?
I already know that you have mocked the Bible~ I can go and grab your other posts if you want me to~ you pick and choose which parts of it you listen to. And you do it because you must try and justify sin.
Specifically, the sin of Homosexuality~ you deny it's sin.
And it is the Apostle Paul who seriously preached against it, isn't it?
Yes indeed, Obama mocks the Apostle Paul too, didn't he say that Romans was an obscure book?
Ahh yes, it is the very book where Paul preaches against the sin of Homosexuality. That Baaad Paul! Why.. how unloving of him!!
How un-Christian!
How DARE the Apostle Paul preach the Word of God a she was appointed to do!
Why, those dirty rotten Bible believing Christians!
If only we could still be throwing them to the lions!
Right, RCV?
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 10:45PM
as he. typo.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 11:00PM
No, Margie. People who disagree about theology should be able to discuss things rationally and calmly. They should not be thrown to the lions, or demonized, or called "scumbags" or "liars" or "demonic" or "Papal inquisitors" merely because their studies of the Bible and religious theology have led them to different conclusions than you.
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 12:01AM
"No, Margie. People who disagree about theology should be able to discuss things rationally and calmly."
Very funny, PUNK.
After you insult and lie continually.
What a disgrace.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 10:51PM
"No human, including the Pope, is infallible."
Hmm, tell that to the Popes! LOL.
And of course man is not infallible.
But! The Holy Spirit is NOT infallible~ God made sure of it, and therefore the words spoken by the Holy Spirit, through the men that GOD appointed, HIMSELF~ are infallible.
And we must all submit to them. At least, if you want to be a Christian.
For example~ was Moses infallible? Yes.
But what did Jesus say:
"If you believed Moses, you would believe Me, for he wrote of Me.
But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe My Words?" Jn. 5:46 & 47.
"He who does not love Me does not keep My Words; and the word which you hear is not Mine but the Father's who sent Me." Jn. 14:24.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 11:12PM
No, Moses was not infallible. And no, the Popes are not infallible. No man is infallible -- we're all, every single one of us, imperfect sinners.
Of course, the Holy Spirit is infallible - it's God. The question with respect to all people is sorting the wheat from the chaff. It's why I don't accept Papal infallibility or accept every one of any Pope's teachings as "the Word of God.". The "Holy Spirit" may indeed inspire men, but it gets filtered through their imperfect being.
God could simply talk directly to all humankind, if He chose. He chooses not too. He leaves us to figure it out for ourselves, and each of us must do so. I've tried my best, as I'm sure you have. We will, each one of us, someday find out what we got right and what we missed.
God bless.
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 12:03AM
More Pap from the Papist.
No, the Holy Spirit doesn't "get filtered".
It speaks the Holy Words of God through the men He appointed.
You lie.
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 12:03AM
It should be He.
Joseph| 9.19.11 @ 7:56AM
Margie thinks as if she is infallible since everyone who disagrees with her is a liar, punk, papist, blah blah blah.
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 3:22PM
You are a punk, Joseph.
Deal with it.
And you're a liar, too.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 10:35PM
You were referring to the Apostles whom Christ chose while He was on Earth, huh?
LOL. But that isn't what you said in that post, is it?
And your other posts concerning Paul speak for themselves.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 11:02PM
My other posts about Paul do speak for themselves.
And, yes, I was talking about the original twelve apostles because I was responding to a post of yours quoting a speech by Jesus to his original apostles.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 7:44PM
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 3:54PM
Victor, I'm not a "Papist" even by your definition. I left the Roman Catholic Church (its name to all who don't wish to scurrilize it). I'm an Anglican. I don't believe the Pope is infallible."
LOL!
RCV 1/5/11:
"I consider the Holy Father to be the world's spiritual leader."
You're a Papist to the nth degree.
And today you're an Anglican, but elsewhere you've posted you're an Episcopalian:
RCV| 2.25.11 @ 12:40PM
"...and it was not "chicness" that brought me to the Episcopal Church. As a matter of fact, what started my conversion was my inability to abide the introduction of guitars, ugly modern Catholic church architecture, and dreadful folk music that made me think I was in some Southern Baptist worship center. The majesty of a high-church Episcopal service with its glorious music brought me in, and the intellectual freedom kept me there."
So which is it, liar?
You claim Homosexuality isn't Sin, so you are in rebellion against God.
It's no wonder that you DESPISE Bible believing Christians the way that you do, all the while proclaiming yourself the authority on biblical matters.
The truth is, you're a fraud. You excoriate me and others for being hateful and unloving, yet look at the way you speak of and treat Bible believing Christians.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 9:18PM
Episcopalians are Anglicans, Margie. They just renamed the US church after the Revolution. But we all look to the Archbishop of Canterbury for Church leadership.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 9:47PM
Too bad you don't look to Christ Himself.
If you did, you wouldn't be a liar.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 10:18PM
Can't ever admit when you just got something wrong, Margie, can you? But it never stops you from calling people "liars" even when the apparent "lie" is simply the result of your own limited knowledge about oh so many things!
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 10:31PM
What did I get wrong? That you're a liar?
Nope.
That you said you're an Anglican and then you say you're an Episcopalian?
Nope.
That you're a fraud?
Nope.
You prove it with each additional fraudulent post of yours.
That you look to a man for guidance?
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 10:54PM
p.s. If Episcopalians are the same thing as Anglicans, I didn't know it, so I wasn't lying.
You DID say you were both things on separate occasions.
Now~ take back that accusation, please.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 11:18PM
Then you take back your accusation that I was lying!
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 12:05AM
No, you are constantly lying. when you repent of the lying, I'll rejoice.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 11:17PM
You thought Episcopalians and Anglicans were different, that's what you got wrong, Margie. It wasn't a "lie" as you called it out of ignorance. The Anglican Communion includes the Church of England, the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States (its proper name), the Church of Ireland, the Church of Canada, etc. They're one denomination.
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 12:08AM
I didn't say you were lying about that. I presented here the fact that you said you were both.
And I asked, which is it? And you explained it.
What I said you ARE lying about repeatedly.. all one has to do is read your posts.
RCV| 9.19.11 @ 1:29AM
No, you asked, "Which is it, liar?"
You should, in your own words, Margie, repent. But you're too proud to do so. But that's OK. I forgive you!
Go with God, and the Peace of the Lord be with you. Christian response: And with you, also.
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 3:21PM
RCV~ You are correct. I went and re read. I repent! I did put it that way.
Will you forgive me, then?
I promise to be more careful in the future.
victor| 9.19.11 @ 4:48AM
RCv:
"I recognize that the Catholic Church is guilty of misdeeds in the past, just as Martin Luther, Cromwell, "bible believing Christians" and people of virtually all Faiths have been."
Can't blame the catholic church on its own, can you, you must practice "equivalency of blame", that is, both sides are to blame, which is practiced by Liberals, Liberteenians and, and , and YOU!
Martin Luther did not start or conduct any inquisitions, did he?
Cromwell was engaged in a Civil War, deaths are to be expected in a war, aren't they?
He also conducted no inquisitions.
Apparently you have a wee bit of a problem with the many Roman Catholic Inquisitions, eh?
Historians distinguish four different manifestations of the Inquisition:
the Medieval Inquisition (1231–16th century)
the Spanish Inquisition (1478–1834)
the Portuguese Inquisition (1536–1821)
the Roman Inquisition (1542 – c. 1860)
If you are a Bible Believing Christian, then you will not commit any such inquisitions.
We believe that any such unrepentant sinners will be left to God's Judgement.
See Romans 1:26-32, that is, if you believe Romans:
"Because of this, God gave them over to dishonorable passions, for even their females changed the natural use to the use contrary to nature.
And likewise, the males also forsaking the natural use of the female burned in their lust toward one another, males with males working out shamefulness, and receiving back within themselves the recompense which is right for their straying away.
And even as they did not think fit to have God in their knowledge, God gave them over to an unfit mind, to do the things not fitting having been filled with all unrighteousness, fornication, iniquity, covetousness, malice, being full of envy, murder,
quarrels, deceit, evil habits, becoming whisperers,
slanderers, God-haters, insolent men, arrogant ones, braggarts, devisers of evil things, disobedient to parents, without understanding, untrustworthy
ones, without affection, implacable ones, unmerciful, who having known the ordinance of
God, that the ones practicing such things are worthy of death, not only do them, but also approve the ones practicing them."
RCv" or God will be displeased; that there is no place for interfaith dialogue, because "the others" are infidels andof the devil."
"No man can come to me except the Father which hath sent me draw him and I will raise him up at the last day" John 6:44
"He who hears you hears me, and he who rejects you rejects me, and he who rejects me rejects him who sent me." Luke 10:16
Nick| 9.20.11 @ 1:07AM
Victor,
Saint Paul is referring to the Gentiles, in Romans 1:18-32. Did you miss verses 22 & 23?
"Claiming to be wise, they became fools, and exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images resembling mortal man or birds or animals or reptiles."
Catholics and Episcopalians do not do these things. This is a clear reference to the pagans: Egyptians, Babylonians, Persians, Greeks, and Romans.
Patrick Felicitas| 9.17.11 @ 1:22AM
I am a mental health professional. You are in crisis & need help as soon as you can get it. Your pastor or rabbi should be able to assist you if you are in a rural community. Seek help now.
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 2:08PM
I'm a believer in the Word of God~ you need to repent of your psychology, and come to your right mind.
Seek Salvation now!
Kingofthenet| 9.16.11 @ 11:13AM
"Whether the Heaven and the Earth, and human life, was created over 13.2 billion years following the Big Bang, or over six days as a literal reading of Genesis is interpreted as saying, actually does not matter."
Yes it DOES! Evolution has nothing to do with the ORIGINS of life or the Universe, those are other scientific disciplines. I have also seen the Gorilla Coco 'paint' it's no great shakes, but you try painting with a catchers mitt on. All mamals 'think' more or less like us, but a cat due to it's simple but specialized brain can do well with 1/20 the the brain mass of a human, but a retart can't manage to basically function with brain power magnitudes greater.
LiveFreeOrDie| 9.16.11 @ 3:28PM
"All mamals 'think' more or less like us..."
Your spelling is on par with your understanding of the subject matter. Does the phrase, "Out of your league" mean anything to you?
MOS 1 1 2 | 9.16.11 @ 10:49PM
Kingfisher: What's a RETART, someone who can't spell a two syllable word? Pick on someone your own [brain]size.
DaveD| 9.17.11 @ 1:26AM
"Evolution has nothing to do with the ORIGINS of life or the Universe..."
This is one of the more amusing statements made by evolutionists. As recently as freshman Biology in 1966 (dating myself here) we were taught and tested on the "fact" that evolution WAS the answer to the origin of life on this planet. It is only recently, with the utter failure of the famous Urey experiment, among others, that evolutionary scientists have officially backed off from abiogenesis.
DaveD| 9.17.11 @ 1:29AM
Oops, got ahead of myself. To continue...
Except, of course, they really haven't backed off from their belief that evolution answers everything. An long running experiment is under way attempting to prove that self-replicating molecules are something other than a laboratory curiosity. It'll fail, just like the Urey experiment.
Simon Templar| 9.16.11 @ 11:22AM
We can sit here till the end of time debating whether or not man descended from an ape or was created through a divine inspiration or whether evolution is a theory or fact.
The real issue is how these theories have been used by people to justify the outrageous, the immoral, and the selfish destructive aims of elites throughout western history. From Hitler to Dawkins to Bin Laden and all the rest...they are the rule not the exception and they all attempt to shape the world in their image with the use of either science (the new religion) or the old one from the writings of the ancients.
This is the real tragedy, the real issue, and the real shame.
Seek| 9.16.11 @ 3:05PM
Hitler, bin Laden, Dawkins -- talk about associative conditioning, lumping in Richard Dawkins with those two other guys!
Not all elites are moral, but all said, I would rather be ruled by an intelligent elite than by a pack of ignoramuses.
Simon Templar| 9.16.11 @ 4:02PM
Apparently your IQ is not high enough to grasp the comparison and the point. I am sure Hitler and every other socialistic atheistic darwinian like yourself thinks he is so intelligent and wants to be ruled by an intelligent elite. Thanks for making my point.
I prefer a self governing constitutional Republic with rights to practice religion or not practice it.
I refuse to be ruled by any "intelligent elite" particularly one that is rabid atheistic and hates religion. We know how that turns out.
That the difference between me and you the useful idiot Liberal.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 4:21PM
You tell him, Simon!
Right on, once again, sir.
God bless you!
Conservative Bob| 9.16.11 @ 8:12PM
I will not be ruled by anyone be they intellegent elites or ignorant fools.
I was blessed to be born in a free country that values individual liberty I will do all in my power to pass that on to my children and grand children.
I stand with Patric Henry on this issue.
Kingofthenet| 9.16.11 @ 11:24AM
This little video will explain Evilution better than I can, and why Creationism is dead wrong:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....re=channel
Simon Templar| 9.16.11 @ 11:34AM
KingofIdiots, give it a rest. Evolution is so full of holes it would make a great swiss cheese. This is not about science or apes or burning bushes or apples, it is about your attempt to remove God from society and your intolerance of religion and its values and beliefs. It is not going anywhere as long as there is a first ammendment. Science is here and will continue searching for answers as best as it can, hopefully without your help.
Kingofthenet| 9.16.11 @ 11:41AM
Simon, Such a 'good' Christian thing to say, I am sure your Vengeful, Hate-Filled Genocidal 'SkyGod' will be pleased...
Science doesn't need to remove a non-entity from existence. Remember, the invisible and non-existent look very much alike...
LiveFreeOrDie| 9.16.11 @ 3:29PM
And the fact your are an atheist lends no bias to your uneducated opinion, right?
Simon Templar| 9.16.11 @ 4:36PM
At first, I was not going to respond to your idiocy but the I thought it might be useful and interesting to take it apart bit by bit for illustration of classic Liberal argument and reasoning, if you can call it that. Let's have a little fun.
"Simon, Such a 'good' Christian thing to say, "
-The first thing out of the gates of that liberal brain is the classic. Always start with the hypocrisy charge as if you had any regard for "christian values," goodness, or consistency in thought or behavior. Of course, apply the charge even when you contradict it in the rest of your sentence. You also make the assumption that I am a Christian.
