mirabelle, I think you've lost it!
Lynn said: "Quite the contrary actually...I've taken a side but you just don't agree with it! Trust me, I know what logic is about and just because I refuse to "prove" my faith, doesn't mean I'm an idiot.
"I does mean I refuse to be drawn into an endless, useless debate with someone whose ego is the size of Texas and who thinks he is smarter than everyone else, especially people of faith."
Once again, I agree with Lynn's post. ;-)
Bright Blessings!
A Little Clarification !!!
For the edification and clarification of my views on the belief that there is any connection whatsoever between the the concepts of 'Sin' and 'Death' I wish to enlarge on the statement that:
'"The notion that death entered the world through sin is rubbish".
The notion that Death entered the world through Sin is:
absurd
egrarious
asinine
baroque
bizarre
chimerical
crazy
daedalic
egregious
fantastic
fatuous
foolish
funny
grotesque
impracticable
inane
incongruous
inconsistent
inept
infeasible
insuperable
irrational
kooky
laputan
loony
ludicrous
macaronic
meaningless
nonsensical
paradoxical
preposterous
ridiculous
senseless
silly
stupid
unbelievable
unrealistic
and
wacky
In addition, the suggestion/belief is:
foolish
So senseless as to be laughable
harebrained
idiotic
imbecilic
insane
lunatic
mad
moronic
nonsensical
preposterous
silly
softheaded
nearthly
and
zany
Did Sin Kill a Young Dinasaur 70 million Years Ago??
Recovered: The complete skeleton of a young dinosaur that's 70 million years old
By Daily Mail Reporter
Last updated at 11:55 AM on 24th July 2008
Japanese and Mongolian scientists have successfully recovered the complete skeleton of a 70-million-year-old young dinosaur, a nature museum announced Thursday.
The scientists uncovered a Tarbosaurus - related to the giant carnivorous Tyrannosaurus - from a chunk of sandstone they dug up in August, 2006 in the Gobi Desert in Mongolia, said Takuji Yokoyama, a spokesman for the Hayashibara Museum of Natural Sciences, a co-organizer of the joint research project.
Saved: The fossilised bones of a juvenile tarbosaurus, which is believed to have lived in the Cretaceous Period, 70 million years ago
"We were so lucky to have found remains that turned out to be a complete set of all the important parts," he said.
After two years of careful preparatory work, scientists found that the fossilized skeleton only lacked neck bones and the tip of the tail.
Young dinosaur skeletons are hard to find in good condition because they often are destroyed by weather decay or because they were torn apart by predators.
The latest find would be a major step toward discovering the growth and development of dinosaurs, Yokoyama said.
Young 'un: A team of Japanese and Mongolian researchers discovered the nearly perfectly-preserved fossil of a young dinosaur in the Gobi Desert
The fossil, believed to have died at age five, measured about 6.6 feet long, he said. Adult dinosaurs of the species are believed to have grown up to 40 feet.
The dinosaur, whose gender was unknown, came from a geological layer created about 70 million years ago in the late Cretaceous period.
The Japanese scientists and colleagues from the centre of Paleontology under the Mongolian Academy of Sciences have been jointly conducting dinosaur excavations in the Gobi Desert since 1993.
The Japanese museum is run by Hayashibara Co., a biotechnology firm based in Okayama, western Japan.
A Dodgy Belief - Hedonism !!!
Elroy: "In order to support your claim you must first a) prove Genesis is correct and directly from God, b) prove there is such a thing as sin against God, and c) prove that Genesis is referring to physical death."
Really? Why? I can do so, but is that really germane to the discussion?
We (Hugh and I) were discussing whether Hugh could prove his assertion that "The notion that death entered the world through sin is rubbish".
Why do you bring up the entire Book of Genesis? The passage Hugh implicitly was referring to is in Romans. Chapter 5, verse 12 to be exact: "Therefore, just as through one man sin entered into the world, and death through sin, and so death spread to all men, because all sinned".
Elroy: "Faced with such a problem, Hugh's skepticism is warranted and legitimate."
You've been pretty backwards today. It's my skepticism that has caused the problem. For Hugh to say that "the notion that death entered the world through sin is rubbish", he necessarily must know something about how sin entered the world. My skepticism of Hugh's assertion is fully warranted and legitimate.
Elroy: "And Hugh gave his opinion."
Correct. And I asked him to support it. And he couldn't.
Neither could anyone else. Drew started talking about rust.
Elroy: "Why must he offer proof for his response, but you don't have to offer proof for your claim?"
What claim? What are you talking about?
No need to go on, you have reduced Hugh's point to the level of a mere opinion. And a totally unsupported one at that.
