That dead horse has been coming back from the dead for over 2000 years...
"Ehhh, What's ups Doc?" B.Bunny "Scwewy Wabbit!"E. Fudd
People's Awareness Coalition: Deprogramming Sequence
So I'm just gonna write a one-off fire-and-forget comment.
I don't have enough faith to be an atheist!
This link is to a youtube video that explains where this type of teaching comes from.
Our constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.
Can this thread be put to bed yet??? What is up!?!
This thread might be evolving cause it just won't die.
But are you sure it's not just another case of topic speciation ;)
Ron Paul - Honorary Founding Father
...is about the only thing I disagree with him on. However, being an atheist, I still don't see the reason why his faith, even extreme versions of it, are being bashed on a website bearing his name.
Free market capitalism isn't right for America because it works better. It's right because it's free (and it works better).
could disagree with God, but can one really disagree with Christ?
They that give up liberty for security deserve neither.
claimed to be God or the Son of God, you might have trouble there.
"Once you become knowledgeable, you have an obligation to do something about it."- Ron Paul
Care to find the verse?
"I and the Father are one." Jesus was immediately accused of blasphemy for saying this and the Jews picked up stones to stone Him because they knew exactly what He meant, that Jesus was claiming to be one and the same as God Almighty.
Christ being the Son of God or Christ being God (referring to the trinity)?
Lets start with Christ being God (which is what got him killed)-
Matthew- Matthew 4:1-11 Jesus is tempted by Satan in the wilderness. Satan calls him the "Son of God", Jesus responds saying "You shall not put the Lord your God to the test".
Matthew 16:16-17 Peter calls Jesus "Christ the Son of the Living God" and Jesus calls him blessed for saying that.
Matthew 27:54 The centurion says "Truly this was the Son of God"
Mark 1:1 starts by writing "the beginning of the gospel of Jesus Christ, the Son of God"
John 1:34 John the Baptist says "I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God."
Are you wanting evidence for the Trinity then?
Speaking to the hierarchy established by the Judeans, Jesus said, "And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."
If God in heaven is your father, what does that make you in relation to him?
Is Jesus not telling us ALL to be the Son (Daughter) of God?
He was rebuking the Jewish custom of giving a title for God to members of the Sanhedrin. It was a prohibition of prideful honor. This was the purpose of Jesus' teaching in Matthew 23:8-10 after He had just reminded His disciples in v.6-7 of how the scribes and Pharisees loved public attention and adoration.
"But be not ye called Rabbi: for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. 9 And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven."
Do not form hierarchy, only one is above you, even me, we are all brothers. Call no man your father, but only God in heaven is your Father.
This is the same as Exodus 20 when God told Moses to build an altar made of Men, men who were all on the same level without hierarchy so that we do not lose our authority over our own lives.
A "father" is one who provides for and protects his family. Men is government also provide for and protect, their "children". The governments in Jesus' time, as well as other times, called themselves fathers, for the very reason that they provided for and protected the people. Jesus was telling to have no MEN as your "father", but only God in heaven. And ALSO not to be one at the top of the hierarchy (Rabbi), "Neither shalt thou go up by steps unto mine altar" Ex20, not even himself.
The Sanhedrin WERE gods. "Jesus answered them, Is it not written in your law, I said , Ye are gods?" John 10
"Gods", in their law written in Hebrew was "elohiym" and it means rulers, judges. This is what they were, they were rulers, judges. And this is another quality of a father, ruler and judge of his children. They were elohiym, gods. Jesus was talking to a crowd of people not just his disciples, and he was telling them not to be gods(masters), fathers, but to instead be the children (son) of the Father of heaven. The pharisees were not only lovers of attention, they were lovers of power. Thus is the reason they wanted to eliminate Jesus, because he was telling people to turn away from them, and to turn to God. God or Father in Heaven, ALSO provides and protects his children, but through faith, hope and freewill charity in a system of government (kingdom) where no one exercises authority one over another.
"The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so." Luke 22
We are not to get our benefits from "fathers" of the world who exercise authority, but from one another who are our equals, THAT IS the way that Father in Heaven provides for us. When we do such, we are free from men's authority, we are Kings, sovereign. And it is said that HE is the King of Kings. It is NOT said he is the King of slaves.
...then, I suppose that could be construed as "disagreeing" with him.
God and Karma were the same thing?