"I am sure your Vengeful, Hate-Filled Genocidal 'SkyGod' will be pleased..."
-Well, if I have failed at being a 'good' christian then how would this vengeful, hateful God you reference be displease with my behavior? A bit illogical, eh? Of course, this is usually the second line of attack. The smarmy offensive insult and a false re-characterization of the very object of the discussion to illicit anger and an emotional response from the opponent.
"Science doesn't need to remove a non-entity from existence."
-Then the false premise. There is always one of those. No one is asking science to remove a non-entity from existence or prove that God does not exist. Science is not in the business of proving God exists or does not exist. It is a methodology not a value system.
"Remember, the invisible and non-existent look very much alike..."
-Then, the best for last. The liberal finishes with the moronic words of advice that sound so convincing, if you happen to be a chimpanzee or severely mentally disabled. If those tiny invisible atoms could speak they would shout at you moron.
Conservative Bob| 9.16.11 @ 8:20PM
ST I can hardly type for laughing!
Bang! You got him! Good shot!
Game set match!
LMAO Thanks
Notary Sojac| 9.16.11 @ 11:40AM
All that is demonstrated in this article is that Richard Dawkins is losing control of himself.
People who disbelieve in evolution (which is not quite the same thing as disbelieving in "Darwinism") are neither ignorant, nor stupid, nor wicked.
They are simply wrong.
DaveD| 9.16.11 @ 11:48AM
People who believe in evolution are not knowledgeable, intelligent or wise.
They are simply foolish.
DaveD| 9.16.11 @ 11:48AM
People who believe in evolution are not knowledgeable, intelligent or wise.
They are simply foolish.
Who Knows?| 9.16.11 @ 11:48AM
So many knowers!
Maybe someday humans will throw in the ash heap all the tiresome flat-earth-like “scientific” and “religious” beliefs being bandied about these “angels-dancing-on-a-pin-head” days.
How many people can cogently describe how a car moves? Hey, you stick a key in a hole, twist it, and use your feet to manipulate pedals, while using the hands to rotate a wheel. Beyond that, deeper than that, how many go?
Just so with ALL of objective and solid-appearing reality, most definitely including subjective thinking and debating and talking etc.
The EYES have it---vulgar science long ago figured out that upwards of 90 to 95 percent of sensations are visual, and what do you see? Surfaces; and if you’re a scientist, maybe using invented tools, the extended eye can go large and small: macro and micro, to wit, cosmology and quantum mechanics.
The latter discipline decades ago, indeed in its inception, “evolved” enough to come to the most basic agreement possible with Hinduism and Buddhism---the VOID, or nothingness, is truly the mother and sustainer and reality of the whole shebanging experience ANYONE has.
Of course, in our “sane” conventional world, wherein the vast majority of humans is taught to be somebody, aka Narcissus, who can experience pain and pleasure while knowing in the bones that at any instant they can be ruined by OTHERS, and “knowing” that they will disappear---DIE--- way too soon: well, who has time or the inclination to take into account the discoveries down on the quantum level, wherein there are NO THINGS, and electrons, say, pop into and out of existence?
Who cares that we are each, as a BODY, composed of such EMPTINESS?
I recall what a Zen Master said to a devotee after the latter had satori, or had Realized Enlightenment---“Nothing is left to you except to have a GREAT laugh!”
Oh yes---when will Cosmic Laughter AND Cosmic Colonics become conventional wisdom? Paradoxically, since there truly are no things, even as we pretend to believe there are, the very form and process of It All is even HERE-NOW merely an ongoing Humorous Dump, or Dumping.
Hump, or Dump---you choose: and ENJOY it!
Like hogs reveling in slop, we “more evolved” “human” expressions of Being do our “no thing”.
Reality IS funny!
Ken (Old Texican)| 9.16.11 @ 12:08PM
Who Knows...
That was the stupidest post written today. Congratulations...dead man.
Who Knows?| 9.16.11 @ 12:08PM
Glad you liked it.
Les Nesman| 9.17.11 @ 1:43AM
I disagree. That was a well written post, thoughtfully presented, & deserving of more withering criticism than " stupid dead man" if you disagree with the subject matter. In the future I expect you to sell your book, support Sarah Palin, & support the stereotype of Texans as being semi-retarded crackers instead of replying to posts of this calibre.
Al Adab| 9.16.11 @ 12:17PM
Dawkins just prosletizes for his own Faith. "The Edge of Evolution" by Behe defines the limits of the theory in today's science. Evolution as so often stated violates the second law of thermodynamics and as such is seriously flawed. That however does not prevent its adherents from advancing their Faith. Microbiology among other disciplines, raises serious question about Darwinian postulates.
diviz| 9.16.11 @ 3:18PM
As has been stated repeatedly, because the erath is an open system evolution does not violate the rules of thermodynamics. Microbilogists rely on evolution theory and the framework it provides for relating organisms in order to identify identify and classify microbes.
RT| 9.16.11 @ 6:10PM
ditz,
As has been stated repeatedly, if you're going to arbitrarily carve the earth out of the universe than others can just as legitimately carve out the earth plus the sun. As either are closed systems the flea-brained *theory* of evolution violates the second LAW of thermodynamics.
Biologists never really did do very well at physics...
DaveD| 9.17.11 @ 1:55AM
You would learn in sophomore level physics that like a free lunch, there ain't no such thing as a closed system short of the entire Universe - and that is even debatable. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics argument is one of the weakest that you can possible use against evolution since it has no basis in reality upon which to work from. The errors in evolutionary thinking are glaring, this ain't one of them.
Les Nesman| 9.17.11 @ 2:44AM
Well by that thinking there is no reason for all the oil to be under my feet here is there? Who didn't do well at physics? Maybe it's the Peronis talking but I think you'll need to bulk up before trying this sort of stuff boss. Shape up.
CalMark| 9.16.11 @ 12:39PM
About 15 years ago, every few months the media would prominently report (then quietly retract) the discovery of the "Missing Link," the Darwinian half-breed allegedly spanning the evolutionary bridge between man and monkey. People like Dawkins are able to believe fervently in the "naturally occurring" miracle of the Missing Link, even possibly wrought by non-human (alien) designers (he even said so in Ben Stein's "EXPELLED")--but not a Divine Power.
Ironically, Dawkins and his fellow travelers are among the most fanatical fundamentalists on earth. Few believers in religion can match the intolerant, often vicious, dogmatism of a Pure Darwinist, recalling the famous joke:
"God is dead." --Nietzsche
"Nietzsche is dead."--God
Kingofthenet| 9.16.11 @ 12:49PM
There are none so blind as those who refuse to see. Aliens make far more sense in the Creation of the Earth, Life or even the Universe. With the size and age of the universe, it's not hard to imagine a race of creatures, who are hyper-intelligent or even our own capability but a Billion years more technology advanced. Now Supernatural, everliving Specters, that I have a problem with.
Al Adab| 9.16.11 @ 2:04PM
King:
How long would it take random atoms of hydrogen, oxygen, carbonn and iron bouncing around to mingle and compound hemoglobin? The age of the universe perhaps? What about those chimps writing Hamlet? Just about the same.
diviz| 9.16.11 @ 3:24PM
random atoms of H, O, C, N etc randomly associating and suddenly springing to life is impossible to the point of absurdity but it is this sudden appearance of complex organic molecules that creationists desperately believe in.
Evolution's underlying principles is that simple replicating organisms will accumulate changes in their molecular structure steadily growing more complicated over time. Clearly a far more sensible explanation.
LiveFreeOrDie| 9.16.11 @ 3:31PM
Sure, if you have zero knowledge of DNA, then it makes perfect sense.
DaveD| 9.16.11 @ 4:08PM
So how did the sudden appearance of complex organic molecules arise? That apparently did happen. Or do you think that a single celled life form is simple and non-complex? Go read a book on what goes on inside a living cell and be prepared to be amazed.
CalMark| 9.16.11 @ 3:03PM
So where did those aliens come from? Created by other aliens? Who in turn were created by yet another set of aliens? And so on--in an infinite cycle?
And I thought rationalists believe that infinity is only an abstract mathematical concept. Or maybe we're back to "spontaneous life from primordial ooze" at some point thousands of generations of aliens ago, way, way back. So, OK: where did the ooze come from?
Bad news, Your Non-Majesty: your beliefs are a religion, but more far bleaker than Christianity could ever be.
DaveD| 9.16.11 @ 4:09PM
Attributing life on earth to alien influence accomplishes nothing. It merely moves the creation problem from earth to Ork. There still remains a creation problem.
Kingofthenet| 9.17.11 @ 12:52AM
Gave and Cal, I am not saying it DID, only it COULD .Nothing precludes Alien life, but as far as we know it DOES Supernatural...
DaveD| 9.17.11 @ 1:38AM
Only if you believe that all there is is what can be seen, heard, tasted, smelled or touched - that is materialism. Yet modern cosmology posits things that cannot be seen, heard, tasted, smelled or touched, as in dark matter and dark energy.
There are more things in heaven and earth than in your philosophy, Horatio.
Anon| 9.16.11 @ 12:42PM
'Art is useless for survival. There is no reason why evolution should have produced it'
This is probably false. The broader ability to utilize symbolic communication was likely integral to the development of language, which certainly was vital to the social structure and survival of early hominids.
Particularly when one considers the evidence that the Toba supervolcanic event 73,000 years ago nearly eradicated early humans.
Nevertheless, good read. I encourage my students to think openly and not be steamrolled by orthodox Darwinism (or AGW theory for that matter). It is important to keep in mind how little we actually know.
JayDick| 9.16.11 @ 4:15PM
"It is important to keep in mind how little we actually know."
Good point that few here seem to grasp. Too many seem to think we should be able to explain everything. And, don't forget the unknown, perhaps unknowable, unknowns.
Mark| 9.16.11 @ 1:06PM
Mr Colebatch has a Phd in Poli Sci, not biology. He's not a biologist although he plays one in real life. He finds the Genesis account "tiresome". Well I find him tiresome. I fully accept the Genesis account and do not appreciate his dismissing me so easily, you know, as if he knew anything about which he speaks. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/H.....al_history
Santino| 9.16.11 @ 1:33PM
After reading this I had to check the calendar and verify the current year is 2011 and not 111 AD. As long as religion trumps science in people’s minds we will continue to be stunted as a species which is kind of ironic.
Drake| 9.16.11 @ 1:41PM
Trump us with your explanation of Macro Evolution.
DRed| 9.16.11 @ 2:03PM
What do you mean by macro evolution?
Jack London| 9.16.11 @ 4:24PM
This is about one species evolving into another, rather than variation within a species, and has been observed and is part of mainstream science, despite what the unintelligent design species (the only ones who in fact do not evolve) say.
diviz| 9.16.11 @ 4:28PM
speciation of one species into multiple species has been observed
RT| 9.16.11 @ 6:15PM
ditz,
No it hasn't. Traits can be bred OUT of species but nothing can be bred into them that wasn't in one of it's ancestors. Traits can be lost but nothing new is ever created, least of all a new species. And losing traits is simply consistent with loss of order, which is more formally called entropy, aka, the Second Law of Thermodynamics. (Surprise!)
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 6:28PM
Please don't confuse him with the facts. He might convert to the Truth!
Simon Templar| 9.16.11 @ 4:51PM
This level of self congratulating, smarmy arrogance and willful ignorance really is too much to take some days.
I will break it down for you real simple, jackass.
Religion, that is Christianity, in particular, was largely responsible for the preservation of science, the arts, and vast amounts of knowledge lost at the fall of the Roman empire. Damn near every single ivy league university here in the US was founded by religious people and groups.
Most of the greatest scientist were religious people.
Even Darwin himself would not meet your idiotic evaluation.
Though reticent about his religious views, in 1879 he responded that he had never been an atheist in the sense of denying the existence of a God, and that generally "an Agnostic would be the more correct description of my state of mind."
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 8:05PM
Simon,
Oh, he knew God existed, as we all do. But he was in rebellion towards Him.
The Bible says (God's own Words), that even the demons believe.. and shudder! Jas. 2:19.
Mark| 9.19.11 @ 1:27PM
This "religion" vs "science" dichotomy is a straw-man. Will the writer please observe that science was created by Christian western europe. Now do please look into this before knee-jerking a response.
Nick| 9.20.11 @ 12:47AM
Mark,
I completely agree.
The scientific method was developed by 13th century Catholic monk, Roger Bacon, so that he could test the claims of alchemists.
cowgirl| 9.16.11 @ 2:48PM
From Al Gore:
It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in GLOBAL WARMING, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that).
Birds of a feather...
fundamentalist| 9.16.11 @ 2:54PM
Like economics, there are two dimensions to evolution– micro and macro. Micro evolution is nothing more than selective breeding, that is, the change from one species to another. Macro is the change from one kind of animal to another.
No opponent of evolution denies micro evolution, not even six day creationists. That would just be stupid. Yet almost all of the evidence for macro evolution is actually just micro, just selective breeding. The evidence for macro evolution is so limited as to be virtually absent.
That demonstrates the fundamental dishonesty of evolutionists. They practice the old bait and switch con game. They demonstrate the solid evidence for micro evolution and then insist that micro evolution proves macro; it does not.
They assert that there is no distinction between micro and macro, that there is nothing but a continuum from micro to macro. If so, then where is your evidence for macro and why do you depend almost exclusively on evidence from selective breeding?
Are transitional fossils or living transitional creatures as numerous as the many species of dogs created by selective breeding? Not even close.
The debate is about whether or not micro evolution can transition seamlessly to macro. The jury is still out. The evidence doesn’t exist. Just assuming so doesn’t make it so.
Yet evolutionists like Hawking claim that people who point out the lack of evidence for macro evolution are denying micro evolution. That’s just dishonest. Hawking is a nothing but a cheap con man.
DRed| 9.16.11 @ 3:20PM
What's the difference between a different species and different kind of animal?
Not Chicken Little| 9.16.11 @ 3:38PM
Dawkins is just more proof, if any is needed, that intelligence and wisdom are not the same thing, and that perhaps our definition and measurement of "intelligence" is flawed...
nick is cool| 9.16.11 @ 3:43PM
The Theory of Natural Selection is a very good theory. However, it is reductive in nature.
The theory of natural selection can explain how there are fewer species than there were at a previous point, it can explain how a species can change characteristics over time, but it cannot explain Genesis. (Double meaning intended.)
