Posted on 11/19/2009 3:13:17 PM PST by GodGunsGuts
NO!!! The Bible no where indicates this earth is 'young'. AND it also does not say that all peoples came from only two flesh beings. And to claim that all peoples come from only two flesh beings is 'evolution' in quick time.
BUT that is what they have been 'trained' to believe. And they are trained to believe this in opposition to the slowed process of life appearing over eons of time. Just as the Darwinist are trained to believe there is some mythical 'hot' steaming pot of primordial soup that a couple of like cells rubbed together and wahllah life began.
No, just for the week, back for a few more weeks, and then Christmas break.
If Christians’ God created all this are all the others heretics?
Never experienced or thought of being derisive of other beliefs and I’ve read a few different interpretations of the Christian Bible and have been to various temples and churches. All were impressive, but I could see how some who are devout would think poorly of another’s religion; the Catholic Church was known for that a few decades ago.
The Old Testament doesn’t just belong to Christians, either. It belongs to the Jews. Even Islam believes that Jesus can be their salvation. It’s a reason hy I ask where other religions stand? If I know of those two, odds are there’d be others not Christian who claim Jesus. What about them?
What year is he? It seems to have some correlation with how much laundry he brings home.
Did I say you should not? Just use the same criteria you would as if it were presented by the opposition.
If someone used the kind of arguments being used in that film as evidence in support of a scientific theory, I'd be inclined to think very unflattering things about them.
For that to be a valid argument you will have to establish your interpretation of the Bible as scientifically and historically authoritative.
“If Christians’ God created all this are all the others heretics?” [excerpt]I would describe those who have not accepted the gift of salvation as lost.
“Never experienced or thought of being derisive of other beliefs and I’ve read a few different interpretations of the Christian Bible and have been to various temples and churches. All were impressive, but I could see how some who are devout would think poorly of another’s religion; the Catholic Church was known for that a few decades ago.” [excerpt]I guess I am somewhat indifferent to religion as I do not equate it to salvation.
“The Old Testament doesn’t just belong to Christians, either. It belongs to the Jews.” [excerpt]It is also the foundation of the New Testament which affirms the Old.
“Even Islam believes that Jesus can be their salvation.” [excerpt]Knowing that Jesus can be your savior does not equate to placing your faith in Him and accepting His gift.
“It’s a reason hy I ask where other religions stand?” [excerpt]Seeing as how what Jesus wants is a relationship, I would say religions [when it comes to salvation] stand out in the cold.
“If I know of those two, odds are there’d be others not Christian who claim Jesus. What about them?” [excerpt]If to claim Jesus is to place your faith in Him and accept His gift of eternal life per the scriptures, how can you not be a Christian at the same time?
"I believe they are knowing lying, no, because what they believe was foretold would be."
Is that prophecy not part of your religious beliefs?
He’s pretty good about doing his own laundry, so it isn’t too much.
He’s very responsible and got pretty acceptable domestic skills for a guy.
Jesus is the part of the Godhead who did the creating. Salvation is not connected to creation. Or why is Jesus and salvation so prominent in this thread?
Because some people like to make an issue of it.
Then, obviously, you must hate the likes Dawkins as he writes so affectionately (sarc) of any opposition to Evolution.
How about the movie "Religulous?" What do you think of the way that was presented?
See here we are back to two different programs and possibly even operating systems. The earth is filled with the literal evidence of two things. IT is old, very old, and DNA demonstrates that there is NO way all peoples on this earth came from only two peoples. This earth shows the evidence that historically it was involved in all manner of upheaval just as Genesis 1:2 says it became. Genesis 1 and 2 describe two different days of flesh beings being created/formed. The rest of the Bible is 'HIS'story', and generation after generations of peoples that interacted with those of 'HIS' lineage.
And around two thousand years ago Peter says that one thousand years is as one day with the Lord. Many of the holy prophets, Paul and John the writer of Revelation planted within their writings some of the events that took place before Genesis 1:2. So what is to argue.
It is a necessary character of cladistic analysis, and of the cladograms so generated, that all splits must be bifurcating. Three way splits are not allowed.
Also, regarding your comment about "the original disappearing," you are confusing cladograms with traditional phylogenetic trees. In cladograms the nodes, the splitting points, must not be thought of as being occupied by any creature. Cladistics rejects (or at least ignores) the idea of identifying "missing links." Instead it concentrates only on deducing evolutionary relations between contemporary groups of organisms. Another way of putting it is to say that it is impossible, in strict cladistic analysis, to posit or to figure "ancestor-descendent" relationships. You can only look at brother-sister, or cousin-like, relationships.
The nodes in a cladogram represent splits in character states, with the assumption that the given state is "either/or." Or, in any case, cladistic analysis compels you to assign an either/or analysis to the characters under consideration. For instance the split between apes and hominids (including human) is represented by the presence of absence of the trait of bipedalism. If it walks on two legs, it's a hominid. If it doesn't, it's an ape. There is, at least for the formal purpose of cladistic analysis, no in between.
One other factor is that all creatures on one branch of a node constitute a single group, and only those creatures. So, for instance, if you accept that orangutans split off from the other apes before hominids split off from chimps and gorillas, then (in strict cladistic terms) there are no such things as apes, at least as distinct from hominids and humans. (Either that, or you have to say that humans, together with chimps and gorillas, are a type of ape distinct from orangs. IOW humans are apes.)
By the same token there are no such things as "reptiles" for a strict cladist, since some reptiles branched off from other reptiles before mammals branched off from reptiles. Or, in traditional phylogenetic terms, reptiles are not "monophyletic" wrt mammals.
All this means that cladistics is impractical for many purposes, including generally useful classification schemes, were it often makes sense to allow polyphyletic groups, and other groupings which violate strict cladistic principles.
How about the movie "Religulous?"
I haven't seen that movie.
Apparently all of it. For instance, I have seen numerous articles posted from creationist websites that deny there is any evidence for an old Earth.
Well look at this way. Once we all depart these flesh bodies there won't be any questions left unanswered. It will be one of those ah ha moments and no more peer reviews.
I look at it this way: If it's an appropriate subject for political activism, then it is my concern as long as my flesh body is a citizen of a self governing nation.
I was not hinting or suggesting you do otherwise. It has been my observations over my very short span upon this earth, that regardless of what some claim there is little difference in ones politics and ones religion.
Look at what those 'dirtworshipers' have been up to, manipulating scientific data to design their 'computer' models as evidence we are about to cook this earth. Now this hoax covers all the pillars of a civil society. Politics, economy, education and religion.
Not everyone believes it. All that argument does is implicitly remove the people who don't from consideration as part of civil society.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.