Sanctification

[jay_a2j]

Of COURSE evolution cannot be 'proven'. We can't observe it happening.

Yet, it is taught in public schools as if it were a fact.



Whoooo Hooo! I made it into someone's sig!!!!!!! TY heavycola!

[The1exile]

Of COURSE evolution cannot be 'proven'. We can't observe it happening.

Yet, it is taught in public schools as if it were a fact. !

Actually, it's not. I don't know what school you went to.

In my school, at least,. we were taught that this is a theory but unless you can come up with a better one, you don't really have grounds to reject it.

[jay_a2j]

Of COURSE evolution cannot be 'proven'. We can't observe it happening.

Yet, it is taught in public schools as if it were a fact. !

Actually, it's not. I don't know what school you went to.

In my school, at least,. we were taught that this is a theory but unless you can come up with a better one, you don't really have grounds to reject it.

College.... First Aid..... looking at the human skeletal system my instructor points to the coccyx and said, "This is what we have left of our tail from evolution". Not "This could be", not "In my opinion...". It was stated as FACT.

And I do have a better one, God created us. Evolution rejected.

[Backglass]

When I give $$ to my local church, it goes to programs that help the poor and people struggling with addictions. I can't speak for other churches. But that's the purpose for me giving my tithe.

Very noble...but if helping is really what your gift is about, why not give your money directly to the poor or to that drug addiction center so your money does the most good and goes farther? Why must your church be the broker or middleman, taking their cut and paying no taxes? We both know that they do not give 100% of your "tithe" for these purposes. It seems a wrong for your gracious gift to be wasted on church lawn maintenance.

Can't speak for jay so I think it's unfair for you to link me to whatever discussion you were having with him.

Granted.

Sometimes your misrepresentations of us Christians really cracks me up. Meeting in "ornately decorated and expensive buildings" to perform our rituals!".

Every city has giant, ornate churches full of parishioners chanting/praying, symbolically drinking wine, being splashed or dipped into water, being prayed over to be "saved", etc.

Large groups - Check
Ornate Buildings - Check
Rituals - Check

Thats no misrepresentation, thats "spot on".

[heavycola]

Of COURSE evolution cannot be 'proven'. We can't observe it happening.

Yet, it is taught in public schools as if it were a fact.

quote]

lol jay you were in my sig for ages!

How many times has this been pointed out?
Gravity = THEORY
Electromagnetism = THEORY
Relativity = THEORY

yet these are taught in SCHOOLS as if they were FACT!
I have a better one - fairies do it all.

Every city has giant, ornate churches full of parishioners chanting/praying, symbolically drinking wine, being splashed or dipped into water, being prayed over to be "saved", etc.

Large groups - Check
Ornate Buildings - Check
Rituals - Check

Thats no misrepresentation, thats "spot on".

There is no argument!

[b.k. barunt]

Actually backglass, if you check the history of this country, you'll see that social work began in the churches, unlike G. Britain with the "Peter's Pence. If you check the statistics (i have) you will find that church sponsored addiction centers have a higher rate of success than others. You don't think the secular facilities keep their lawns mowed? And luns, your contribution, and that of your church to the relief effort in New Orleans is much appreciated.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

WOW according to your post noone could have been crucified in the Roman empire, because it was not physically possible.

You must not have read my post. I did not say it was impossible to crucify someone, but rather that using nails is highly unlikely due to the physiological constraints.

Ummm better check your history. they did it all the time and had it down to a science. Where to nail without hitting the proper veins and arteries to cause someone to die fast. I find when a person contradicts what any expert on Roman punishment would tel you he should probally double check his sources.

No, I suggest you check your history.I am led to believe you don't actually know a thing about the roman execution known as "crucification".

They did not drive nails into their hands or wrists, they tied them with rope (and in some cases, oiled rope so that the sun would heat it and scald their flesh).

Moreover, for all intents and purposes, I am probably the only person here with the educational qualifications to talk about this stuff in depth. I make a living out of working with archaeological finds and historical validation.

Do a little research bud. It was both tying and nails.
He I 'll help you out a little.
http://www.halexandria.org/dward229.htm
and
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucifixion
and
http://www.allaboutjesuschrist.org/roma ... on-faq.htm
and
http://www.konnections.com/kcundick/crucifix.html
You should check this one out. It was done by a physian who takes a doctors approach to what happened at the crucifixion. Good reading.
and
http://phdiva.blogspot.com/2006/04/arch ... ixion.html

Oh and you gotta check this site since it is an achaeological site that even has pictures of bones with the very nails in them that they have unearthed. (I thought this was your field? Hmmm guess you have not been doing you homework.) I do have a little bit of a brain and the one thing I did learn from my college degree is how to research. I studied thsi in college and have been for 10 years since. I suggest you remove the blinders and stop trying to prove things right or wrong based on ideas and come at things with and open mind to find the truth.