The theory of natural selection does an excellent job of explaining elimination, but not of creation.
The Theory of Evolution tries to expand on Natural Selection but fails.
For example, the Theory of the Cambrian Explosion comes straight out of Scientific Creationism, but few will admit the truth. Nevertheless, the point is that Natural Selection is reductive but cannot explain genesis.
Moreover, Darwin's work borrowed heavily from the work of one seldomly acknowledged scientist, Nicholas Steno. Steno came up with the theory that lower levels of strata in the dirt come from cascading previous eras. It is the fundamental assumption that underlines all Paleology and much of all Anthropology. (That's kind of a big deal.)
Catholics knew Nick Steno as Bishop Steno, but today he is known by the appellation "Saint Nicholas Steno."
Perhaps Atheism has a few blind spots?
John786| 9.16.11 @ 4:55PM
There is a religious narrative based on sacred text. And in the abrahamic faiths the first man and woman is Adam & Eve. As a theist on the path of Abraham I don't have a problem with this. The scientific narrative states that many billion of years ago a self replicating information system arose on the earth. It is not clear how this information system arose. But once it arose it gave rise to an infinite variety of replicators- plants, animals. Humans. I am not an evolutionary biologist. But 99.9% of biologist believe that is a scientific fact. I have no information that is able to contradict this. I accept that this is scientific orthodoxy. As a believer I accept both narratives. I don't understand fully what connects them. But some knowledge is with GOD alone. If evolution is 100% correct it does not effect my faith in God in any way. Evolution like everything else is part of Gods creation not separate from it.
Kingofthenet| 9.16.11 @ 5:27PM
That is sort of fair, to be honest as an Athiest, I have no problem with a small 'g' God, a deist god like many of the Founding Fathers believed in. He created the Universe with a 'Big Bang' or whatnot, set the physical rules that would allow life, and...SPLIT! It doesn't 'Talk' to us, it doesn't want anything from us, fine by me.This talkative, narcissistic 'Yahwey' is ONLY one I have a problem with.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 6:27PM
You sound like a good Catholic.
LOL!
Joseph| 9.16.11 @ 7:20PM
Buzz off BIGOT Margie.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 7:30PM
It's the truth, BIGOT PUNK.
Patrick Felicitas| 9.17.11 @ 1:46AM
1-800-GET-HELP
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 2:11PM
1-800-REPENT-NOW!
Satan| 9.17.11 @ 3:32PM
Go girl, you on a roll Margie.
(YHVH)| 9.17.11 @ 5:51PM
I created her a human with free will.
I created you an angel with free will.
Who is on the better roll?
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 3:17PM
"You shall not take the Name of the LORD your God in vain; for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His Name in vain." Ex, 20:7.
Les Nesman| 9.17.11 @ 1:50AM
It sounds like you & me are on the same page here. I wouldn't call it atheism, too preachy. Its just agnostism. Given the behavoir of the the Christians, Muslims, Jews etc. it is probably the most reasonable response to an unreasonable world. Stay thirsty, my friend!
Augusta| 9.16.11 @ 7:38PM
Evolutionary biologists still have no idea as to why there are two genders.
Kingofthenet| 9.17.11 @ 12:47AM
Someone has to be the BITCH.
victor| 9.18.11 @ 4:46AM
Kingofthenet:
"Someone has to be the B......."
Then I guess, that someone has to be you?
Marc Jeric| 9.16.11 @ 7:09PM
Yes - theory of evolution cannot explain the formation of the first living cell. A French scientist (whose name escapes me) calculated the probability of chance formation of the first living cell. He did not know then of the DNA helix and its complexities; he postulated a simplest possible living cell of 2,000 molecules of two kinds - black and white - arranged in a simple string of one black - one white - one black and so on. He then simplified the whole known universe of some 10 to the power of 80 molecules, half white and half black, and placed them all in a primordial soup at a very convenient temperature of 75F. You know - that primordial Darwin soup. Then he ran the calculation of how long it would take to find a single molecule arranged in a string of one black-one white-one black and so on. Hethen calculated the time it would take for tha primordial soup to produce by chance one such molecule: 16 billion years, if the combinations were produced one million per second. Since the entire cosmos is only about 13 billion years old, that calculation proved that an accidental birth of that simplest possible living molecule was IMPOSSIBLE. And now let us talk about that double helix!
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 7:46PM
Great post as always, Marc Jeric. Rather rare though they may be!
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 1:44AM
Evolution doesn't purport to say anything about the formation of the first living cell. It's not about creation, only about development. It says nothing about who, if anyone, designed the process.
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 2:12PM
Evolution is a fraud, much like yourself.
Satan| 9.17.11 @ 3:33PM
Keep it up Margie, great job.
(YHVH)| 9.17.11 @ 5:53PM
I created her a human with free will.
I created you an angel with free will.
Which of you has exercised that free will better?
Satan| 9.17.11 @ 8:10PM
Margie you can do better that this silly repeat. Come on, something real nasty, be yourself.
(YHVH)| 9.17.11 @ 11:27PM
How has it come to pass an angel I created and endowed with free will and who dwelt in my presence is not as intellectually honest as the humans I created and endowed with free will whom you despise as nothing more than 'talking monkeys' yet seek to separate from me to your doom.
Nick| 9.17.11 @ 3:43PM
RCV,
Materialist Darwinian evolutionists certainly claim that evolution explains the origins of life on the planet. Darwin did postulate that there might have been a "warm little pond" where life began.
Atheistic materialists used Darwin's theory to try to prove that there was no God by trying to prove abiogenesis, or, spontaneous generation. Louis Pasteur debunked this theory, in the mid-19th century, by the way.
The "new atheists," lead by Dawkins, have taken this up this crusade, in earnest. Despite the fact that the theory of evolution has lead to no scientific discoveries or advancement.
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 4:05PM
But it does not follow from evolution that one has to reject belief in creation. Dawkins understands evolutionary biology well, but his arguments for the lack of a creator are devoid of merit on their face. Other evolutionary adherents, including Francis Collins, head of the human genome project, have written persuasively on why the advances in DNA research and evolutionary biology confirms for him God's existence and evident design. I highly recommend you pick up his book, "The Mind of God".
All the best, Nick.
Nick| 9.17.11 @ 4:35PM
Thanks, RCV.
I might get to it, someday.
My reading list is so backed-up, it will probably be when I'm in an old-age home! Ha-ha!
The internet doesn't help, either. I can easily waste hours going from linked article to linked article, and not even realize so much time has elapsed!
Take care.
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 6:13PM
I'd come visit you in that home and read it to you, but I'm a lot older than you and probably won't get the chance!
W| 9.18.11 @ 9:30AM
Nick,RCV,OT
This is a difficult concept to reconcile the Bible with evolution. The best explanation to me is that God created the first organism or maybe more than one, with a plan or code to develop or evolve as God intended. When you cut through all the books this seems the most probable, but who knows?
The real question is if we did evolve in this manner is when did we get a soul. This could be the Biblical story about God breathing life into man.
There are lots of books on this issue but they are either on one side or the other, with no attempt to reconcile the views. I agree with RCV that Francis Collins' book, "The language of God," is good. It makes an attempt to reconcile the view that God ceated life and there is evolution.
The evolutionists do antagonize by not conceding that they cannot explain how life started. I don't know if anyone can explain how life started except to say God created life., They also antagonize by insulting anyone who disagrees with them.
I like Occam's theory that God used the Creation story to instruct the Israeli " barbarians" who did not understand biology at that time. But I find it difficult to believe one of those young barbarians, an ancestor of Jonas Salk and Justice Brandeis, did not question the story and press for more details!
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 5:08PM
Oh, they did! Read the Talmud sometime!
W| 9.19.11 @ 12:58PM
I read "Job, the First Dissident" by William Safire, what do you suggest in the Talmud?
Nick| 9.19.11 @ 2:20AM
W,
You may be right. The reason that I don't believe in materialistic, Darwinian evolution is because I haven't seen any evidence for it. If I ever do, I will reassess my point of view. But, so far, everything I've seen and read proves nothing.
I also believe that pressure to accept evolution as a fact was an effort, after the so-called enlightenment, to try to prove that there was no God. So, that makes my opinion biased, I readily admit.
Since history and science are two of my favorite subjects, I have changed my mind numerous times, during my 40+ years of life.
I follow the Catholic Church's teachings on these subjects. Science has nothing to say about the existence and nature of God. Because science can only deal with the physical world, not the supernatural. She also teaches that God created the whole universe. How did God do it? He wasn't that specific about that.
As far as I know, the popes, beginning with Pope Pius XII, have accepted that the cosmos is not static, that it changes, or, evolves. They also accept that this happens within species. But, I don't know of any Pope who has accepted common ancestors for man, let alone all life on the planet.
And, I know that NO pope has accepted that life spontaneously appeared one day, billions of years ago. God created life. The Church is clear about that.
God Bless!
Augusta| 9.16.11 @ 7:34PM
Isn't Dawkins the dude who claimed that Aliens visited early earth and 'seeded' the planet, hence giving birth to all life? Rhetorical question - but, yes, he is the guy. Behold: "It could be that at some earlier time, somewhere in the universe, a civilization evolved, probably by some kind of Darwinian means, probably to a very high level of technology, and designed a form of life that they seeded onto perhaps this planet. Now, um, now that is a possibility, and an intriguing possibility. And I suppose it's possible that you might find evidence for that if you look at the details of biochemistry, molecular biology, you might find a signature of some sort of designer."
Uh..yeah. Militant atheists of Dawkins' ilk aren't truly scientifically curious, they're just supremacist zealots who think of themselves as an enlightened master race. They're more insufferable and hypocritical than even the most crooked televangelist and more hysterically hate filled than history's witch hunters. Secular Mathematician David Berlinski calls this arrogance in the scientific community, "The Devil's Delusion. http://tv.nationalreview.com/u.....U2YzZhZGE=
Rob Schapiro| 9.16.11 @ 7:45PM
Augusta, don't talk like an idiot. Just because he had some weird ideas doesn't mean he didn't stumble across some great truth even if he didn't fully understand it at the time. Now with the aid of DNA and especially microcondrial DNA we can follow evolutionary development of a species for millions of years.Including humans. None of this has anything to do with belief in a greater power. It is simply a technical explanation of how it all happened.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 7:48PM
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good." Psalm 14:1.
Praise God for His Truth.
Rob Schapiro| 9.16.11 @ 8:18PM
Yes, you are correct. Anyone who denies God is a fool. But this has nothing to do with God.
Margie, do you know that 150 years ago it was an accepted belief in scientific circles that ice age remnants were deposited not by ice but by the great biblical flood. Any arguments to the contrary caused an immediate outcry. Now even though we fully accept that ice ages existed once and it probably will again, it doesn't change our belief in God. Evolution is the same. Its just the way it happened but it doesn't say why it happened. That's faith.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 9:03PM
It has everything to do with God.
Either you believe what He says, or you believe a lie.
Reality is that either God is lying or He is telling the truth.
He says He created the Universe and Mankind.
Darwin says we "evolved."
One of them is a liar.
Augusta| 9.16.11 @ 8:33PM
You do realize I was talking about DAWKINS, not Darwin - right? Richard Dawkins talked about aliens only a couple years ago. And Darwin was a Victorian eugenicist who didn't 'stumble onto' any 'great truth' - he invented a theory, wrote exactly what discoveries would disprove his theory, like bio-machines [DNA], and today Darwinian evolution has been proven to be mostly nonsense as a result. Follow the link to David Berlinski, an atheist, who knows Darwin was wrong.
Merlin| 9.16.11 @ 11:01PM
Interesting that you mention mitocondral DNA. Brian Sykes (sp?) in Seven Daughters of Eve claims that all humans can be traced back to four women using mitocondral DNA and using the Y chromosome it traces back to one man. Does one man and four women make you think of anything?
Did you know?
1. Fossilized sea bottom worm borrows are abundant in the early Cambrium, but rare anywhere else.
2. For both humans and dinosaurs fossilized foot prints are abundant in older strata with relative few body fossils and in younger strata body fossils are abundant and footprints rare.
3. It is claimed that the eroded material for most sedimentary rocks were deposited in shallow seas, but althought the process took millions of years, there seems to be no bioturbation.
Have you seen the animations of ATP synthase?
Google it.
Do you understand the arguments of Behe, John Sanford and Wm Dembski?
When you have considered the above, tell me again about how unscientific Creationist are.
Wayne| 9.17.11 @ 10:09AM
One of the most interesting conversations I have had is with a Master's Biology student on Intelligent Design. Unfortunately this student felt he had to keep his believes quite else get kicked out of the program. But he saw the beauty in so many things (such as the intelligence of an octapus), that made me excited just to hear it.
One problem that evolutionary biologist must address is that their believes are discounting information that doesn't fit their preconceived notions. That then start discounting the people who present such information, which makes them actually the cause of people's ignorance.
Kevin Dunn| 9.18.11 @ 7:31AM
I don't think it was Dawkins who claimed aliens planted life on Earth, though some well-known astronomers have. Of course, even if it could be proved, it doesn't answer the question of who is responsible for the original creation, it simply moves it one step further back.
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 7:49PM
That picture of Darwin above~ looks like he's saying, "Shhh. Don't tell anyone, but I know I'm a fraud."
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 8:17PM
Some Religions do not abide by the Doctrine of Christ, and promote Darwinism.
Take heed!
"Everyone transgressing and not abiding
in the doctrine of Christ does not have God.
The one abiding in the doctrine of Christ,
this one has the Father and the Son.
If anyone comes to you and does not
bear this doctrine, do not receive him into
the house, and do not speak a greeting to
him." 2 Jn. 1:9 & 10.
fliteking| 9.16.11 @ 8:24PM
Fascinating Reading- Any book countering Darwinism and Evolution. There is a reason Dawkins gets so upset about this issue, the gig is about up. Check Amazon and review the ratings to get started, then after your first purchase jump to recommendations.
I am a former Evolutionist, but no more.
Augusta| 9.16.11 @ 8:40PM
“It is the glory of God to conceal a thing: but the honor of kings is to search out a matter.” Proverbs 25:2
Margie| 9.16.11 @ 9:00PM
"The Hand of our God is for good upon all that seek Him, and the power of His Wrath is against all that forsake Him." Ezra 8:22.
