pajarito

"Man will believe anything as long as it's not in the Bible." - Napoleon

The Bible and Earth's Free-float in Space At a time when it was believed that the earth sat on a large animal or a giant (1500 B.C.), the Bible spoke of the earth's free float in space: "He . . . hangs the earth upon nothing" (Job 26:7). Science didn't discover that the earth hangs upon nothing until 1650. The Scriptures Speak of an Invisible Structure Only in recent years has science discovered that everything we see is composed of things that we cannot see invisible atoms. In Hebrews 11:3, written 2,000 years ago, Scripture tells us that the "things which are seen were not made of things which do appear." The Bible Reveals that the Earth is Round The Scriptures tell us that the earth is round: "It is he that sits upon the circle of the earth" (Isaiah 40:22). The word translated "circle" here is the Hebrew word chuwg, which is also translated "circuit" or "compass" (depending on the context). That is, it indicates something spherical, rounded, or arched; not something that is flat or square. The book of Isaiah was written sometime between 740 and 680 B.C. This is at least 300 years before Aristotle suggested, in his book On the Heavens, that the earth might be a sphere. It was another 2,000 years later (at a time when science believed that the earth was flat) that the Scriptures inspired Christopher Columbus to sail around the world. The Bible and the Science of Oceanography Matthew Maury (1806-1873) is considered the father of oceanography. He noticed the expression "paths of the sea" in Psalm 8:8 (written 2,800 years ago) and said, "If God said there are paths in the sea, I am going to find them." Maury then took God at His word and went looking for these paths, and we are indebted to his discovery of the warm and cold continental currents. His book on oceanography remains a basic text on the subject and is still used in universities. The Bible and Radio Waves God asked Job a very strange question in 1500 B.C. He asked, "Can you send lightnings, that they may go, and say to you, Here we are?" (Job 38:35). This appears to be a scientifically ludicrous statement that light can be sent, and then manifest itself in speech. But did you know that all electromagnetic radiation from radio waves to x-rays travels at the speed of light? This is why you can have instantaneous wireless communication with someone on the other side of the earth. The fact that light could be sent and then manifest itself in speech wasn't discovered by science until 1864 (3,300 years later), when "British scientist James Clerk Maxwell suggested that electricity and light waves were two forms of the same thing" (Modern Century Illustrated Encyclopedia). The Bible and Entropy Three different places in the Bible (Isaiah 51:6; Psalm 102:25,26; and Hebrews 1:11) indicate that the earth is wearing out. This is what the Second Law of Thermodynamics (the Law of Increasing Entropy) states: that in all physical processes, every ordered system over time tends to become more disordered. Everything is running down and wearing out as energy is becoming less and less available for use. That means the universe will eventually "wear out" to the extent that (theoretically speaking) there will be a "heat death" and therefore no more energy available for use. This wasn't discovered by science until recently, but the Bible states it in concise terms. The Bible and the Water Cycle The Scriptures inform us, "All the rivers run into the sea; yet the sea is not full; unto the place from whence the rivers come, there they return again" (Ecclesiastes 1:7). This statement alone may not seem profound. But, when considered with other biblical passages, it becomes all the more remarkable. For example, the Mississippi River dumps approximately 518 billion gallons of water every 24 hours into the Gulf of Mexico. Where does all that water go? And that’s just one of thousands of rivers. The answer lies in the hydrologic cycle, so well brought out in the Bible. Ecclesiastes 11:3 states that "if the clouds be full of rain, they empty themselves upon the earth." Look at the Bible's concise words in Amos 9:6: "He . . . calls for the waters of the sea, and pours them out upon the face of the earth." The idea of a complete water cycle was not fully understood by science until the seventeenth century. However, more than two thousand years prior to the discoveries of Pierre Perrault, Edme Mariotte, Edmund Halley, and others, the Scriptures clearly spoke of a water cycle. The Bible and the First Law of Thermodynamics The Scriptures say, "Thus the heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them" (Genesis 2:1). The original Hebrew uses the past definite tense for the verb "finished," indicating an action completed in the past, never again to occur. The creation was "finished" � once and for all. That is exactly what the First Law of Thermodynamics says. This law (often referred to as the Law of the Conservation of Energy and/or Mass) states that neither matter nor energy can be either created or destroyed. It was because of this Law that Sir Fred Hoyle's "Steady-State" (or "Continuous Creation") Theory was discarded. Hoyle stated that at points in the universe called "irtrons," matter (or energy) was constantly being created. But, the First Law states just the opposite. Indeed, there is no "creation" ongoing today. It is "finished" exactly as the Bible states. The Bible and Ship Dimensions In Genesis 6, God gave Noah the dimensions of the 1.5 million cubic foot ark he was to build. In 1609 at Hoorn in Holland, a ship was built after that same pattern (30:5:3), revolutionizing ship-building. By 1900 every large ship on the high seas was inclined toward the proportions of the ark (verified by "Lloyd's Register of Shipping" in the World Almanac). The Bible and Meteorological Laws The Scriptures describe a "cycle" of air currents two thousand years before scientists discovered them: "The wind goes toward the south, and turns about unto the north; it whirls about continually, and the wind returns again according to his circuits" (Ecclesiastes 1:6). We now know that air around the earth turns in huge circles, clockwise in one hemisphere and counter-clockwise in the other. The Bible and Science "In antiquity and in what is called the Dark Ages, men did not know what they now know about humanity and the cosmos. They did not know the lock but they possessed they key, which is God. Now many have excellent descriptions of the lock, but they have lost the key. The proper solution is union between religion and science. We should be owners of the lock and the key. The fact is that as science advances, it discovers what was said thousands of years ago in the Bible." Richard Wurmbrand, Proofs of God's Existence