You utterly fail at remembering carrying out research for objective and sourced sources.

All of these are blatantly in favor of Jesus Christ existing, and work around that.

In short, you have proven nothing. The method used for crucifixion described in the bible would have killed him nearly instantly (especially after a beating like that).

But again, this is all moot until you can prove Jesus Christ actually existed.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Science has revealed god's work - unless of course we are talking about paleaontology, or geology, or evolutionary biology, because they are all wrong.

"From a collection of modern human skulls Huxley (Darwin's 'bulldog') was able to select a series with features leading by insensible gradations from an average modern specimen to the Neandertal skull. In other words, it wasn't qualitatively different from present-day Homo sapiens. - Donald Johnson, Lucy's Child, pg. 49

"There is no clear-cut and inexorable pathway from ape to human being" - David Pilbeam, Rearranging Our Family Tree, Human Nature, 1978, pg. 44

"The fossil record has been elastic enough, the expectations sufficiently robust, to accommodate almost any story" - David Pilbeam, Patterns of Hominoid Evolution, Ancestors, pg. 53

"I do not believe it is possible to fit the known hominid fossils into a reliable pattern" - Mary Leakey, Disclosing the Past, pg. 214

"The human fossil record is no exception to the general rule that the main lesson to be learned from paleontology is that evolution always takes place somewhere else" - J.S. Jones & S. Rouhani, How Small Was The Bottleneck?, Nature, pg. 319

"So one is forced to conclude that there is no clear-cut scientific picture of human evolution" - Robert Martin, Man Is Not An Option, New Scientist, pg. 285

So, since paleantology has not produced conclusive proof of transitional life forms, it makes sense that in 1981, Mark Ridley would write in frustration: "...no real evolutionist, whether gradualist or punctuationist, uses the fossil record as evidence in favor of the theory of evolution as opposed to special creation. This does not mean that the theory of evolution is unproven." And then later, "The evidence for evolution simply does not depend upon the fossil record." and then again, "The gradual change of fossil species has never been part of the evidence for evolution". - Mark Ridley, Who Doubts Evolution?, New Scientist, pg. 831

Heavycola, I'm not an expert in paleantology. But I read enough to know that the "experts" didn't have all the answers. You can choose to put your faith in them, or the Bible. I chose the Bible. Not trying to convince you that you're wrong, I'm just showing you why I couldn't believe in evolution any longer when I made my conversion.

Oh, but I am an expert in Evolution.

http://www.conquerclub.com/forum/viewto ... c&start=15

I would rather not repost all of that, but if you fail to address this point, I will only be more then obliged to counter all of these ridiculous claims right here by reposting it.

[The1exile]

College.... First Aid..... looking at the human skeletal system my instructor points to the coccyx and said, "This is what we have left of our tail from evolution". Not "This could be", not "In my opinion...". It was stated as FACT.

And I do have a better one, God created us. Evolution rejected.

Political correctness will be the death of me

As for your god one, did you ever answer why Backglass' theory that the fairies at the bottom of his garden don't exist can't be better than yours?

I don't vehemently disbelieve, I just don't have this urge to accept that your god or any other is the be all and end all, that which created the universe. And if God is omnibenevolent he'll forgive me for that - conversely, if he isn't, I won't worship him.

[Backglass]

Actually backglass, if you check the history of this country, you'll see that social work began in the churches, unlike G. Britain with the "Peter's Pence.

And if you will check the history of this country (I have) you will find that more murders occur at night than during the day and more people prefer Coke to Pepsi.

If you check the statistics (i have) you will find that church sponsored addiction centers have a higher rate of success than others.

I say bullshit...please post an unbiased link to this assertion.

It probably is true however as it is easier to supplant one addiction (chemical) for another (believing in supernatural magical gods) than going cold turkey with no crutch to lean on.

You don't think the secular facilities keep their lawns mowed?

You don't think that churches keep a cut of the funds?

And luns, your contribution, and that of your church to the relief effort in New Orleans is much appreciated.

Somebody had to do it...George "The Buffoon" Bush was too busy golfing to send aid to his own citizens.

[luns101]

And luns, your contribution, and that of your church to the relief effort in New Orleans is much appreciated.

Thank you. Perhaps you can let me know what areas of New Orleans are still needing help the most. I've never been to New Orleans myself. It's one thing to watch a newscast about New Orleans, but quite another to get first person analysis. Any information would be appreciated. God bless.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Moreover, by historical grounds, I don't believe Jesus even existed. The evidence is shaky, warped, and rife with inconsistencies. On biological grounds, I would dare say it is nigh impossible for him (or anyone for that matter) to have been crucified with nails.