Kelly Staples| 9.16.11 @ 9:21PM
Case closed.
POST American| 9.16.11 @ 11:05PM
----------------------FINAL WORD----------------------
"Understand, Darwin's work was nothing
new. His father and grandfather had
pushed similar ideas on the part of the
dominant elite. In essense, Darwin was
a creation of the elite. Darwinism is nothing
more than hinduism in disguised 'naturalist'
form. Struggle, bringing through an elite,
disposal of the unfit. It's basically the inner
doctrine of Freemasonry----which, by the
way, Darwin, Marx and virtually anyone
who was allowed to be anyone, belonged."
-ALAN WATT
(essential online coverage)
----Porch Masons, chumps and
Rockefellow rectum worshippers
--------TAKE HEED.
POST Marks, POST Lenin, the Bolshevik Coup,
and the multiple Soviet and Fascist halocausts,
world plundering Globalism
------and EUGENICS.
AGAIN, look in the mirror. NO one's getting
any younger.
Hell bound eternity gets closer and bigger
every day.
And BTW, has ANYONE ever spoken with
Dawkins about these FACTS, this monstrous legacy,
ON RECORD?
Bill| 9.18.11 @ 10:43AM
Dawkins probably has a soft spot in his heart for EUGENICS; why would anyone want to talk with him?
ejp| 9.17.11 @ 1:30AM
I have some advice Mr. Colebatch. Before you talk about the need for the suspect theory of evolution to evolve, you need to do some evolution in your understanding of basic Christian theology 101. If there is no Fall of Mankind in the act of Original Sin by Adam and Eve, then the whole point of the redemptive act of suffering by Christ on the Cross and His literal Resurrection HAS NO PURPOSE! Would you mind explaining why a serious-minded Christian who has PLENTY of circumstantial evidence to accept traditional (I am not going to fall into the trap of letting your perjorative use of the term "Fundamentalist" be the guide here) accounts regarding THIS event in history should come away believing that the word of God that prophesied this Truth is compiled of liars on this point regarding Man's fall from God which precipitates the need for Christ?
If you're not going to come up with an answer to that question then don't waste my time or the time of any other serious Christian with your pedantic warmed over mush that tries to sound more reasonable on the issue than a shrill idiot like Dawkins but ultimately is just as shallow.
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 2:14PM
Great post.
Kevin Dunn| 9.18.11 @ 7:36AM
You seem to be in a state of hysterian and unable to read what the article said. It simply said Dawkins is questionable in dogmatically claiming eviolution has all the answers. It does not deny Christianity. Of course, if you literally believe Adam and Eve were tempted by a walking, talking snake, say so.
Kingofthenet| 9.18.11 @ 12:03PM
Yeah if you believe Jesus did what he supposedly did, it was to remove 'Original Sin' without the Garden and the Apple tree(and talking snake) you pretty much have a religion in tatters, now if you REALLY want to freak out, look at how thin the proof of a historical Jesus really is:
http://nobeliefs.com/exist.htm
Rob| 9.17.11 @ 2:10AM
In contradistinction to many of the commentators, Mr Colebatch gives a rudimentary nod to scientific literacy and precision in use of languague. ANY scientific theory(including biologic evolution) is predicated on proposing a hypothesis(null actually)that is at least theoretically DISPROVABLE. To be disprovable said hypothesis MUST lend itself to rational, material, physical evidendtiary or experimental analysis. This body of evidence is collected in an attempt to refute the null. Any reference to metaphysical, spiritual, God or other non disprovable concepts are NOT, in a rigorously scientific sense, relevant! Science does not preclude, exlude or deny the Devine, it simply does NOT reference God. Discussion of theories scientific with the strict scriptural literalist is meaningless as they lack the requisite faculty recognizing the physical/metaphysical duality inherent in nature. Biologic evolution as a scientific theory is NOT Darwinism or Evolutionism or Creationism. As strict scientific theory in support of "common ancestry", biologic evolution has not even a near rival! Indeed it may at some point, however considering the myriad lines of evidence supporting, and the fact that the sequential chronology of trait appearance in the fossil record(with all its gaps)has NEVER been shown reversed, it seems reasonably dubious.
Wayne| 9.17.11 @ 10:02AM
This fossil history is incredibly sparse, and the concept of progress is likely read into the analysis rather than observed. It is just as likely that species have actually devolved. It is quite likely actually that evolution and devolution exists simultaneously.
DaveD| 9.17.11 @ 11:21AM
There are four major problems with evolution as I see it. Each takes takes 1,000's of words to adequately describe, so let me just summarise:
ONE. At altogether too many points, evolution requires things to progress in a specific order, 1-2-3-4, and if things occur out of order, 1-4-2-3, evolution through the slow and steady accumulation of small changes does not work.
TWO. Likewise there are too many places where two or more changes must occur simultaneously (one such is too many, BTW). The need for simultaneous change is inconsistent with undirected slow and steady change.
THREE. Evolution appears to demand that information be passed between different parts of the same organism, different organisms and even across phyla. There is no mechanism in slow and steady change that allows for the transfer of information.
AND FOUR. Mathematically, undirected change is highly improbable. Evolutionists show a rudimentary and grade school appreciation of combinations and probability, but they fall into a common fallacy when trying to establish their mathematics. The dice have no memory, evolution requires that they do.
Kingofthenet| 9.18.11 @ 12:13PM
Dave you are ONLY seeing the successes, if a mutation made an animal stronger(a good thing) but rendered it sterile, no matter how 'good' it was it didn't make it thru. Nowhere does it say only one change can happen at a time, in fact even if you did ONLY change one thing, many things connected would be affected.That is why mutant Giants(Andre) don't live long sure they are BIG, but the rest of their systems are based on someone much smaller, for example their knees and back bones have a hard time supporting all that weight.All cells have a full complement of DNA so i am not sure what #3 means and it isn't undirected' if it works and doesn't mess something else up it's kept, like i said if it's good but causes other problems it's lost.
DaveD| 9.18.11 @ 11:46PM
Absolutely no guarantee that we are only seeing the successes, unles you have some (possibly magical) method of know for sure that any given fossil lived to reproduce or was even capable of reproduction for that matter.
If you postulate multiple changes occurring simultaneously, you increase the odds against it happening dramatically, as even a cursory knowledge of probability would tell you. The more things necessary to affect the change, the less and less likely that that change can happen , much less happen through undirected activity.
A human baby cannot successfully navigate the the birth canal unless the mother's hips are able to spread apart to accommodate it's over sized head. This means that, unlike the male of the species, a human female's hips cannot be fused together. This has all sorts of ramifications. Here are three (there are more): (1) de-fused hips slow the female down, she cannot run as fast and therefore becomes easier prey for the nasties - that should be a negative on the survival scale; (2) the hips have to becomes de-fused first, before the larger foetus can develop in the womb, otherwise both mother and baby die during birth; (3) and finally, how does the foetus know that this larger birth canal is all of a sudden available to it so that it can then grow larger in the womb - in other words, some information has to be passed to the foetus from the hips.
Kingofthenet| 9.19.11 @ 12:18PM
DNA doesn't have to nor does it transmit ANY of that information. Like if you get some dirt or water into your throat or lungs you cough, it's an automatic reflex.Even so MANY babies are too large and either back in ancient times the Mother died, or in modern time you do a surgical birth. Males PROTECTED their females from predators.Humans NEVER solely relied on their physical skills for survival(We are one of the weakest,slowest,defenseless large animals.) they relied on their brain as an equalizer. I sure wouldn't try and take on a bear 'barehanded pun', but give me a good shotgun or rifle, and it's EASY work.It's also the reason Cortez's men with VERY small numbers were able to conquer ALL of South America, they had technology,they has STEEL.
Kingofthenet| 9.19.11 @ 12:21PM
Even GOD can't defeat 'Iron Chariots', what about this:
http://www.motifake.com/image/.....483645.jpg
DaveD| 9.19.11 @ 2:26PM
Other than attempting to provoke me (which didn't work, BTW) so what?
DaveD| 9.19.11 @ 2:24PM
If a human female's hips are fused, 100% of mothers die in childbirth. However, female hips are not fused and most woman survive childbirth. That is, to my way of thinking, profound. There are several ways of looking at this.
(1) The female hips had to de-fuse first through one small tiny undirected change. This is amazingly prescient, that is, the de-fusing of the hips is done in preparation for the development of an over-sized foetus. How did the hips know they had to do that?
(2) How does the foetus know it is now safe to grow itself over-sized? Because, if it does this while the hips remain fused, death always occurs.
(3) Or both changes happened at the same time which, as I said above, asks an awful lot out of an undirected (random) process. How then did both the hips and the foetus know to change themselves at the same time?
No matter what, some information has to flow between disjoint parts of the female body.
Kingofthenet| 9.19.11 @ 5:00PM
The ONLY organ in the human body that can process information is the Brain, all other things can do is react, but there is help it's called Hormones. these are VERY powerful molecules that can do multiple things. Testosterone is one it makes muscle (Indirectly) hair growth, deeper voice etc etc. Men have it in large quantities, women have a bit. There are also some hormones which are solely in females regulating just the stuff you are talking about, childbirth and such. When a baby is ready to be born, signals from the womb are sent in the form of these hormones to prepare the body for birth.
DaveD| 9.19.11 @ 5:07PM
Are you being intentionally obtuse, or are you incapable of reading English for comprehension? What the $%$%^ do hormones have to do with the fact that the female skeleton needed to change before, or at the same time, as the female began to create foetuses with over-sized heads?
You also need at least a rudimentary understanding of information theory, wikipedia will do for a start, so that you don't continue to look stupid and ignorant.
Wayne| 9.17.11 @ 9:57AM
"It is absolutely safe to say that if you meet somebody who claims not to believe in evolution, that person is ignorant, stupid or insane (or wicked, but I'd rather not consider that)." - Dawkins
Why do these so-called scientist care what people believe? It is certainly not relative to science. A scientist should just go where the evidence takes him and not worry about what he believes.
Instead scientist to get away from being ignorant, stupid or insane should instead challenge their own assumptions.
One assumption is to actually limit the origin of species to provincial theories. It is possible that highly advanced species have come and gone from this planet without any trace that we can recognize. It is problem that "evolution" is not linear and that species could actually devolve. It is possible their are influences that go beyond 3 dimensions and terra firma. We can not discount these possibility, so we can not get fixated on any one theory or set of beliefs. At the very least we must quit insulting those people who think differently.
MOS was 71331| 9.17.11 @ 12:27PM
I'm always amused when an evolutionist uses man caused changes in animals over time to illustrate how greater changes can occur through random changes over millennia. I agree that horse breeders have improved the speeds of racehorses over a few centuries, and, similarly, farmers have increased the milk production of cows in shorter periods of time. However, I've never been shown any evidence of an animal breeder being able to start with cattle and produce horses or start with horses and produce cattle. And that's with human intelligence, rather than random chance, increasing the pace of change.
QuietPro| 9.17.11 @ 1:23PM
I'm so tired of clock-stopping creationists trying to peddle their non-scientific nonsense to a society that figured them out many years ago. Pedophiles and fanaticism......that's all organized religion can offer society today. That...... and abject, barbaric cruelty and stone-age thinking.......
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 2:26PM
Sorry, but I'm not into organized Religion, and I condemn the Religion that harbors pedophile priests~ they actually believe all kinds of lies, because the Religion is a lie in itself. And they actually promote Darwinism~ they never were truthful to begin with.
No, what you need to do is repent, and believe the Gospel of Jesus Christ.
He died for your sins and actually rose from the dead. In fact He IS Truth.
And He has NOTHING to do with organized Religion. In fact He hates it.
He is the Living God, Who wants a relationship with you, through Christ, so that you may be saved from going to Hell.
"For God so loved the world that He
gave His only begotten Son, that everyone
believing into Him should not perish, but
have everlasting life.
For God did not send His Son into the
world that He might judge the world, but
that the world might be saved through Him.
The one believing into Him is not condemned;
but the one not believing has already
been condemned, for he has not believed
into the name of the only begotten
Son of God.
And this is the judgment, that the Light
has come into the world, and men loved
the darkness more than the Light, for their
works were evil.
For everyone practicing wickedness
hates the Light, and does not come to the
Light, that his works may not be exposed.
But the one doing the truth comes to
the Light, that his works may be revealed,
that they are being worked in God." Jn. 3: 16-21.
Nick| 9.17.11 @ 3:20PM
Margie,
On which day of the week are Christians supposed to "remember that you keep holy the sabbath day. Six days shall you labour, and shall do all your works. But on the seventh day is the sabbath of the Lord your God" (Exodus 20:8-10)?
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 9:13PM
"And He said to them, The sabbath came
into being for man’s sake, not man for the
sabbath’s sake.
So then the Son of Man is Lord of the
sabbath also." Mk. 2:27 & 28.
Worship God.
Nick| 9.17.11 @ 10:51PM
Margie,
That Scripture quotation doesn't answer which day of the week Christians should "keep holy the sabbath day."
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 11:38PM
I always thought the thrust of Christ's teaching was that the Sabbath - a day of rest - was God's way of telling us to take the time from our daily labors and attend to what's really important to us in our lives. Another version of his teaching not to get obsessed with the details of the Law but its spirit. So maybe it's less important what particular day you take to rest and focus on what life is really all about.
Nick| 9.18.11 @ 12:48AM
RCV,
As Christ said, "the sabbath came into being for man’s sake." When God rested on the seventh day, He sevened Himself, i.e., God swore a covenant oath with man.
The word rest in Hebrew is shabat, seven is shava, and Sabbath is sabbat.
God creates Adam, man, on the sixth day, but, He sets aside the seventh day for worship. Why does God give us bodies? To worship Him. He gave us a voice to sing praises to Him. He gave us legs to bend our knees, to pray. He gave us a back to bow, to show reverence to Him. He gave us our hearts to love Him. And, He gave us our brains to contemplate Him.
Or, else, God could have stopped with the angels.
God didn't give us our bodies just so we could make babies and build neat things. He gave us our bodies to worship Him. And, He sevened Himself, swore a covenant oath (Sacrament in Latin) with Adam and Eve, because man was His greatest creation. The first couple were to "be fruitful and multiply" and populate the whole earth, so that many could worship God.
