pajarito

What I seem to find is that there are a lot of fossils with some similar features being placed in a timeline even though the key element proving they are transitional is missing. That key piece is just assumed to make it fit the puzzle. Also, if dating shows that it is older or younger than previously thought, or if it can't be very accurate and the margin of error is huge, it is just put wherever it best fits.

You're kidding, right? Like you said, it's just an analogy. The point has nothing to do with actually jumping from a commercial airliner. Sorry you missed it. By the way, it was not my analogy. I cited the author.

Here's a real monkey!

You got me. I'm out. Good luck with your mission. I hope it works out well for all those you save. I don't save anyone. My question was serious.

Ideal? How can an all out war ever be ideal. War should always be the last resort. However, if you're pushed into it, fight with speed, surprise, and violence of action. Overwhelming force and intimidation. Finish it. Especially, if you've got an advantage.

If you knew they were going to die, wouldn’t you have to change your message? We are all going to die. It may not happen for another 50 years, maybe 10, maybe next week, or maybe on your next jump. The point is, we don’t know. There is urgency to this message. If they die in their sin, they will suffer righteous judgment for their lawlessness. They need to be told this. Just like you’d warn a blind man walking toward a cliff. You wouldn’t give him a set of headphones and a radio to make his walk more enjoyable and to not offend him. You’d grab him, shake him, and tell him that he’s about to die if he stays on that course.

The Gospel: Why not preach that Jesus gives happiness, peace, and joy?

Speaking of modern evangelistic techniques of refusing to speak of the reality of hell, judgment, and sin and focusing primarily on God's love and grace:

You lost me. First, you agree that it was the evangelistic example set by Jesus and the Apostles. Then, you say it’s ineffective. Were they wrong and are we wrong for following their example? You don’t think Peter and Paul had fervor, conviction, and righteousness in their teachings and pleadings? I can back my method up Biblically. By showing them, by their own admission (if they’re honest and reasonable), that their sin is “exceedingly sinful” in the eyes of God and their desperate need of a Savior. I agree that quoting the Gospel message of Jesus, the cross, the atoning sacrifice, and forgiveness of sin is not the starting point and can be harmful if done out of order. Not only does it not make any sense to an unbeliever, it tends to produce false converts who think they are saved and are not (not all but many). They don’t realize just how much their sinful nature offends God and haven’t truly repented. Many try it out experimentally to see if it will improve their lives. Most fall away from the faith because it does not. The law is the starting point. It was meant to be. It makes sense of the Gospel message. Maybe so. However, only God can soften the heart of the unbeliever and draw them to Christ. It is simply our mandate to bring the message. Only God knows when they’re ready to see or if they will ever be ready to see. I think the two operative words that turn would ME off are "sin" and "Jesus". It's supposed to hurt. Our physical nature will fight tooth and nail against it because it does not want to die. The message can be very offensive. I’m sure it turns many people off. It makes me angry to get a speeding ticket even if I knew I was speeding. Anyway, the point isn’t to “turn you off” or “turn you on.” It’s not some drug that’s necessarily going to make your life better. I think the operative word in your post is “what they want to do.” You hit the nail on the head. Pride and selfishness (e.g. SIN). Anything put above God (1st and most important Commandment) I wholeheartedly agree. Saying “trust this guy”, “you’ll never find true happiness until you do”, or “you’ve got a God-sized hole in your heart that only Jesus can fill” is ridiculous to someone who already has a bunch of stuff and a happy life. They absolutely need a reason within themselves to behave that way. The law brings the realization of the hopelessness of their natural condition. It was designed to bring sinners to their only solution. Quick, I’m a sinner, sinners go to hell, I’ve got three minutes to live, I’m guilty and am about to be judged and punished for my willful disobedience. What is your other way that I might be saved? That is not Biblical. The exact opposite is true and can be shown in the Bible. Love, joy, peace, fulfillment are legitimate benefits of those who are saved. However, it’s not because of anything in this world but because of the promise to come. Your life gets a whole lot harder once you become a Christian. Also, love, joy, peace, and fulfillment mean nothing to the sinner who’s already got all of those things.