That is awsome!

I agree. That in and of itself does not prove God. That is where I disagree. Jesus Christ defeated death, proved his own divinity, and testified to the validity of the early Jewish records which included Genesis and the creation account. About what? That Evolution (natural selection) is the answer? I don't think there's evidence to support that. I don't think there will be evidence to support it. Science does not trump the Bible. It supports and validates it.

No...I don't think fossils are fakes planted by God. Could it be that they're not "transitional" forms? Refutation of Boyce Rensberger’s anti-creationist Washington Post article ‘How Science Responds When Creationists Criticize Evolution’, Jan. 8, 1997.

Chuck Norris invented jello shots.

I'm at work and can't reply right now with much at all. However, in the few moments that I have, I'd just like to ask what in life has pissed you off so bad. Don't tell me it's religion or Christianity. I don't buy that. It sounds like something has been eating at you for a long time. Dude... Chill. The sun will rise tomorrow. Well....... Maybe.

Their strongest argument is that the Archaeopteryx is the missing link. Problems with this: - It has a ‘mosaic’ of characters in common with both groups but shows no true transitional structure such as a part-scale, part-feather. - There are no fossil links between it and either reptiles or birds—it stands alone. - True birds have been found which are assigned by evolutionists to an earlier time than Archaeopteryx. Again, there should be a multitude of transitional forms to present this case. There aren't. This was a unique bird. Nothing more. If there was anything to it, there would be examples of transition from scales to feathers. The fact that it had some features in common with reptiles means simply that it had some features in common with reptiles — not that it evolved.

Glad I could be of service.

I think many people see what they want to see. Many people desperately want it to be true. Given the huge variety of species on the planet, you'd think there would be fossil evidence of millions of transitional forms. It's just not there.

Adaptation to one's environment is not at all the same thing as changing into another species altogether. There’s not evidence to support that…anywhere. If I exercise my muscles, over time, they will grow larger and retain muscle tone (brain included). There's variation in all of us. That doesn't mean that some of us are progressively changing into something else at the most basic level. With the evidence we have available today, I think it is a leap of faith on the part of the evolutionist. It is a very attractive theory, however, and I can see why so many would want to buy into it even without being able to even come close to filling in the gaps. It is a way of explaining the origin of things without a creator. It is a way to build our own “Tower of Babble”, if you will, and put ourselves in place of God. It's putting something that isn't within our comprehension into terms we can understand despite our extremely limited capacity. Many secular humanists, however, “religiously” sink their teeth into it like there was no tomorrow. I think it’s dishonest of them not to admit that they’re relying in large part on faith of their own.