Every day of Creation corresponds to another. On the first day light is separated from darkness, day and night. On the fourth day God creates all of the lights in the sky, to tell time.
On the second day God separates water from the firmament, which He calls Heaven. On the fifth day God fills the waters with living creatures and birds to fill the air.
On the third day God separates the waters from the dry land. On the sixth day God filled the earth with living creatures.
And, finally on the sixth day, God creates Adam, man, His greatest creation. Man is created for worship, which is what the seventh day is for.
victor| 9.18.11 @ 4:51AM
Yes, yes, yes, Nick, but what day was it?
Was it the seventh day of the Old Testament or the seventh day of the New Testament?
And are they the same day or not?
More importantly, what day did God start His Labors, eh?
Nick| 9.18.11 @ 7:13PM
Hello Victor! Long time, no talk.
"Yes, yes, yes, Nick, but what day was it?"
This is what I was asking Margie.
"Was it the seventh day of the Old Testament or the seventh day of the New Testament?"
I'm not sure what mean, here. The "seventh day" is the seventh day, in both Testaments: Saturday.
The question I was asking is what day are Christians supposed to worship, according to you and Margie? Are the both of you Seventh-day Adventists?
"More importantly, what day did God start His Labors, eh?"
On the first day, of course. Which became Sunday, in English. In the New Testament it is referred to as "the Lord's Day." The day when they met to break bread and give thanksgiving, i.e., the Eucharist.
"And on the first day of the week, when we were assembled to break bread, Paul discoursed with them, being to depart on the morrow." (Acts 20:7)
If I have not been clear enough, just let me know, okay?
God Bless!
victor| 9.19.11 @ 5:07AM
Nick:
"Hello Victor! Long time, no talk."
Yes, hello, but you still need to answer the question.
"Yes, yes, yes, Nick, but what day was it?"
This is what I was asking Margie.
"Was it the seventh day of the Old Testament or the seventh day of the New Testament?"
""I'm not sure what mean, here. The "seventh day" is the seventh day, in both Testaments: Saturday."
So God started on Sunday, His Day of Rest?
Was that Double Time and Half?
"The question I was asking is what day are Christians supposed to worship, according to you and Margie? Are the both of you Seventh-day Adventists?"
What the ???????
Where did you get that from?
Just by us asking you a question?
Here's another question:
When, where, who, why and by what authority did the Roman Catholic Church change the Sabbath day from Saturday to its current Sunday?
"The day when they met to break bread and give thanksgiving, i.e., the Eucharist."
BTW there is no eucharist in the Bible.
TaTa
Nick| 9.20.11 @ 12:41AM
Victor,
"So God started on Sunday, His Day of Rest?
Was that Double Time and Half?"
Sunday was not the "Day of Rest," Saturday was the seventh day. The shava (seven) and the shabat (rest) and the sabbat (sabbath.) Sunday was the first day of the week, yom rishon in Hebrew.
"Where did you get that from?
Just by us asking you a question?"
No, I was just curious. I had been reading some articles on Adventists over the previous days.
"When, where, who, why and by what authority did the Roman Catholic Church change the Sabbath day from Saturday to its current Sunday?"
The Roman Catholic Church never changed the Sabbath day. If Catholics want to do something special to honor and worship God on Saturday, the Church says, "More power to you!"
As my reply to Margie, from 9.18.11 @ 8:05PM, below, states: Today is the day to worship the Lord God. Instead of one day of the week being set aside for rest and worship, everyday is for us to enter "God’s rest [...] that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience" (Heb. 4:10-11).
"BTW there is no eucharist in the Bible."
Eucharistia is found many, many times in the Bible. It is Greek for thanksgiving or giving of thanks:
http://concordances.org/greek/2169.htm
As in: "And He took bread, and when He had given thanks He broke it and gave it to them, saying, 'This is my body which is given for you. Do this in remembrance of me.'” (Luke 22:19)
This is why it is called the Eucharist.
God Bless!
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 4:03PM
Nick,
That's a lot of nice talk, but it's unscriptural.
Please read Hebrews chapter four for what God's Rest means. It has nothing to do with worship in this life.
"Therefore, while the promise of entering His Rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it." Heb. 4:1.
Nick| 9.18.11 @ 8:05PM
Margie,
"That's a lot of nice talk, but it's unscriptural."
Which parts? Again, all you offer are mere assertions, with no accompanying proof. This is not helpful, if your objective is to show me where I am mistaken.
I can't speak on the whole of Hebrews, Chapter 4. But, just the other day, I did read about the Sabbath:
"Since therefore it remains for some to enter it, and those who formerly received the good news failed to enter because of disobedience, again he sets a certain day, 'Today,' saying through David so long afterward, in the words already quoted, [Psalm 97]
'Today, when you hear his voice, do not harden your hearts.' For if Joshua had given them rest, God would not speak later of another day. So then, there remains a sabbath rest for the people of God; for whoever enters God’s rest also ceases from his labors as God did from his. Let us therefore strive to enter that rest, that no one fall by the same sort of disobedience. [Hebrews 4:6-11]
"What's this saying? That each of us are called today to turn towards Christ, and to accept Him in faith. If we do this, we enter into His eternal rest. We stop trying to work our way to Heaven, and walk by faith, instead. Thus, the Sabbath rest is observed every day; it's observed Today, and it's always Today."
Source: http://catholicdefense.blogspo.....urday.html
In the Old Covenant, the Sabbath was set aside for worship. In the New Covenant, every day is for worship, everyday is the Sabbath. Today is the day to worship God. Praise the Lord!
And, God Bless!
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 9:43PM
Nick,
Based on Hebrews 4 you've got it more right. Did you see that I posted Heb. 4:1? It was answering your question.
The Rest is eternal, and we don't enter it until we go to be with Jesus.
"Therefore, while the promise of entering His Rest remains, let us fear lest any of you be judged to have failed to reach it." Heb. 4:1.
Reminds me of Eph. 2~
"But God, who is rich in mercy, out of the great love with which He loved us, even when we were dead through our trespasses, made us alive together with Christ (by Grace you have been saved), and raised us up with Him, and made us sit with Him in the Heavenly places in Christ Jesus,
that in the coming ages He might show the immeasurable riches of his Grace in kindness toward us in Christ Jesus." Eph. 2:4-7.
See that part about He made us sit with Him in the Heavenly places?
It is done, yet not done yet!
Which reminds me of "Before Abraham was, I Am!"
And then there is this:
"For He has made known to us in all wisdom and insight the mystery of His will, according to His purpose which He set forth in Christ as a plan for the fulness of time, to unite all things in Him, things in Heaven and things on earth." Eph. 1:9 & 10.
Now THIS we can unite in!
Nick| 9.19.11 @ 1:57AM
Margie,
"Did you see that I posted Heb. 4:1? It was answering your question."
Sorry, I missed that. I thought Mark 2 was in response to my question. So, may I assume from these responses that you don't consider Sunday worship sinful, or against God's Commandments, as listed in the Decalogue?
"The Rest is eternal, and we don't enter it until we go to be with Jesus."
Yes, the Rest is eternal. But, as Catholic Christians, we don't have to wait. As Saint Paul states, it begins Today. When we worship God during the Mass, and Christ enters us, in the Real Presence of the Eucharist.
How I pray that you, and RCV, can experience that feeling again, someday!
"See that part about He made us sit with Him in the Heavenly places?"
Yes, this happens at the Sacrifice of the Holy Mass, when we are lifted up to the Heavenly Jerusalem and celebrate the Heavenly Liturgy. Which is described in great detail in Saint John's visions, in the Book of Revelation.
I'm still trying to figure out what part of my "nice talk" was "unscriptural."
God Bless!
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 3:17PM
Your post of 1:57 a.m. is Catholic babble.
It is false, and not according to the Bible.
Nick| 9.20.11 @ 12:06AM
Margie,
Again, not an argument. Just mere assertions. And, no answer to my questions.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 3:21PM
Jesus Christ is LORD.
Worship Him and you are keeping the Sabbath.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 4:13PM
Jesus Christ is God incarnate.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 4:48PM
Are you denying that Jesus is the Son of God?
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 4:56PM
The Father, Son and Holy Spirit are together the one true God.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 5:47PM
Are you denying that Jesus Christ is the Son of God?
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 7:57PM
No, He is the Son of God. But the Son, the Father and the Holy Spirit are one Being. There is only one God, Margie.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 9:24PM
Well, there is no such teaching in the Bible of a Trinity. That's a Catholic teaching.
Jesus NEVER taught that, neither did any of the Apostles.
RCV doesn't even believe that the Apostle Paul was appointed by God, and he is in open rebellion against God saying that Homosexuality isn't Sin~ and yet he is going to teach a Christian about Who God is?
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 10:39PM
The trinity is a doctrine accepted by the overwhelming majority of Christians of all denominations. It is a mainstream Christian belief, not just a Catholic doctrine.
Margie, just think about it for a moment. Jesus himself may not have used the word " trinity", but he spoke in the quote you referenced above about baptizing "in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.". That's all the trinity means.
Is there more than one God? Plainly not, I trust you would agree. If Jesus, the Son of God, is not of one Being with the Father, is He a separate God? Or is he not God at all, but just a lesser being created by the Father?
You don't have to think about this things if you choose not to. But these are questions that many people have pondered over the centuries, and continue to do so. If you want to choose to ignore them, fine. But there's a reason Jesus himself often asked the question, "Who do you say I am?". I answer as John does in the beginning of his Gospel: in the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. ... He became flesh, and He dwelt amongst us." Jesus always was God, from the beginning, of one being with the Father. He came down from Heaven and dwelt among us, God incarnate, true God and true Man.
John's Gospel is so insightful, and moving. It literally brings me to tears when it is read at each year at the end of our annual Service of Lessons and Carols before Christmas! Imagine, God appearing amidst His own creation, the Word incarnate in Jesus Christ.
Do you read John's Gospel as saying something different? If so, I would genuinely love to hear how you read those opening paragraphs to the Gospel of John.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 11:21PM
Of course there isn't more than one God.
I'm simply saying that there is no Trinity taught in the Bible.
It isn't in there.
Jesus never said to pray to "a Trinity".
He says to pray to God through Him, by the Holy Spirit.
"..for through Him we both have access in one Spirit to the Father." Eph. 2:18.
The Catholic church uses the teaching of the Trinity to try and justify saying that Mary is the Mother of God.
And that therefore they should worship her and pray to her.
According to the Bible, Mary is the Mother of the Son of God, Jesus Christ.
This is the gospel of Jesus Christ.
God has no Mother.
God has always been.
The teaching of Mary as Mother of God is actually blasphemous.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 11:51PM
I agree with you to this extent on Mary, Magie. She was the mother of Jesus of Nazarath, the man, who was miraculously conceived in her through God. Jesus was both true man and true God. His godly nature always was, from the beginning - he was of one being with the Father from the beginning. To that extent, obviously, Mary did not give birth to God. God always was. But He became incarnate in this world in the person of Jesus Christ. Mary was His mother.
We can therefore honor her, and should, for fulfilling this mission that God asked of her, for nurturing and raising Jesus Christ, God incarnate. Jesus called her Mother; we acknowledge that Jesus was God incarnate. So I understand the shorthand that Catholics use in referring to Mary. I seriously doubt God is offended.
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 12:17AM
God doesn't want people believing a lie~ that Mary is Mother to God, Who always IS.
No! he does not want people believing it is OK to pray to the dead.
"For will You do wonders for those
dying? Or shall the departed spirits rise and
thank You?
Shall Your mercy be declared in the
grave, Your faithfulness amidst ruin?
Shall Your wonders be known in the
dark, and Your righteousness in the land of
forgetfulness?
But to You I have cried, O God;
and in the morning my prayer shall go
before You." Ps. 88:10-13.
Nick| 9.19.11 @ 1:35AM
Margie,
"And that therefore they should worship her and pray to her."
This is totally wrong. Catholics DO NOT worship Our Lady. That would be idolotry, which the Church condemns. Her original title was Theotokos, i.e., God-bearer.
Referring to the Blessed Virgin as the "Mother of God" does not imply that she existed before God, or is somehow superior to Him. It states two facts: 1) That Jesus Chist is both God and man; and, 2) That the Virgin Mary was His mother.
Both of these facts are found in the Sacred Scriptures.
RCV| 9.19.11 @ 3:31AM
Thank you, Nick, for that exposition on Mary, which says it far more clearly and succinctly than I did.
And I do pray, regularly by the way, for the eventual reunification of our two Churches.
victor| 9.19.11 @ 5:21AM
RCv:
"And I do pray, regularly by the way, for the eventual reunification of our two Churches."
Which churches are they and where are they to be found in the Bible?
Christ only had ONE church and it was not a building or a place:
"Yet the Most High does not dwell in houses made with hands; as the prophet says," Acts 7:48
Nick| 9.20.11 @ 12:04AM
RCV,
I thought your explanation was very good. I just thought that I would add my two cents!
Keep praying! What a wonderful day that will be, when all of Christ's followers are one again.
"One body and one Spirit: as you are called in one hope of your calling. One Lord, one faith, one baptism." (Eph. 4:4-5)
God Bless!
victor| 9.19.11 @ 5:15AM
Nick:
"Catholics DO NOT worship Our Lady"
Really?
"At the end of the Second Vatican Council Pope Paul VI renewed the consecration of Pius XII to the Immaculate Heart of Mary and, in an unusual gesture, announced his own pilgrimage to the sanctuary on the fiftieth anniversary of the first apparition. On 13 May 1967, he prayed at the shrine together with Sister Lucia. This historic gesture further cemented the official support for Fátima. Pope John Paul II credited Our Lady of Fátima with saving his life following the assassination attempt on Wednesday, May 13, the Feast of Our Lady of Fátima, in 1981. He followed the footsteps of Paul VI, on 12 May 1987, to express his gratitude to the Virgin Mary for saving his life. The following day, he renewed the consecration of Pius XII to the Immaculate Heart of the Virgin."