Theistic Evolution A variation on the theme of evolution is theistic evolution. It states that God initiated life on earth and allowed evolutionary principles to bring man to where he is--maybe with a little help from God here and there. At least this theory includes God. But this theory was developed in part by Bible believing people who thought that evolution had some merit. In addition, it is an attempt to answer the many problems existing not only in the fossil record but also with how life could somehow randomly form out of nothing. Because of problems like this, some believe they can be explained by simply adding God to the picture: God directed evolution. For those who hold to the Bible as the word of God, theistic evolution should not be a viable option. The Bible says, "Know that the LORD is God. It is he who made us..." (Psalm 100:3). The Scriptures state that God created. God said, "Let there be..." and there was. The Scriptures speak of the creative word of God. When God speaks; it occurs. He said "Let there be" and it was so. It does not say, "Let there be a slow development through an evolutionary process." God said in Genesis 1:26, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground." The Hebrew word for "make" in this verse and in verse 25 where God makes the beasts, is "asah." It means to do, work, make, produce. This is not simply the limited Hebrew understanding of evolutionary principles. The land animals were made differently than man. The animals were made from the ground but man was made directly by God: "the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being" (Gen. 2:7). Evolution states that man evolved from life forms that developed in the ocean. Here, God made man from the dust of the ground--not the water of the ocean. If evolution is true and the Bible is true then how is the formation of Eve explained? She was created out of one of Adam's ribs (Gen. 2:22). There is no way to explain this if theistic evolution is true; that is, unless you want to say that Eve wasn't made from Adam's side. Then, if you do that, you are doubting the very word of God. Also, Jesus said in Mark 10:6 "But at the beginning of creation God ‘made them male and female.'" The beginning was not evolutionary slime; in the beginning of creation there was Adam and Eve. Though this information is brief and far from complete, it should be obvious that theistic evolution and the Scriptures cannot be harmonized.

The theory is as flimsy as it has ever been. The Scientific Controversy Over Whether Microevolution Can Account For Macroevolution The Scientific Controversy Over the Cambrian Explosion Survival of the Fakest

You should be afraid and very concerned. If you died tonight, the Bible says you will be judged and spend eternity in hell. I don’t want that to happen. The unrepentant sinner is an enemy of God and God's righteous judgment abides on him.

Regardless, it is the Biblical precedent set by Jesus himself. It is the method used by Paul. It is the method in which Christians are expected to bring the good news of the Gospel to the lost. It is a method mostly forsaken by the modern evangelistic church for a more “felt needs” approach which has proven extremely ineffective. The Gospel is foolishness to the unrepentant sinner. The heart has to be prepared for the Gospel for it to be effective. God’s moral law (10 Commandments) is the needle which pierces and prepares the heart for the thread of the Gospel. It’s the mirror into your soul which shows you your sinful nature and desperate need for a Savior. “The law doesn't help us; it just leaves us helpless. It doesn't justify us; it just leaves us guilty before the judgment bar of a holy God.” “They will never accept grace until they tremble before a just and Holy Law.” --Charles Spurgeon Only by repentance of sin and trust in Jesus is someone born again.

God is just and will not forgive the lawlessness of those who do not trust in him. There is nothing you can do to earn your forgiveness. You are guilty of breaking the law until your fine has been paid. The fact that you’re trying to be good is of no consequence. No one does “good” of their own accord with reference to God’s standard of goodness. All fall short of the glory of God. As a matter of fact, until you are born again of the spirit, you are not a child of God but are considered a child of wrath. You are a friend of the world and an enemy of God and his wrath abides on you. I’m not telling people why I think they’re not perfect in “my eyes.” I’m every bit as guilty as they are. I’m telling them they are guilty based on God’s moral law. It is the example set by Jesus himself (e.g. The woman at the well). It is what he instructed us to do (e.g. The Great Commission). It is what the Apostles did (e.g. Letters to the Church). The message of the cross is foolishness to the unrepentant sinner. They will never come to Christ until they understand their own predicament. Why would you go to a doctor if you didn’t think you were sick?

Sorry dude. My comment was petty. Have you ever lied, stolen, hated, etc? That kind of punches holes in all of that.

clever, but you're not normally petty like that comment. He must be getting to you ...Make it stop!

no, no, no that's still in contention. We haven't even totally defined the quasi-semi-antiChrist, nor the anti-Bob, nor the anti-FSM You're right. Never mind. The antichrist is supposed to come as a very intelligent, charismatic, and persuasive person.

I think hairyjuan is the antichrist.

Wow! Where do you come from? Your posts are entertaining. I'll give you that.

I don’t know what you’re talking about dude. I’ve posted the following for the past several posts. “Nearly always refers to intentional killing without cause unless indicated otherwise by context.” I’ve even posted other words that can mean to kill. I’m not saying that ratsach is only used to refer to unlawful killing. As with anything, context is everything. I think I’ve adequately refuted your supposed verse contradictions with much more convincing detail and accuracy. I’m sure you’re not convinced nor will you ever be. I guess I’ll just have to leave it at that.

Do you belong to PETA?

Nice word but it's spelled asinine. Why?

Non biblical accounts of New Testament events and/or people