Firstly, God can do anything whether it makes sense to us or not. Secondly, if I held a gun to your head and told you to say or do something, you’d probably do it. It wouldn’t mean much at all. It’s a whole other matter if you choose to do what I ask on your own. My point being, God didn’t create robots. He desires a relationship with us. However, the consequence of free will is the ability to choose an alternative which may or may not be in our best interest. God is the source of all life. It is in our best interest to do what he asks. Selfishness is at the core of our nature, however, and it is natural for us to choose the things of the world instead. As long as we are maintaining a death grip on our natural desires, we are in fact enemies of God. A holy and just God will not tolerate sin and his wrath abides on us (we are under sentence of death; Hebrews 9:27; and as it is appointed to men once to die, but after this the judgment.). You can do nothing in this regard of yourself. Only Jesus working in you makes you a better person. Only the sacrifice of Jesus will make you righteous before a holy God on the Day of Judgment. It’s like you’re a glob of clay. God whittles away at you your entire life and you eventually become the person he wants you to be; a person who is worthy to enter heaven. You don’t get there because you’re a good person. You get there because you’re a bad person at heart who’s been forgiven. You will then be given the ability, through Jesus, to become sons and daughters of God instead of children of wrath.

Balance is one of those "ordinary" body functions we don't think about until it is disrupted. Sit in a violently spinning carnival ride for a few minutes, however, and then try to walk upright. You'll become acutely aware that your vestibular system, located in your inner ear has been upset. The dizziness and nausea you feel are symptoms that the carnival ride disrupted the normal functioning of the system that maintains proper balance. Unlike all other primates, humans ordinarily walk upright, carnival rides notwithstanding. This posture makes "particular demands on the vestibular apparatus" because humans balance a large body mass "on very small areas of support" (Spoor et al., 1994, p. 645). Although chimpanzees may walk upright for brief periods--using what is called facultative bipedalism--only humans always walk that way. Our obligatory bipedalism is, in part, maintained by the distinctive arrangement of the semicircular canals in our vestibular system. But what about the vestibular systems of so-called transitional forms between humans and other primates? Are those systems more ape-like, or more human-like? Recently, using a CT scanner, anthropologist Fred Spoor and his coworkers analyzed the inner ears of extinct hominids (in particular, Australopithecus africanus) and compared them with the inner ears seen in living primates and modern humans. Spoor's analysis confirms many creationist arguments about the nontransitional status of these hominids, and maintains the distance between hominids and modern man. For many years, creationists (e.g., Gish 1993) have referred to the studies on Australopithecus by evolutionists Charles Oxnard and Lord Sully Zuckerman. These evolutionists, having analyzed postcranial (body) material of Australopithecus, contend that Australopithecus was not bipedal and transitional to man, but walked rather like a chimp. Using a completely different approach from that of Oxnard and Zuckerman, and examining a different anatomical complex (the inner ear), Spoor and his coworkers support Oxnard and Zuckerman's conclusions. The "semi-circular canal dimensions" of Australopithecus, they write, resemble "those of the extant [living] great apes" (p. 645). Once again, Australopithecus is shown to be very ape-like, not a transitional ape-man. The human condition is first found in the inner ear of Homo erectus, but insofar as Homo erectus has a modern human-like vestibular system, it offers no support for evolution. In a careful study, the creationist Martin Lubenow (1992) has demonstrated that Homo erectus does not differ sufficiently from modern man (Homo sapiens) to warrant the status of a distinct species. Rather, the differences between the two forms should be regarded as racial. A gulf exists, therefore, between humans and Australopithecus. Evolutionists have tried to fill the gulf between by devising a "wastebasket" species, Homo habilis. But Lubenow (1992, pp. 157-166) has convincingly argued that Homo habilis is an artificial species because it combines disparate human and australopithecine remains (akin, perhaps, to mixing dog and cat bones together, giving the result a species name, and proclaiming it a transition between dogs and cats). The Spoor study provides support for Lubenow's argument about the artificial status of Homo habilis. Two specimens, SK 847 and Stw 53, were long held to belong to the same species, with the former independently assigned to either Homo erectus or Homo habilis, and the latter to Homo habilis. Spoor and his coworkers show that the vestibular systems of the two specimens are so different that they could not have come from the same species. Specimen SK 847 should definitely be assigned to Homo erectus (and, if Lubenow is right, to human beings generally). Specimen Stw 53, on the other hand, has unique semicircular canals, although their proportions tend to resemble those of modern large primates. Spoor et al. argue that Stw 53 (which they believe should be assigned to Homo habilis) probably relied less on bipedal locomotion than did Australopithecus! Clearly, this is a step in the wrong direction (pardon the pun), evolutionarily speaking. As Spoor et al. note (p. 648): . . . the unique labyrinth of Stw 53 represents an unlikely intermediate between the morphologies seen in the australopithecines and Homo erectus. In conclusion, we can reevaluate the supposed evolutionary chain leading up to modern man: Australopithecus ---> Homo habilis ---> Homo erectus ---> Homo sapiens. Australopithecus is again shown to be too ape-like to count as a genuine transition to man. Homo habilis is again shown to be an artificial amalgam of disparate skeletal elements. And Homo erectus is not sufficiently different from modern man to be recognized as a separate species. Homo sapiens does indeed stand alone, created in the image and likeness of God. ---John Woodmorappe Clicky