Elroy: "In reading the verses you listed, the only thing I can see different from what I wrote was the, 'unless you believed in vain' part."
Reread your Tue. 07/22/08 11:52 PM post. It's not there.
Elroy: "What does that mean to you? Are you saying the man in my question believed in vain and that's why his seeking after the heart of God failed? If so, based on my story, what did it mean that he believed in vain? How would that be manifested?"
No, I was just making a simple point. Our main need is to obtain forgiveness of our sins. We obtain forgiveness, and eternal life, through the Gospel. I did not see that in the illustration you provided.
Elroy: "'Elroy, do you believe the Gospel?' I did. 'Do you agree with this passage in its entirety?' Not anymore. 'Are you a Christian?' I gave it up for Lent.'"
Spoken like an apostate. Twice dead.
Elroy: "So you are saying . . ."
It's rare, if ever, that you properly represent what I have written. But let's hear you out.
Elroy: ". . . if a man prays in all sincerity that God will save him from his sins, prays to accept Jesus into his heart as Lord and Savoir, asks for forgiveness and dedicates his life to Bible study and evangelism, that perhaps he did something wrong and thus God won't save him?"
No. But all that you have described thus far is the mere profession of faith in Christ. The proof of a genuine confession is obedience to Christ. E.g., John 13:17 ("If you know these things, you are blessed if you do them."); John 14:21 ("He who has My commandments and keeps them is the one who loves Me; and he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and will disclose Myself to him."); John 15:10 ("If you keep My commandments, you will abide in My love; just as I have kept My Father's commandments and abide in His love."); John 15:14 ("You are My friends if you do what I command you.").
Contrary to what so many say today (and as Hootie indicated a couple of days ago), His commandments are not too difficult or impossible for us to keep. This is made clear in both the Old and New Covenant. Deut 30:11 ("For this commandment which I command you today is not too difficult for you, nor is it out of reach."); 1 John 5:3 ("For this is the love of God, that we keep His commandments; and His commandments are not burdensome.").
Elroy: "Or maybe you're saying he was saved, but when I asked God to walk with him, to help him stay free of sinful thoughts, to linger close to his heart and commune with him, that perhaps God declined?"
I do not know whether he was saved. Again, as I said in my earlier post, I can't give a specific answer. Only God knows an individual's heart. What we should ask, particularly of ourselves, is whether our lif is marked by obedience to Christ?
Elroy: "'Explaining how death entered the world is hardly trivial. Again, it's Hugh's topic, not mine.' Actually it's yours. Hugh was responding to your theology."
Hugh voluntarily raised the point. It did not fit our discussion.
Elroy: "You made a claim. Hugh made a counterclaim."
Hey, I like that language! In law, a counterclaim, in terms of adjudication, is treated exactly like a claim.
But, exactly what was my "claim"?
Elroy: "Then you stood on the sideline and lambasted him to prove his counterclaim while you did nothing to prove yours. Sure looks like wading in the kiddie pool to me."
Again, what claim?
Elroy: "That said, here is my quick understanding of death in the natural world"
What is your proof for this?
Elroy: "The Second Law of Thermodynamics states, in brief, that everything breaks down."
But then you go on to say that everything is not breaking down. The first life was "revolutionarily" in consisting of a "chemical process" that slowed "down of the break down process by replenishing itself with additional sources of energy and removing anything harmful to the cell."
Oh, then you do not agree with The Second Law of Thermodynamics? But as I read on, you do.
Elroy: "The blueprint for this process is encoded in the molecules needed to do the replenishing of the cell, and as long as the blueprint remains intact, the replacement process could go on as long as the cell had a source of energy. But the blueprint molecules, themselves, are also subject to the Second Law of Thermodynamics and eventually begins to break. Each breakdown of the molecule produces a less perfect replacement cell. Eventually there are enough breakdowns in the blueprint molecules that a functional replacement cell cannot be made. That is death."
So the very first life has "blueprint molecules". What are those? DNA, RNA or magical stuff?
Elroy: "Some breakdowns result in cancerous cells that try to get their energy from other cells, which also ends up destroying life."
Elroy: ". . . helpful mutant cells . . . ."
Sorry to delete so much, but all of us have heard this dogma since grade school. That's not the view of those I find more precise in their thinking and analysis:
"The genetic code is not an outcome of raw chemistry, but of elaborate decoding machinery in the ribosome. Remarkably, this decoding machinery is itself encoded in the DNA, and the noted philosopher of science Sir Karl Popper pointed out:
"'Thus the code can not be translated except by using certain products of its translation. This constitutes a baffling circle; a really vicious circle, it seems, for any attempt to form a model or theory of the genesis of the genetic code.'