Furthermore, considering that no other contemporary works were written to supplant these claims (we'll skip that fact that the first Gospel was written nearly 30 years after Jesus's supposed death), we again have no way of discerning the myth from the fact. In short, the Gospels serve as unreliable sources for any actual historiographical claim regarding the life of the supposed "Yeshua el Nazrii".


So I am curious wht do you think of such this as homers odyssey? Did you know that the best copies that we have of that are over 1,000 years older than the time they think it was written. I don't know you, but I am curious do you look at everything under the same microscope, or do you just not believe so you are willing to be lax with other things like homers odyssey, but harder on christian sources?

I never accepted Homer's Odyssey as fact. It's a myth, with some tie ins to the real world. You're grasping for straws here.

Because when you look at the sources they are very well documented. If you can find documents that are written within 30 years of the actual event that is a very good find.

Incorrect, and this is a blatant disregard for the histiographic method. No first person sources exist of Jesus during his supposed time. Moreover, no first person sources exist when there was a plethora of capable individuals who could have written about him (side question: If Jesus attracted hundreds (thousands?) to him, scribes amongst them, don't you think that someone would have written about this, even in passing?). The first historical mention we have of Jesus is from Josephus, in 90 C.E.

Then when you consider the accuracy of these texts with each other. As a matter of fact many scholars believe that the only way to explain the amazing similarities in the gospel was a document called Q that they all relied upon to keep their stories straight. (I do not belive this, I meerly point it out so you can see that people who do not even believe the Bible realize the books are extremely similar in there events.

The Q document is only theoretical, and even the most fervently pro-Christ "historians" will admit this. I don't buy the Q document either. One simply needs to know what order the Gospels were written in, and it is simple from there. There is very little difference from one Gospel to another simply because the others had a previous work to work from.

lending some credance to the events that happened. If you wanted to find info about an event you were not at and you asked all the eye witnesses and they all agreed on points you can come to a good conclusion on what the facts are in the event.

But there are no eyewitness accounts.

We acn do the same thing with scripture. Now it could be that the disciples all got together and decided on a lie and propigated it, but there are flaws with that. How many people do you know that are faced with death for telling a lie and are told if they denounce it they can go free will make the choice to die for the lie?

Which disciples? The ones that served with Jesus? No evidence for them, either.

People who are willing to lie to gain fame fortune at any cost usually have the character to chose to denounce it rather than die for a lie. Yet all the disciples went to their deaths defending their stories as the truth.( except John he died naturally.)

Speaks nothing to the validity of Jesus existing. Next.

Besides look at their stories. The details. who was govner at what time. He was ruler over what. who was involved in what event many of these things we know to be true. Look at the hitties of the OT. in the 19 people ridiculed the Bible because no archaeological proof had been found of them. Today in Chicago you can get a college degree in Hittiology. (In the study of the Hittites.) Freakishly accurate. very Interesting.

It's not hard to connect real life issues and history with myths. I read fictions all the time that mentions 9-11, Nixon, etc. Does that make them the truth?

For someone so schooled, you seem to have a hard time following modern scholarly methods (histiographic method, using objective sources) and an equally hard time using proper english. This was a pain and a half to read.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

[quote=backglass]

If you check the statistics (i have) you will find that church sponsored addiction centers have a higher rate of success than others.

I say bullshit...please post an unbiased link to this assertion.

It probably is true however as it is easier to supplant one addiction (chemical) for another (believing in supernatural magical gods) than going cold turkey with no crutch to lean on.[/quote]

Actually, it is bullshit.


I assume that you don't know the nature of statistics, do you b.k.?

[unriggable]

Of COURSE evolution cannot be 'proven'.

Yes it can, we observe it in AIDS and HIV. If evolution does not happen then we would have a cure. But we don't, since the disease is ever-changing.

Yet, it is taught in public schools as if it were a fact.

There is a lot more evidence of it then any other theory. What do you propose, that we were made from nothingness? You said yourself that all life must come from nonlife. Where does god come from? He cannot be around forever.

Thank you. Perhaps you can let me know what areas of New Orleans are still needing help the most. I've never been to New Orleans myself. It's one thing to watch a newscast about New Orleans, but quite another to get first person analysis. Any information would be appreciated. God bless.

A friend of mine came back from new orleans a few days ago. He said the state shows just how sad capitalism can be. The only repaired districts of the city are the ones inhabited by rich people, and from the balconies on their houses their are ruins as far as the eye can see. Note: Dramatization.

[b.k. barunt]

Jesse, you're making a lot of noise about "objective" sources. I haven't noticed your sources to be any less biased than anyone else on the thread. Go figure. The "nature" of statistics? I have a degree in Social Work, and i had to take 3 classes in statistics. There are many variables involved in defining the exact "nature" of such, so what was it you had in mind? And yes unriggable, the picture of New Orleans is accurate - the rich get richer and the poor get poorer. Bush is trying to replace our black population with mexicans, which will really change the culture here.