"On 12 and 13 May 2010, Pope Benedict XVI had visited the Sanctuary of Our Lady of Fátima and strongly stated his acceptance about the supernatural origin of the Fátima apparitions. In the first day, the Pope arrived to the Chapel of Apparitions to pray and gave a Golden Rose to Our Lady of Fátima "as a homage of gratitude from the Pope for the marvels that the Almighty has worked through you in the hearts of so many who come as pilgrims to this your maternal home". The Holy Father also recalled the "invisible hand" that saved John Paul II and said in a prayer to the Blessed Virgin Mary that "it is a profound consolation to know that you are crowned not only with the silver and gold of our joys and hopes, but also with the 'bullet' of our anxieties and sufferings".[72] In the second day, Pope Benedict's homily had pronounced in front of more than 500,000 pilgrims a reference to the Fátima prophecy about the triumph of the Immaculate Heart of Mary and related it to the final "glory of the Most Holy Trinity"
Nick| 9.19.11 @ 11:52PM
Victor,
Yes, really. Where does it say that Our Lady was worshiped by anybody? Paying "homage" and "gratitude" is not worshiping someone.
Nice quotes, by the way. The Miracle of Fatima was truly amazing.
God Bless!
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 3:14PM
It teaches the veneration and worship (prayer to) of Mary, and to the dead.
This is an abomination. You read the Bible, don't you?
Have you not read all of the verses I posted? They are what God wants, what His plan of Salvation is, and what He doesn't want.
Nick| 9.19.11 @ 11:58PM
Margie,
"It teaches the veneration and worship (prayer to) of Mary, and to the dead."
Prayer is not "worship," or, else, Saint Paul was an idolater and taught abominations:
"I desire therefore, first of all, that supplications, prayers, intercessions and thanksgivings be made for all men [...]." (1 Tim. 2:1)
victor| 9.20.11 @ 4:26AM
Nick:
"or, else, Saint Paul ..."
Also can you show me where God has made 'saint" into a station or position to be attained?
The Greek word "ἅγιος" simply means holiness.
From Thayer's Lexicon:
...this appellation (saint) is very often in the N.T. transferred to Christians, as those whom God has selected, that under the influence of the Holy Spirit they may be rendered, through holiness, partakers of salvation in the Kingdom of God."
Thus, all who choose to follow Christ and believe in Him and His Salvation are saints.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 11:39PM
"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus,
who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 1 Tim. 2:5 & 6.
THAT is what the Bible (God's own Words) says.
ONE Mediator~ Jesus Christ, the Son of God.
NOT MARY!
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 3:12PM
Oh, by the way, the teaching of the "Trinity" was brought in not by the Apostles or Jesus, but by the same whack job that believed that Satan would be redeemed.
His name is Origen. He was one of the so-called early "church" Fathers. He was NOT an Apostle, and he did NOT teach according to what they taught. He was a heretic.
Go look his sick mind up.
Yes, according to the Word of God, there is one God... and one Lord:
"..yet for us there is one God, the Father, from Whom are all things and for whom we exist, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom are all things and through Whom we exist." 1 Cor. 8:6.
"There is one Body and one Spirit, just as you were called to the one hope that belongs to your call, one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of us all, who is above all and through all and in all." Eph. 4:4-6.
And He begot a Son, Jesus Christ, Who is LORD. (See above verses).
He died on the cross and was raised from the dead, by His Father, and He lives now to make intercession for those who believe in Him:
"t.he gospel concerning his Son, who was descended from David according to the flesh and designated Son of God in power according to the Spirit of holiness by His resurrection from the dead, Jesus Christ our Lord.. Rom. 1:3 & 4.
Jesus gives the Holy Spirit to those who ask for it, humbly, and He helps us to pray to God through Christ:
John the Baptist said of Him:
"I baptize you with water for repentance, but He who is coming after me is mightier than I, whose sandals I am not worthy to carry; He will baptize you with the Holy Spirit and with fire." Mt. 3:11.
"If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will the Heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask Him!" Lk. 11:13.
(You see here by this that Jesus says that by asking, the Holy Spirit is received, it isn't by going to church!).
This is the true teaching about God, according to the Bible. Nowhere did Jesus teach anyone to pray to "a Trinity".
Nowhere did He teach to pray to the Holy Spirit. He taught us to pray to God, through Himself and BY the Holy Spirit.
"Likewise the Spirit helps us in our weakness; for we do not know how to pray as we ought, but the Spirit Himself intercedes for us with sighs too deep for words." Rom. 8:26.
He did NOT teach us to worship the Holy Spirit, He taught us to worship God, through Himself as the only Mediator.
"For there is one God, and there is one Mediator between God and men, the Man Christ Jesus, who gave Himself as a ransom for all, the testimony to which was borne at the proper time." 2 Tim. 2:5 & 6.
Christians believe every Word of God, and reject the false teachings of Catholicism, and ALL else that are unscriptural.
Joseph| 9.19.11 @ 4:17PM
The infallible Mullah has spoken. Nobody can disagree.
Do you believe in the divinity of Jesus?
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 8:35PM
I quoted Scripture~ all you have to offer is your lies and hatred.
But then, that's all you Papists have.
Satan| 9.17.11 @ 3:38PM
Great job Margie. Jesus, God hate all organized religions.
Never admit that Jesus is God!!
(YHVH)| 9.17.11 @ 6:04PM
I created her a human with free will.
I created you an angel with free will.
Which of you in the exercise of free will did Jesus see fall like lightning from my presence in heaven.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 3:21PM
Jesus Christ is LORD.
Get thee behind me, Satan!!
RCV| 9.17.11 @ 4:09PM
If God hates organized religion, why did St Paul focus on what the qualifications for Bishops, Deacons and Elders should be? Or is that another part of the Bible you choose to ignore?
Margie| 9.17.11 @ 9:16PM
You're the liar who ignores the Word of God.
You are in open rebellion towards God.
You claim that the Apostle Paul wasn't appointed by God, and that Homosexuality isn't Sin.
You have not an inkling of credibility to judge anyone, myself included!
And Mr. Game Player~ you already KNOW the answer to your question.
Kingofthenet| 9.17.11 @ 11:18PM
They say 'Crazy Sex' is good, Margie you MUST be a GREAT Lover...
victor| 9.18.11 @ 5:11AM
RCV:
"If God hates organized religion,"
You really need to read Isaiah more often or maybe once more than the no time you already have:
What good to Me are your many sacrifices,
says Jehovah? I am sated with burnt offerings of rams, and the fat of fattened cattle, and the blood of bulls; nor do I delight in the blood of lambs and he goats.
When you come to see My face, who has required this at your hand, to trample My courts?
Do not add to bringing vain sacrifice; its incense is a disgusting thing to Me. I cannot endure the new moon and sabbath, the going to meeting; I cannot endure the evil assembly.
My soul hates your new moons and your set feasts. They are a burden on Me. I am weary of bearing them.
And when you spread out your palms, I will hide My eyes from you; also, when you multiply prayer, I will not hear. Your palms are full of bloods.
Wash yourselves, purify yourselves. Remove the evil of your doings from before My eyes; cease doing evil.
Learn to do good, seek justice, straighten the oppressor, judge the orphan, strive for the widow.
Come now and let us reason together, says Jehovah: Though your sins are as scarlet, they shall be white as snow; though they are red as the crimson, they shall be like wool.
If you are willing and hear, you shall eat the good of the land; but if you refuse and rebel, you shall
be devoured with the sword; for the mouth of Jehovah has spoken."
"why did St Paul..."
Also can you show me where God has made 'saint" into a station or position to be attained?
The Greek word "ἅγιος" simply means holiness.
From Thayer's Lexicon:
...this appellation (saint) is very often in the N.T. transferred to Christians, as those whom God has selected, that under the influence of the Holy Spirit they may be rendered, through holiness, partakers of salvation in the Kingdom of God."
Thus, all who choose to follow Christ and belie ve in Him and His Salvation are saints.
victor| 9.18.11 @ 5:13AM
I forgot to give the address:
Isaiah 1:11-20
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 4:07PM
Victor, in my 64 years including 30 as a Lector in my Church, I have read Isaiah many, many times, out loud to congregations, and discussed it in Bible study groups. God, through Isaiah, is saying to me the very same thing that Jesus said to the Pharisees: stop focusing on the rituals (set forth, by the way, in Mosaiic Law) and start focusing on these 2 things: loving God and loving your fellow human beings. Get your nose out of that Bible, and go visit the widows and prisoners, minister to the sick and the poor and despised, and do Justice! This is not about rituals and rules, it's about service to God and to your fellow man.
And I agree with you that Saint means nothing more than holiness. There's surely nothing wrong with honoring those humans among us who have done God's work, or honoring Mary, the Mother of Jesus, who was God incarnate.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 4:47PM
"Get your nose out of that Bible.."
Satan himself could not have given better advice to a Christian.
No!
Christians say along with King David (a man after God's own heart):
"How sweet are Thy Words to my taste, sweeter than honey to my mouth!
Through Thy precepts I get understanding; therefore I hate every false way.
Thy Word is a Lamp to my feet and a Light to my path." Ps. 119:103-105.
You love only yourself. You are a liar and perpetrator of falsehoods.
You reject the Word of God because of your sin.
You claim the Apostle Paul was not appointed by God to be an Apostle!
You claim that Homosexuality is not Sin!
You judge Christians as not Christian for loving and standing on the Word of God.
"For there is no truth in their mouth; their heart is destruction, their throat is an open sepulchre, they flatter with their tongue.
Make them bear their guilt, O God; let them fall by their own counsels; because of their many transgressions cast them out, for they have rebelled against thee." Ps. 5:9 & 10.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 4:57PM
Satan himself could not have a better ally than you Margie, in turning people away from Christ.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 5:46PM
Spoken like the true Papist that you are, RCV.
Meanwhile, the Vatican's latest news:
"Currently in Ireland there is a battle being fought between The Vatican't and the people who have given their full backing to our Prime Minister and Justice minister in order to make it a crime for a priest hearing confession by a perpetrator of sexual crimes against children not to report that perpetrator to the police. The Vatican't stance on the issue is that confession is private and perpetrators are entitled to be protected by the seal of confession. And that under no circumstances whatsoever should that seal be broken.
This of course continues the Vatican't's arrogant belief that they should be entitled to live by their own laws and not the laws of a sovereign state (by the way, should u have time to read various treaties u will see the Vatican't is NOT a sovereign state though it claims to be ) These are the laws which created the circumstances wherein thousands of children were raped, tortured and abused decade after decade after decade and perpetrators were not only protected but in fact sent from parish to parish, country to country, where they continued their crimes and countless children who should have been protected were not. All this while Arch-bishops (see Hoyes) wrote letters of congratulations to bishops who did not report child molesters and rapists to the police. At no point has the Vatican't ever apologised for these cover-ups or endangerments of children. Yes they apologise for abuse. But not for cover up. And still arrogantly defend their cover-ups.
There is one very simple question, the answer to which would solve this issue immediately. " what would Jesus do?". Every baby in the street knows that Jesus Christ, who was in fact an anti- religious character (study the gospels. Anti-religious was his raison d'etre) would drag the perpetrator immediately to the police, resisting the urge to immediately cast him to the bottom of the ocean with a "millstone around his neck".
Every baby in the street knows Jesus Christ would never have sanctioned any type of cover up of sex crimes against children. Nor would he sanction the sickening attempts made by the Vatican't in the last two years, to cover-up the cover-ups.
Had Christ been the person who had received the first allegation there would never have been one other case of abuse again. The Vatican't are showing time and again nothing but mocking and blasphemous disrespect of Christ, whose body is and was those children who were ravaged. may I add that it is a blasphemy for the Vatican or indeed anyone else to call themselves Christ's representative. Christ has never needed a representative thank u very much. Christ IS the representative.
No person who had any sense of there being a God who sees all could consider behaving as the Vatican't delight in behaving. We the people want those at the top to walk out of the Vatican't and hand us back our church. Your relationship with Satan is more important to you than Christ and do not think there are not those who can see who and exactly what you are. We want you out of our church Satan. And we want our beloved Christ released from your hellish bondage.
The gospels make very clear it is a crime in God's eyes to "blaspheme against the Holy Spirit". Consider yourself condemned Mr Ratzinger, and your co-horts.Your days are numbered and your pit prepared."
~Sinead O'Connor speaks the truth from her home in Ireland.
Repent lying Papists! Worship God!
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 8:02PM
So, Margie, you're a fan of Sinead O'Connor! Pro gay rights, pro abortion, and blessed with the voice of an Angel.
Even in our country, Margie, the law provides for a clergyman-penitent privilege against compelled testimony. Not to protect the criminal, but to encourage the communication, which often leads to voluntary surrender.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 8:13PM
By the way, Margie, Sinead O'Connor is also a lesbian, wishes she could become a Roman Catholic priest, believes firmly in the Trinity, and also believes that God loves everyone on earth equally, and will welcome all I to Heaven. I can see why you quote her!
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 9:20PM
Perverts who child molest ought to be turned in to the police, and sent to prison.
Only the Cult of Catholicism allows for such a despicable thing. Everyone knows ALL about it, now.
Voluntary surrender? Please. They need to be turned in, not protected.
And there you go again lying about what I believe.
You are sickening.
Because I posted what Sinead said doesn't make me a fan. And she isn't a Lesbian, either. Go to her website to see that she is searching for a husband.
I am praying for her, to stay with Jesus, I think He is drawing her to Himself~ she's on the right track in so far as her rejection of the Papists. And she knows that God cannot stand Religious pomp and she knows a fraud when she sees one.
I like her.
p.s.~ you don't know anything about anybody you speak about, do you?
p.p.s. Is that why you're an Episcopalian? Because it's a great hideout for Homosexuals? A fan of Eugene Robinson, perhaps?
Hypocrite.
Satan| 9.18.11 @ 10:35PM
Great Margie!!!
Love you babe!!!!
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 10:43PM
I'm glad you like her. I do, too. She's a good person.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 10:47PM
Sinead O'Connor referred to herself as a "lesbian" and a "dyke". She later clarified her remarks by saying that while she is mostly attracted to men, she has slept with women many times, and is probably "1/4 lesbian" (her words). She would like to find a husband and have children.
Those are the facts. I didn't make them up. And they don't cause me to think any less of her.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 11:01PM
Well,
If she did, I I didn't see that on her site. I only went there today and read that she was searching for a husband.
I am going to take her at her word. If she referred to herself as such, she is clearly struggling against it, and God will give her the strength to turn away from it, as He does with anyone who wants to repent from sin, and please God.