Someone had to discern which written works were genuine and which were either not or questionable and put the whole thing together. There's nothing suspicious about that. The criteria for inclusion into the canon is: 1. Apostolic authority 2. Age of text 3. Orthodoxy 4. Widespread acceptance I don't know what conspiracy theory you're trying to spread but I'm assuming you're speaking of the gnostic texts. Just because it was deemed that they didn't meet the above criteria does not invalidate the ones which were included.

The Bible isn't just one book. It's 66 different ones which validate each other.

I do. QuoteNo man can serve two masters: for either he will hate the one, and love the other; or else he will hold to the one, and despise the other. You cannot serve God and mammon. Matthew 6:24 It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the kingdom of God. Mark 10:25 Every man according as he purposes in his heart, so let him give; not grudgingly, or of necessity: for God loves a cheerful giver. 2 Corinthians 9:7 Will a man rob God? Yet you have robbed me. But you say, How have we robbed you? In tithes and offerings. You are cursed with a curse: for you have robbed me, even this whole nation. Bring all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in my house, and prove me now herewith, says the Lord of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it. Malachi 3:8-10

If it was really Australopithecus afarensis. I believe there were some questions with regard to this (e.g. bones that were taken from other locations to make what they wanted to).

Evolution is just one of the latest scientific revelations (I use the term loosely) that the secular world wants you to believe because it feels threatened by the truth. If there was a "mountain of overwhelming evidence", we wouldn't be having this conversation. Maybe so, but that is irrelevant. What a church may teach may or may not come from the authoritative source which is the Bible. If it doesn't, then they may not be correct. You rely on God's word. Not "the Church" per se. If whatever church a person attends doesn't teach the word of God which is revealed in the Bible, that person might aught to find someplace else to go.

1. Time, space, and matter came into existence by themselves. We sure are spending an awful lot of money trying to figure out the origins of the universe for it to be a "meaningless question." You are correct that it is not a question that science can answer. It's not a concept that can rationally even be brought up without God. Every natural phenomena has a starting point. The matter and energy had to come from somewhere. Evolution is all about the physical world controlling itself. Even if it was how it is said to have happened, something had to start the process. How logical is it to "ass-ume" that "In the beginning.....dirt? That's not what I said. I meant that he understands natural selection and that his questions are valid even if unprovable. It's all in what you want to put your "faith" in. That includes "faith in evolution."

Lucy - Nearly all experts agree Lucy was just a 3 foot tall chimpanzee. Heidelberg Man - Built from a jawbone that was conceeded by many to be quite human. Nebraska Man - Scientifically built up from one tooth, later found to be the tooth of an extinct pig. Piltdown Man - The jawbone turned out to belong to a modern ape. Peking Man - Supposedly 500,000 years old, but all evidence has disappeared. Neanderthal Man - At the International Cogress of Zoology (1958) Dr. A.J.E. Cave said his examination showed that this famous skeleton found in France over 50 years ago is that of an old man who suffered from arthritis. New Guinea Man - Dates way back to 1970. This species has been found in the region just north of Australia. Cro-Magnon Man - One of hte earliest and best established fossils is at least equal in physique and brain capacity to modern man...so what's the difference?

I think he understands the science just fine. I have no idea what you're talking about with the Captain Kirk thing. If you can't account for any of which you listed above, natural selection has real problems. The fossil record doesn't support it, there is no missing link, there is no first cause. That's got nothing to do with a species adapting to its enviroment such as bird beaks changing length or mutation of viruses or bacteria. You say I have to have faith to believe what I believe. That's true. There is an element of faith although it's not blind faith. I say believers in this theory also must rely on a big chunk of faith. They just don't want to admit it because doesn't fit well with science.

MAN!!! I fell right for that one. A.D.D. kicking my ass right now.

Wow. Just read down some and saw your post. Thought you were dead.

Did this actually happen? Otherwise, "what if a frog bumped his ass a-hoppin?" Who cares?

That's just it. There is no "rock-solid" proof yet people worship it like a religion. If there was, however, he'd have to pay up. You'd win if you took it to court. It's a contract. Leaving for a few hours. Not ignoring anyone. Out!