[MeDeFe]

There are many variables involved in defining the exact "nature" of such, so what was it you had in mind?

I think that's exactly what he had in mind, that there can be several variables and that it's easy to leave a few out to improve your own numbers, wether you're christian or not.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Jesse, you're making a lot of noise about "objective" sources. I haven't noticed your sources to be any less biased than anyone else on the thread. Go figure.

Praytell, which sources do those happen to be>

The "nature" of statistics? I have a degree in Social Work, and i had to take 3 classes in statistics. There are many variables involved in defining the exact "nature" of such, so what was it you had in mind?

MeDeFe nailed it right on the head (or in this case I suppose, the hands).

[luns101]

Of COURSE evolution cannot be 'proven'. We can't observe it happening. Are you saying that because anthropologists admit this, that the logical conclusion then is to suppsoe it was all conjured out of dust by a man in the sky?

Observation is one of the key elements of the scientific method. The 'experts' have admitted they have not observed evidence of adaptation taking place from the fossil record as I quoted before. Therefore yes, it is logical to look for an alternate theory.

In terms of faith: I believe evolution is true, i suppose, but i'm not wedded to it. Show me a better theory -and that doesn't include the man in the sky one - and i'll gladly go along with it. no problem. (<--- rationality!)

There is no alternate theory to evolution other than special creation/intelligent design that I know of. If you have automatically discounted that option before studying it in its entirety, then that is an unjust bias.

And it's not just evolution. The age of the earth, of the universe... of fossils, and light, and the sun... scientifically verified and accepted by all reasonable minds.

I guess this is what I object to the most. To not agree with evolutionists is to be labeled "unreasonable". Evolutionists may disagree with me, but they shouldn't question my ability to reason. We are both intelligent people with different interpretations as to the origin of life.

Before I forget...nice avatar. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

[Backglass]

Observation is one of the key elements of the scientific method. The 'experts' have admitted they have not observed evidence of adaptation taking place from the fossil record as I quoted before. Therefore yes, it is logical to look for an alternate theory.

Well we could say that the entire planet hatched from a giant egg, laid by a huge omnipotent, magical golden bird. I once read a very old and detailed book about it. If you have automatically discounted this option before studying it in its entirety, then that is an unjust bias against giant golden omnipotent magical birds. Should we teach this in our schools as well as an alternate theory? Why not?

I am curious luns101...do you believe that the worlds oceans, mountain ranges and volcanoes were created as is by your gods as well and they are unchanged since their creation?

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Of COURSE evolution cannot be 'proven'. We can't observe it happening. Are you saying that because anthropologists admit this, that the logical conclusion then is to suppsoe it was all conjured out of dust by a man in the sky?

Observation is one of the key elements of the scientific method. The 'experts' have admitted they have not observed evidence of adaptation taking place from the fossil record as I quoted before. Therefore yes, it is logical to look for an alternate theory.

In terms of faith: I believe evolution is true, i suppose, but i'm not wedded to it. Show me a better theory -and that doesn't include the man in the sky one - and i'll gladly go along with it. no problem. (<--- rationality!)

There is no alternate theory to evolution other than special creation/intelligent design that I know of. If you have automatically discounted that option before studying it in its entirety, then that is an unjust bias.

And it's not just evolution. The age of the earth, of the universe... of fossils, and light, and the sun... scientifically verified and accepted by all reasonable minds.

I guess this is what I object to the most. To not agree with evolutionists is to be labeled "unreasonable". Evolutionists may disagree with me, but they shouldn't question my ability to reason. We are both intelligent people with different interpretations as to the origin of life.

Before I forget...nice avatar. THERE CAN BE ONLY ONE!

Take care not to miss that challenge I threw you up for.

No offense to Heavycola, but I have a feeling I have been schooled in Evolution moreso than he is, and I will admit that what he said was a bit flawed (although this by no means invalidates evolution).

As for your little "haven't observed adaptation" tripe, you'd be incredibly wrong. Walking upright, the resulting skeletal changes, etc., these are all instances of adaptation. You're using old arguments that have been refuted time and time again.

[Numia Kereru]

Please tell me where to find the Destiny Spear so I can give it to a fallen angel who will then free the son of Satan into the mortal realm.

Thanks.

[hourman]

Cant we all just get along. cant we just let people belive what they want. I for one am catholic. and I have no problem with anybody. they can do what they want. everybody has there right to belive what they want.

[Jesse, Bad Boy]

Cant we all just get along.

No.

[hourman]

Why not? can twe all belive what we want? Is that not our right? Is that not anybodys right?

[b.k. barunt]

Rights that have never been fought for are bullshit.