Personally, I think she's a sheep. And I mean that she's one of His.. I hope that is true.
She's in my prayers.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 11:23PM
I think she is as well, and I hope she finds what she seeks. She's a deeply spiritual person, with, as I said, the voice of an angel. (Her song, "All babies are born saying God's name" is hauntingly beautiful.)
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 11:13PM
I happened to be reading at The Daily Mail today, and saw the post about her there. I don't "follow" her and am not a "fan."
Here and there when I see something about a soul that's struggling, I will pray for them to come to know the Lord Jesus Christ, as I do.
Here's the link. Look at how she's changed! Pray for her. It's clear to me that Jesus is working in her heart.. and I'm sure has been for a long time.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/tvs.....inger.html
Nick| 9.19.11 @ 2:52AM
Margie,
Catholic priests will NEVER violate the sanctity of the Confessional. Even unto imprisonment and death.
Sinead O'Connor is a sad, dark soul. I pray for her, as I do the other pop anti-Christs, like the ironically named Madonna. But, I also pray that if these enemies of God do not repent, that He please remove them from our presence, here on Earth.
They have lead many astray.
victor| 9.19.11 @ 2:46PM
There is no such thing in God's eyes as the "sanctity of the confessional."
It is utterly unbiblical.
Any Christian who knows of the sexual abuse of a child and keeps it hidden in order to protect the criminal is just as guilty as the criminal for his hiding of said criminal..
It's called aiding and abetting.
See folks~ this is a prime example of what I mean about the Papists.
They make themselves GOD.
It is disgusting and despicable.
And see how he judges those who believe in Jesus who reject this CULT!
Nick,
You are no authority on Christians, you aren't one. You reject the Word of God in place of this ungodly and disgusting Cult.
Sinead O'conner is a lowly ruined sinner~ the EXACT kind that Jesus came for.
You better watch that your own words about God removing her from this Earth don't come back to bite YOU!
This is why you are not my friend, nor is anyone who professes what you do.
Your Cult~ it's false teachers the Papists~ have the blood of not only the Christians whom they tortured and killed for six centuries on their hands, but all of the molested and sodomized little boys as well.
"And I saw the woman, drunk with the blood of the saints and the blood of the martyrs of Jesus. When I saw her I marveled greatly." Rev. 17:6.
I hope you repent from serving a cult to serve the Living God.
Margie| 9.19.11 @ 2:47PM
That was me, Nick. (Margie). My husband posted last, and so his name was in the box still. (Whoever posts last, the name remains).
Nick| 9.19.11 @ 11:44PM
Margie,
"There is no such thing in God's eyes as the 'sanctity of the confessional.'"
Yes, there is. There always has been. Christ instituted it, from the founding of His Church, as Saint Paul tells us:
"All this is from God, who through Christ reconciled us to himself and gave us the ministry of reconciliation; that is, in Christ God was reconciling the world to himself, not counting their trespasses against them, and entrusting to us the message of reconciliation." (2 Cor. 5:18-19)
We must confess our sins orally:
"Many also of those who were now believers came, confessing and divulging their practices." (Acts 19:18)
And, confess them to priests:
"Is any among you sick? Let him call for the elders of the church [priests], and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.Therefore confess your sins to one another [to other priests], and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects." (James 5:14-16)
"Sinead O'conner is a lowly ruined sinner~ the EXACT kind that Jesus came for."
Of course, I stated that I hope she comes back to Christ. Did you miss that part? But, she was your buddy when she was trashing the Catholic Church. Now, she is a lowly ruined sinner. Another one under the bus.
"[...] have the blood of not only the Christians whom they tortured [...]."
What? No link to the book Martyrs Mirror? That counts among the martyrs, and heaps praises upon the good Catholic saints Ignatius and Ireneaus?
Also, I have explained to you multiple times that the "woman," the Harlot, from Revelation 17 is Jerusalem. The prophets Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Hosea, etc. call Jerusalem a harlot and prostitute. Saint John knew this very well, which is why he used this imagery.
You are still my friend.
God Bless!
Margie| 9.20.11 @ 12:37AM
Nick,
That is so utterly absurd!
2 Cor. 5:18-19 has nothing, NOTHING to do with hiding and protecting pedophiles. That's criminality. And Christians are to be subject to the rule of Law.
The Vatican is not GOD!!!
Nor does Acts 19:18.
In fact, when a brother is committing gross sin, and doesn't repent, it is supposed to be brought before the church, and then when he still doesn't repent, he is to be thrown out.
"But if he does not listen, take one or two others along with you, that every word may be confirmed by the evidence of two or three witnesses.
If he refuses to listen to them, tell it to the church; and if he refuses to listen even to the church, let him be to you as a Gentile and a tax collector." Mt. 18:16 & 17.
"Do you not know that the unrighteous will not inherit the Kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither the immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor sexual perverts, nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor robbers will inherit the Kingdom of God." 1 Cor. 6:9 & 10.
And James chapter five that you also quoted AND YOU ADDED THE WORD PRIESTS WHICH ISN'T IN THE BIBLE!!!
YOU added to the Word of God.
Rev. 22:18. You've been warned, Nick.
Furthermore, it doesn't apply to a practicing, READ PRACTICING PEDOPHILE!!!!!
And Sinead O'Connor isn't my buddy. And compared to a PEDOPHILE PRIEST AND THE PERVERTED PAPISTS WHO HIDE THEM AND ALL IN THE NAME OF GOD~ YES! SHE IS A LOWLY RUINED SINNER WHO AT LEAST HAS THE FEAR OF GOD IN HER.
You have sadly sold your soul to satan himself.
Nick| 9.20.11 @ 2:52AM
Margie,
"2 Cor. 5:18-19 has nothing, NOTHING to do with hiding and protecting pedophiles."
I never wrote that it did. I was providing the Biblical proof of the Sacrament of Penance.
"The Vatican is not GOD!!!"
Again, I never said it was.
"[...] AND YOU ADDED THE WORD PRIESTS WHICH ISN'T IN THE BIBLE!!!"
I didn't add any words. Do you know what brackets "[ ]" inside of quotation marks mean? They mean that the part inside the brackets, are not part of the original quotation. The word elders means priests in James 5.
No one may break the seal of the confessional. It is the same as lawyer/client confidentiality. Which is based on the priest/penitent privilege.
Thanks for the warning, but, it doesn't apply to me.
God Bless!
victor| 9.20.11 @ 4:10AM
Nick:
"Is any among you sick? Let him call for the **elders** of the church [priests],"
presbuteros: elder
Original Word: πρεσβύτερος, α, ον
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: presbuteros
Phonetic Spelling: (pres-boo'-ter-os)
Short Definition: elder
Definition: elder, usually used as subst.; an elder, a member of the Sanhedrin, an elder of a Christian assembly.
4245 presbýteros – properly, a mature man having seasoned judgment (experience); an elder.
The NT specifies elders are men.
The word that is used: 4245 presbýteros, is simply an older and more experienced man.
Nothing there about a priest.
These are the three words used for "priests" in the NT
2409 hiereus: a priest
Original Word: ἱερεύς, έως, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: hiereus
Phonetic Spelling: (hee-er-yooce')
Short Definition: a priest
Definition: a priest, one who offers sacrifice to a god (in Jewish and pagan religions)
748 archieratikos: high-priestly
Original Word: ἀρχιερατικός, ή, όν
Part of Speech: Adjective
Transliteration: archieratikos
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khee-er-at-ee-kos')
Short Definition: high priestly, to which the chief priest belongs
Definition: high priestly, to which the chief priest belongs.
749 archiereus: high priest
Original Word: ἀρχιερεύς, έως, ὁ
Part of Speech: Noun, Masculine
Transliteration: archiereus
Phonetic Spelling: (ar-khee-er-yuce')
Short Definition: high priest, chief priest
Definition: high priest, chief priest.
Those three are specifically called out in the NT and refer to High Priests, much like the priests in the catholic religion offering sacrifices, incantations and burning incense. Certainly not like the elders in a Christian congregation.
and let them pray over him, anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord; and the prayer of faith will save the sick man, and the Lord will raise him up; and if he has committed sins, he will be forgiven.Therefore confess your sins to one another [to other priests], and pray for one another, that you may be healed. The prayer of a righteous man has great power in its effects." (James 5:14-16)"
victor| 9.20.11 @ 4:15AM
You are deliberately misusing a word to make your case for catholic doctrine which is, of course, unbiblical.
Christians confessing sins to one another simply means just that. You are conjuring up a confessional box or booth.
There is no word such as that in the verse.
James 5:14 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
Is any sick among you let him call for the elders of the church and let them pray over him anointing him with oil in the name of the Lord"
James 5:15 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
And the prayer of faith shall save the sick and the Lord shall raise him up and if he have committed sins they shall be forgiven him"
James 5:16 Greek Study Bible (Apostolic / Interlinear)
"Confess your faults one to another and pray one for another that ye may be healed The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much"
Feel free to add any more non-existent words, Hebrew or Greek to the verses.
You will be in violation of Rev. 22:18
victor| 9.20.11 @ 4:17AM
AmSpec would not let me print out the verses in Greek so that you could see that your words for "priest" are not there.
Nick| 9.20.11 @ 7:48PM
Victor,
The etymology of the English word priest is from the Latin presbyter, which is from the Greek presbyteros, i.e., elder. I'm surprised that you did not know this.
Another office is that of Over-seer = Episkopos (Greek) = Episcopus (Latin) = Bishop (English). The third office was that of Servant (or Minister) = Diakonos (Greek) = Diaconus (Latin) = Deacon (English).
It is not clear, from the Sacred Scriptures, at what point the office of bishop and priest became separate offices, with their own distinct functions. In the very early Church, it seems that the two terms are used interchangeably. It also depended on which diocese was being referenced.
I agree with the opinion that Saint James wrote his epistle near his martyrdom, around A.D. 60. So, I believe James is addressing priests, as well as bishops, deacons, and lay people, in his letter. James 5:14-15 is referring to the Sacrament of Anointing the Sick, which must be done by a priest (elder, v. 14). James 5:16 is probably referring to priests confessing their sins to each other, as well as the whole assembly (eklesia in Greek, church in English) confessing to one another, at the beginning of Mass. I should have been more clear on this point, sorry.
But, only the Aposltes, and those whom they appointed (bishops, priests, and deacons,) had the power to forgive sins. As Christ instructed them:
"He said therefore to them again: Peace be to you. As the Father has sent me, I also send you. When he had said this, he breathed on them; and he said to them: Receive the Holy Ghost. Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them: and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained." (John 20:21-23; see also Matt. 18:18)
The Greek words hiereus and archieratikos would not be appropriate translations because Christ is the High-priest and the Sacrifice. The Catholic priest (or Bishop) stands in persona Christi, i.e., the person of Christ. As Saint Paul said:
"And to whom you have pardoned any thing, I also. For, what I have pardoned, if I have pardoned any thing, for your sakes have I done it in the person of Christ." (2 Cor. 2:10)
I think that covers all of your objections.
God Bless!
victor| 9.19.11 @ 5:30AM
Rcv:
"And I agree with you that Saint means nothing more than holiness."
How about it not being a title or position?
"There's surely nothing wrong with honoring those humans among us who have done God's work,"
Works will not get us into Heaven.
" or honoring Mary, the Mother of Jesus, who was God incarnate."
Sure you don't want to rewrite that just a tad bit?
If you take out the dependent clause: The Mother of Jesus, the sentence reads:
There's surely nothing wrong with honoring those humans among us who have done God's work, or honoring Mary who was God incarnate.
Better not let John II catch you doing that, eh?
Patrick Felicitas| 9.18.11 @ 12:25AM
I have to admit that I am a underperforming Christian as I have not complied with Jesus' explicit instruction of Mark 17-25. I understand why this is not taught because it is so disruptive. Margie perhaps you could tell us how you coped with divesting yourself of all your worldly possessions so that you are in compliance with Scripture.
Now if you don't answer I will know that you are a cafeteria Christian like so many of us, in no position to judge anyone, & would advise you to hit the Book to get back on track.
victor| 9.18.11 @ 5:20AM
"Patrick Felicitas"
"Mark 17-25"
There is no Chapter 17 in Mark.
Are you sure you are reading the correct chapter?
And did you know it is against the law to impersonate a physician?
You will suffer the same consequences as RCV.
Patrick Felicitas| 9.18.11 @ 1:49PM
Yes it Mark 10:17-25 I was referring to.
What consequences are you intending for me?
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 3:30PM
Sir,
Context is everything.
Reading further down in vs, 24:
"And answering again, Jesus said
to them, Children, how hard it is for The
ones trusting on riches to enter into the
kingdom of God!"
It is a matter of where your hope and trust are.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 3:37PM
"No one is able to serve two lords; for
either he will hate the one, and he will love
the other; or he will cleave to the one, and
he will despise the other. You are not able
to serve God and wealth." Mt. 6:24.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 3:51PM
Also sir:
In your passage, in Mk. 10, when the disciples heard that Jesus said this to the man, they exclaimed:
"And they were exceedingly astonished, and said to him, "Then who can be saved?" vs. 26.
And then Jesus said in vs. 27:
"Jesus looked at them and said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God."
HOW is this, you may ask?
Do you want to know how?
I can tell you.
It is called being "generated from above", by the Spirit of God.
Read John chapter 3.
Jesus had not yet gone to the Father at that time, and the Counselor, the Holy Spirit had not yet come into their hearts.
At Pentecost, they received the Holy Spirit, and began preaching the gospel of Jesus Christ to the World.. and that is where Christianity first began.
"But as many as received Him, to them
He gave authority to become children of
God, to the ones believing into His name,
13 who were generated not of blood, nor
of the will of the flesh, nor of the will of
man, but were generated of God." Jn. 1:12 & 13.
Only then, upon becoming a child of God, born of His Spirit, does any of us have the power to truly live for God.
That is why Jesus commands His children thusly:
"Do not lay up for yourselves treasures on earth, where moth and rust consume and where thieves break in and steal, but lay up for yourselves treasures in Heaven, where neither moth nor rust consumes and where thieves do not break in and steal.
For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also." Mt. 6:19-21.
Jesus is Lord and Saviour, the Son of God who came into the World to save ruined sinners. I'm one of them, and He's done that for me.