In a distant time, far far from now...
The earth has been hit by multiply massive EMP's, all technology is destroyed. Civilization rolls backward 5000 years. All knowledge is lost, all technology is lost. Man has become scantly more than a Hunter Gatherer...he knows not how he came to be on this planet...
One day while out gathering food, man finds a book. He knows not how to read it, but keeps it anyway. Over much time man finds more books that somehow survived over time. One day man discovers a grammar/spelling book, a Rosetta Stone...man learns very basic reading, still mostly illiterate but enough to semiliterate.
Man then goes to read the very first book discovered, Dr. Frankenstein. In it man discovers the creator of life, this God who created the first man, then woman, then child. At last the MYSTERY is SOLVED. Man knows now how he came to be on this planet. Man later learns how this God became angry with his creation, and sought to destroy life he had created...
Whole societies begin to learn of this God and his creation. It becomes common knowledge and widely accepted as truth. One day man finds another book, and begins to read it. It this book there is also a story of creation. It is very different than the other book in its explanations of how man came to be on Earth, made from a pile of dust, then woman from the rib of the man. It tells how THIS God also became angry at man, and destroyed his creation by covering the earth with water... Many begin to cry out to burn this book, its blasphemy. And so they do, and they cry out to kill anyone who would teach this blasphemy to others, and so they do.
As time goes by, NO ONE DARE question the Divinity of Dr. Frankenstein, the creator of life on Earth....
Writing fiction doesn't appear to be your strong suit.
This is prophesy, not fiction.
Get this crap out of here.
You don't like what they teach at that school? Get them out of there then.
the creation and "soft science" myth of life from non-life can be debated forever.
The real question to you Statist Collectivists is "do i get to teach my kids whatever i want or does the STATE decide??
then, yes, the state gets to decide. If you're asking a libertarian, then you get to decide.
Love thy enemy.
I keep seeing the argument that evolution cannot be science because it is not observable nor repeatable.
That's simply false. There is nothing miraculous about evolution!
There is a field of paleontology that exists for utility, not for research for the sake of curiosity. Oil companies employ micropaleontologists to help decipher the sediments in which they drill. It's not for fun, it's to save them money because it works... over and over and over. In fact, the government requires that the reports done by paleontologists on oil wells are turned over to them within 2 months of completion of a well!
Why? Marine microfossils are so abundant that they're easy to find. They occur in the same sequence in sediments all over the world. So yes, the results are REPEATED over and over, 1000s of times.
We can logically see in sequentially deposited sediments the same sequence over and over. This deposition happened over millions of years, so while we didn't actually SEE it happen because we obviously were not there, the evidence is so overwhelming that it is crystal clear what happened by examining the sediments in different places worldwide. Just a basic understanding of geologic processes is required. With this, no other logical conclusions can be drawn.
GoodSam, as articulate as he is with his links and articles, erroneously claims that all of the fossils are the same age, and that they are in the order that they are from "liquifaction and sorting". While that process certainly happens in some geologic settings, it is relatively rare and cannot explain the repeated sequence that these microfossils occur all over the world. He bases much of his belief on this one false assumption, therefore his entire house of cards fails miserably.
'Cause there's a monster on the loose
The general theory of evolution is built upon impossibilities that would require miracles to be true.
I already told you that I don't believe all fossils are the same age so please don't misrepresent what I said. Many fossils have been formed since the Flood. However, considering that roughly 300,000,000 cubic miles of sediment was washed from the face of the earth in that event, the volume of fossil remains created since then pails in comparison.
There is Flood/post-Flood boundary controversy among creationists with regard to sea-floor sediment. Given that the geological column is a Flood sequence, the uniformitarian time-scale that you derive from oceanic microfossils may not be correlated to continental index fossils. The current distribution of microfossils and the lack of macrofossils on the ocean bottom is likely due to the mechanism of the Flood and its aftermath. There is also the common problem of reworking and the tendency to give multiple names for the same micro-organism if found in different aged layers. All this needs to be sorted out within creationism but there is plenty of evidence for disagreement with evolutionists over interpretation of the facts.
In another example, marine manganese nodules that cover about 30% of the ocean floor are supposedly the result of extremely slow growth over millions of years yet they appear fresh and have actually been observed to grow > 20 cm within hundreds of years, a growth rate several orders of magnitude faster than predicated by evolution. In addition, nodules are found only at the top of the ocean floor, with the greatest density within the first 5m of sediment and decreasing in size at greater depths. This contradicts the idea that ocean sediment accumulated gradually and continuously over millions of years. It suggests a period of rapid sedimentation that has subsequently waned, consistent with the events of Noah’s Flood.