Patrick Felicitas| 9.18.11 @ 6:17PM
"Jesus looked at them and said, "With men it is impossible, but not with God; for all things are possible with God."
I am so glad that you have come to this verse. With men, it is impossible for a rich man to get to Heaven. Same for the self righteous, the homosexual, the blasphemer, the drunk. But this verse teaches us that it is not for us to decide who will be blessed with Salvation & it is not for us to cast stones & accusations at others because none of us know the mind of God.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 7:10PM
That isn't what the Bible says.
It says nothing about not judging.
Nothing what so ever.
And Christians shall judge the Angels:
"Do you not know that we are to judge Angels? How much more, matters pertaining to this life!" 1 Cor. 6:3.
Christians have the authority to judge when anyone blasphemes against the written Word of God.
So, sorry, but you're wrong.
I hope you repent.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 10:24PM
Sorry, meant to say that VERSE, above, not the BIBLE.
The Bible does speak about not judging others. Jesus warns us not to wrongly judge. Like if we are practicing the same sin that we are judging someone else about~ that isn't right. Mt. 7:1 & 2.
victor| 9.19.11 @ 5:36AM
Patrick Felicitas:
"Yes it Mark 10:17-25 I was referring to.
What consequences are you intending for me?"
I can only correct or rebuke you for your sin.
Only God can render Judgement.
What sin are you referring to?
"I have not complied with Jesus' explicit instruction of Mark 17-25."
Which of these are you having trouble with:
"You know the commandments: 'Do not kill, Do not commit adultery, Do not steal, Do not bear false witness, Do not defraud, Honor your father and mother.'" Mark 10:19
Underperforming Christians can always go to Christ and ask for his forgiveness or help.
Bob| 9.17.11 @ 4:12PM
After reading your views I must agree with Professor Dawkins about those who play the 'if there is a gap' it can only be filled with 'God'.
ejp| 9.17.11 @ 9:01PM
You agree with a guy who wants to fill in his "gaps" with aliens? Which of course also makes him by default a believer in "intelligent design" of another kind! (irony of ironies).
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 3:31PM
LOL. I like you, ejp. :^).
Bob| 9.17.11 @ 4:25PM
If we atheists 'know' so little via science how in
hell could we even approach knowledge of God--sorry, forgot about THE BIBLE. There ust be some alternative to Biblical myths---or why is the sky blue, daddy? God made it so!
Deborah| 9.17.11 @ 6:53PM
It wasn't a snake before the fall. If you read the Bible, you'd know that (even if you didn't believe it.)
Deborah| 9.17.11 @ 6:53PM
It wasn't a snake before the fall. If you read the Bible, you'd know that (even if you didn't believe it.)
Mark| 9.17.11 @ 8:26PM
Read the book "The Purposeful Universe: How Quantum Theory and Mayan Cosmology Explain the Origin and Evolution of Life" by Carl Johan Calleman Ph.D. Dr. Calleman shows how evolution and creationism actually co-exist with empirical evidence using fossil records and quantum theory.
POST American| 9.18.11 @ 12:09AM
---------------------FINAL WORD-----------------------
AGAIN
'Darwinism', even as a scientific
theory, can be traced back centuries upon
centuries.
Derived entirely from Hindu doctrines
of the 'bringing through' the Brahmin elite,
and leaving the unfit to their fate.
ALL chillingly brought home just days
ago as 'Christian tele-evangelist' operator,
and 33rd degree Freemason, Pat Robertson,
gave the O.K. to dumping a spouse with
Alzheimers.
This is pure Freemasonic, Social Darwinist
'benny violence' writ large, being issued
from the advertised seat of 'gospel truth'.
---Very, very chilling indeed.
(again, we've warned you)
Darwin and the long inbred Darwin family,
had been set up and promoted by the agggressively
biz nihilist and EUGENIST money
and 'heir is toxic-rat' establishments
for the express purpose of undermining
and bringing down BOTH
the Law of Moses, and genuine scriptural
Chrisitanity generally.
Likewise with that second rate hack journalist
from Germany, and friend of Darwin's,
Karl 'Marks'.
It's now come out that even 'Das capital'
was more or less written by appointed
committees. In short, Marks is yet another
capstone created front and fraud.
Kingofthenet| 9.18.11 @ 12:31PM
Is there ANY Religious people who use common sense in their faith, and NOT check their brain at the Church Steps? Like WHY would god have been Soooooo Talkative thousands of years ago, yet not a peep out of him/it since? Could we not use his sage advice in these modern troubled times? Would not a Modern Day Jesus reach BILLIONS more by waiting a couple Millennium?
Or does it make more sense if the whole thing was just an ancient myth?
Les Nesman| 9.18.11 @ 1:47PM
You make a good point. I have often wondered about the absentee landlord approach that we seem to be experiencing for the last 2000 years. Very confusing.
Nick| 9.18.11 @ 5:51PM
Kook of the Net & Less Nesman,
God never stopped talking. Guys like you just stopped listening.
God Bless!
Les Nesman| 9.18.11 @ 6:19PM
So you hear God talking to you? Why aren't you righting this stuff down?
Nick| 9.18.11 @ 6:29PM
Less Nesman,
Yes, every time I go to Holy Mass.
It would be rude and disrespectful to act like a stenographer during Mass, sorry.
But, luckily, you can go to Mass every day!
I encourage you to do so.
God Bless!
Kingofthenet| 9.18.11 @ 8:10PM
They don't allow sharp instruments in the Asylum.
victor| 9.19.11 @ 5:40AM
Les Nesman:
"So you hear God talking to you? Why aren't you (sic)righting this stuff down?"
We don't need to write it down, we have the Bible.
Pick one up and read it. Start with the Gospels of Matthew, Mark, Luke and the Book of John.
KingoftheKnots:
Stop using the Bible a doorstop.
Read It!
ole meanie| 9.18.11 @ 12:33PM
The fundamental idea of the theory of evolution is that some organisms having some attributes have a better "fit" with their environment and are thus better able to survive in it than others. That this is somehow a world-shaking discovery, much less an "explanation", for much of anything is shocking in itself. At most, it is a riposte to the idea of "intelligent design", because it does explain why species continue to change, without a Supreme Being sitting down at the drawing board to "design" each species or variant thereof. "Evolution" hardly explains, and was not offered by Darwin to explain, the origin of life or of the Universe..
The present state of scientific thought attempts to explain that God is not "necessary" to explain the creating of the Universe. It is currently claimed that particles of matter and antimatter are spontaneously popping into existence every moment, and everything is made of teensy weensy "strings" of energy vibrating at certain frequencies. Well, fine, suppose that is so. Such "facts" are not a refutation of the existence of a Supreme Being.
Science can answer "how", but it cannot answer "why". Neither can religion, which relies on on a number of myths and assumptions that are easily refuted. Each of is on his own in deciding how to resolve the facts into an explanation with meaning to him. It will probably be incorrect.
Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and other scientific and literary atheists do a good job of exposing the fallacies and follies of religion, but the trouble is that they confuse this with proving that God doesn't exist. They act as if attacking the messenger is a complete refutation of any thought the messenger might be trying to communicate.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 3:34PM
"Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, and other scientific and literary atheists do a good job of exposing the fallacies and follies of religion.."
LOL. What they actually do a good job of is making complete and utter fools of themselves.
"The fool says in his heart, "There is no God." They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds, there is none that does good." Ps. 14:1.
Rustywheeler| 9.21.11 @ 7:06PM
Actually, the fool says in his heart, "I think I'll quote some scripture now!"
Kingofthenet| 9.18.11 @ 1:13PM
I can't really refer to God as a 'He', a male pretty much requires at some point Testicles and a Penis, and for the life of me, I can't think of what a God would use them for. Kind of like Tits on a Nun.
RCV| 9.18.11 @ 4:11PM
Transforming God into an anthromorphic being is silly. God is Spirit, not material.
MOS 1 1 2 | 9.18.11 @ 5:50PM
Kingofthenet, Why do so many people of your persuasion rely on insults and crude language? It shows a rather base character as well as an inability to deliver a clever retort. Moreover, you were replying to Margie who despises nuns and anything Catholic, as you apparently do also.
Margie| 9.18.11 @ 7:13PM
Don't misrepresent me, there guy.
I despise Catholic ungodly unbiblical doctrine, not the poor sheep who unknowingly follow it.
Unless of course they DO know better.
God hates falsehood, and so do I.
Kingofthenet| 9.18.11 @ 5:06PM
The creature with the MOST Genetic Material is the Amoeba, it's DNA is MANY times as long as a Humans. So I guess it can become ANY creature? No it simply is so primitive it can't get rid of all the garbage DNA and it accumulates, it doesn't DO anything it's just there.
MOS 1 1 2 | 9.18.11 @ 7:40PM
To QuietPro, If you're truly open minded, I would challenge you to read "Atheist Delusions, The Christian Revolution and Its Fashionable Enemies", by David Bentley Hart. At least you can learn what you are attacking, unlike the third rate critics like Dawkins and Hitchens. At least pick it up in the library and read the first chapter. That alone might increase your knowledge of western history by tenfold.
Ape | 9.18.11 @ 10:19PM
Sad. It's somewhat creepy how detached from reality some of you are, yet are so oblivious to it. Your desperation to cling to religious delusions results in you twisting the evidence almost comically. Enormous ignorance is displayed here about evolution and Dawkins and co have been grotesquely misrepresented. Hardly shocking on the internet.
POST American| 9.18.11 @ 11:24PM
------------------BOTTOMLESS LINE------------------
"Religion is the KEY to history.
Of all the Christians --ONLY the Calvinists
have the faculty for self-government,
and ONLY the Calvinists WILL fight."
-LORD ACTON
"John Calvin was America's REAL founding
father."
-GEORGE BANCROFT
America's First Historian Emeritus
1830
----AGAIN
Not a word about 33rd degree Mason,
and erstwhile 'conservative Christian leader'
Pat Roberton's betrayal of Holy Scripture,
in broad daylight, and as the country is
waking up to the reality of TREASON
and EUGENICS.
All this after that other 33rd degree Mason,
media set up, and utter sellout, Billy Graham's
fold ---this is the biggest thing to appear
openly on the radar in some time.
And AGAIN, neither of them has EVER
said anything about the chemicals and poisoned
food, TV and microwaves that ARE behind
MUCH of the Alzheimer's problem to begin with.
They've also said NOTHING about our
4 decades of deliberate Globalist sellout
and set up of their borg creation -RED China.
And NOTHING on the MASSIVE, lockstep
Globalist cover-up of what may very well
prove to be the greatest world DEPOP OP of all time ----FUKISHIMA.
---THESE are the people who're SUPPOSED
to be offering moral guidance and dispensing
vigilance and truth fearlessly in the face of tyranny. THINK John the Baptist.
NO wonder our country is GONE---------------
----------------------AGAIN!-----------------------
CLEAN OUT your churches.
IF that's not possible ---LEAVE them and start your own in your garage if need be.
REAL Christianity is always a remnant anyway.
Russell | 9.19.11 @ 2:23AM
Clone John Calvin!
All right-thinking Australian spelunkers agree that a Predestinate President is America's Manifest Destiny.
Nick| 9.20.11 @ 2:37AM
Margie,
You seem to have missed one of my responses, from way above:
I never asked you once if you believed Jesus is God. I just poked my nose into the conversation.
"Jesus is the Son of God, and Son of Man. That's what the Bible says."
The Bible also says that Jesus is God. Sts. Peter and John say it. Saint Paul says it to the Romans:
" [...] to [the Israelites] belong the patriarchs, and of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ, who is God over all, blessed for ever. Amen." (Romans 9:5)
And, in Paul's Letter to Titus:
"[...] awaiting our blessed hope, the appearing of the glory of our great God and Savior Jesus Christ [...]." (Titus 2:13)
And, from the Letter to the Hebrews, which I know is one of your favorites:
"In many and various ways God spoke of old to our fathers by the prophets; but in these last days He has spoken to us by a Son, Whom He appointed the Heir of all things, through Whom also He created the world. He reflects the glory of God and bears the very stamp of His nature, upholding the universe by His word of power. When He had made purification for sins, He sat down at the right hand of the Majesty on high, having become as much superior to angels as the name He has obtained is more excellent than theirs.
"For to what angel did God ever say, 'Thou art my Son, today I have begotten thee'? [Begotten, not made]
"Or again, 'I will be to him a father, and he shall be to me a son'?
"And again, when He brings the First-born into the world, he says, 'Let all God’s angels worship him.' [Only God can be worshiped]
"Of the angels he says, 'Who makes his angels winds, and his servants flames of fire.'
"But of the Son he says, 'Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever, the righteous scepter is the scepter of thy kingdom. Thou hast loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; therefore God, thy God, has anointed thee with the oil of gladness beyond thy comrades.'" (Hebrews 1:1-9)
You are twisting Scripture and wrenching it out of context, just so you don't have to admit that Our Lady was the "Mother of God." The Theotokos, i.e., God-bearer.
"Your Cult doesn't 'allow' anyone to say He is the Son of God, but He is!"
Excuse me?
Your catechism classes must have been really bad!
Catholics proclaim that Christ is the "Son of God" every time we attend Holy Mass, when we recite the Creed: "We believe in one Lord, Jesus Christ, the only Son of God, eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, true God from true God, begotten, not made, One Being with the Father."
Jesus Christ is Son, Lord, and God. The Bible and the Catholic Church say so. That's good enough for me.
God Bless!
Margie| 9.20.11 @ 2:10PM
Nick,
I'm not interested in your mind games.
And if your Catholic pals believed Jesus is the Son of God, why do they get all bent out of shape and refuse to say it?
Why do they harass me concerning it?
And please, I am NOT your friend, nor do I wish to be same.
Nick| 9.20.11 @ 7:55PM
Margie,
So, now quoting the Word of God is playing mind games? Umm, okay.
"And if your Catholic pals believed Jesus is the Son of God, why do they get all bent out of shape and refuse to say it?"
We don't. Who has refused to say it? Certainly not me.
I love you, Margie, because you are my sister in Christ.
God Bless!
Rustywheeler| 9.21.11 @ 7:01PM
"Art is useless for survival."
OK, then. Does art INHIBIT survival? Does it tend to prevent an organism from reproducing before it dies?
No?
Then it does not present a challenge to the Theory of Evolution. And if you think it does, then you simply misunderstand the theory.