Not if you had a good understanding of basic geology.
Maybe I misunderstood you, but didn't you say that all life was put on earth at the same time, and all types or kinds of life have remained the same through time? If that's what you said, then their fossils MUST be the same ages. The age of a fossil is determined by when it was alive, not when it was found. You seem to have some serious misconceptions.
< Given that the geological column is a Flood sequence,>
Wrong... sediment constantly occurs in the oceans no matter if sea level is high (flood) or if sea level is low, there is always sedimentation going on somewhere, whether in a lake, or at the coastal margin, or even in the deep sea. Wherever there is sedimentation, fossils are likely to be preserved, especially microscopic fossils -- diatoms, nannofossils, and POLLEN... always pollen.
< the uniformitarian time-scale that you derive from oceanic microfossils may not be correlated to continental index fossils. >
Yes, they CAN. Due to the MANY floods throughout geological history, some marine sections are what is now land. My Masters thesis was about the micorfossils in Kansas. They are marine critters deposited in the shallow seaway that covered the continent back in the Cretaceous. See spectacular SEM photos here: http://www.bugware.com/gallery.html
Total bull, for reasons above. Plenty of macrofossils are found in the ocean, and plenty of microfossils found on land, as I said above.
Yes, reworking can happen, but there are SO MANY wells drilled that the sequence is worked out very well, and reworked specimens is obvious.
Relatively little disagreement with evolutionists!
20 cm within hundreds of years, a growth rate several orders of magnitude faster than predicated by evolution. >
Those are minerals, not fossils! There can be no prediction of the growth rate of the nodules from paleo. They form under special conditions, totally unrelated to anything paleontological.
This is the epic fail in your logic. You assume the same conditions all over the world, but nodules are formed in very specific locations and conditions. It contradicts nothing. You know enough geology to be dangerous, but not enough to argue with any real logic.
Look, I've been a geologist/paleontologist for 30 years. In industry, not academics. I have no reason to bullcrap, this is what I see with my own eyes.
You can lead a horse to water... :)
All life put on earth at the same time ≠ all fossils of same age. All fossils created as a result of the Flood would be the same age. That doesn't exclude fossils being created since then by other events. Obviously fossil age should be determined by when the fossilization occurred.
Perhaps I wasn't clear - I have no disagreement with your paragraph beginning with "sediment constantly occurs...".
I think you're seeing what I didn't write. I said, "may not be correlated", I didn't say never correlated; and I also said, "lack of macrofossils" but I didn't mean TOTAL lack of macrofossils. It's relative.
You state the obvious as if I don't know that manganese is a mineral. However, they are dated by both paleontological and radiometric methods. And the point had more to do with when they form as opposed to how they form. Evolutionists have long claimed that it took millions of years for them to form and that's simply not true. Dr. John Yates, a marine geologist, has found some of these concretions were actually formed around beer cans. With Google books you can find online a chapter Yates wrote on Deep-Sea Polymetallic Sulphide Deposits in a 2002 text by academic publisher Routledge: Advances in the Science and Technology of Ocean Management.
"He bases much of his belief on this one false assumption, therefore his entire house of cards fails miserably." NO you do and that assumption is the earth is 4 billion years
Most dating methods and there are 100's not just radio isotope dating would say the earth is way way less than 1 million years old, more like 10000 years old. So it is YOUR False assumption that is getting the evolutionaty house of cards to fall
the age dating is irrelevant. Let's say I agree for the sake of this discussion that the earth is 6000 years old.
The point is that we have sedimentary layers that were obviously laid down sequentially (that's where GSam is lacking in his argument). Examination of each of those layers shows changes of the species in the layers as you go from layer to layer. You can track the ranges of each fossil through the layers.
The relative position of each fossil in the layer cake of sediments is the same from well to well, or outcrop to outcrop, ALL OVER THE WORLD. This has been shown especially well in the 40,000 wells drilled in the Gulf of Mexico, and has become a relatively precise science, hence oil companies paying big bucks to micropaleontologists.
In summary, the age doesn't matter. The obvious and repeated changes are clear proof of evolution.