"So, such a system must be fully in place before it could work at all, a property called irreducible complexity. This means that it is impossible to be built by natural selection working on small changes."
Elroy: ". . . my views on abortion are well-supported and discussed. And so far no one has been able to counter them with anything other than Bible verses."
What are you talking about? I provided you with legal materials, consisting of Congressional findings in the Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003, and United States Supreme Court decision in Gonzalez v. Carhart (US 2007), establishing that your abortion view amounted to infanticide and, quite properly, subjecting those that practiced your views (if any do) to criminal prosecution. (Let me refresh your memory. That was when you were picking phrases out of the Supreme Court's decision, in a futile effort to support your position.)
I quoted not a single Bible verse on this subject. Who needed to when discussing the barbaric and inhuman partial birth ("live birth") abortion procedure?
It was irritating to see you raise the same points in the News Forum when Congressional findings and United States Supreme Court decision squarely rejected your position.
Your abortion views are "well-supported" and unable to be countered? Please.
Rediculous stuff for ocd'ers
SG: Science doesn't fail to explain it RW. Science tells us that "supermassive black holes" are caused by Zeus pushing down on the toilet handle. Now prove I'm wrong.
The REAL S.G. Applebee, Saline, Mi
Do I get a lolipop if I do? ( zeus = imaginary - there i proved it Now give me my lolipop!
God doesn't have any ROOM in HIS universe for imagimary characters like this zeus fella ur talkin bout
As for your obsession with your need to know dearborn's imaginary islamic future, or was it a lame attempt at shooting a hole in my main point that the country was founded on christian princlples for good reasons, i forget, maybe your ocd could refresh my memory.
That ocd just won't let you forget the meaningless stuff that my brain cells just simply don't have time for, way too many 'other' things for me to obsess over.
mirabelle, I think you've lost it!
And then there's Lynn. I like Lynn, but she couldn't choose a side if her life depended upon it. Anyone who would quote Lord Dunsany's "Logic, like whiskey, loses its beneficial effect when taken in too large quantities", has no idea what logic is all about. Logic can NEVER be "taken in too large quantities". Of course it can be mis-used, but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water, do you?
The REAL S.G. Applebee, Saline, Mi
Quite the contrary actually...I've taken a side but you just don't agree with it! Trust me, I know what logic is about and just because I refuse to "prove" my faith, doesn't mean I'm an idiot.
I does mean I refuse to be drawn into an endless, useless debate with someone whose ego is the size of Texas and who thinks he is smarter than everyone else, especially people of faith....
RW11th pops in again
Whatever works for them is fine with me. I would prefer we fastforward to Ezekiel 38 & 39 ( I will look on curiously at the atheist, to see if they are cognizant of it or if they fall into extreme deep denial) Will it resemble an aluminium baseball bat smacking someone upside the head !?!
Drew1
If you read the letter I wrote Wed. 10:06, I explained a little bit on how God shows his love.
You say I can't use the Bible. What do you suggest I use? Since you live in Utopia, maybe you could send me a couple of Superman comic books you got laying around.
Johnny G. says
"oxymoron of the day
enlightened atheist/agnostic
Oh sure there are untold numbers of intellegent well educated and sophisticated people with ideas, tastes, manners, etc....But from the biblical perspective"
You and Deacon whine about believers being attacked here yet you spew hateful monkey feces like the above. Einstein was an Atheist. Albert Michelson was an Agnostic. My Grandfather, a brilliant SOB who worked with both, was an Atheist. His good work helped employ millions in the future.
You are nothing short of offensive. Tell the lucky kitty cat I said hi.
For those of you who suffer mock outrage at Drew, settle down. Maybe your faith isn't strong enough to scroll past his remarks. I think he has some of you folks talking to yourself.
Deacon, rather than hold your own with Elroy, I see you resorting to cheap shots as to whether he is received well in the News Forum which is totally irrelevant but seems to be your MO. Don't know where you have been, but many receive him well there. Except the knuckle dragging dittoheads. He has them mumbling too.
Ah yes, Sylvia Brown
Wasn't she the one who RAN LIKE A LITTLE GIRL away from James Randi?
RW11th
RW: "My faith tells me God knows all about what's at the center of a supermassive black hole, but what does science tell us about it?
Maybe Drew could explain how science fails to explain what is happening inside a supermassive black hole".
SG: Science doesn't fail to explain it RW. Science tells us that "supermassive black holes" are caused by Zeus pushing down on the toilet handle. Now prove I'm wrong.
RW11th pops in again
You must have forgot this from about three weeks ago RW: So you would have no problem with a city like Dearborn making Islam it's official religion?
mirabelle, I think you've lost it!
I don't even know how to respond to your post to Drew, mirabelle. Except to say: I think you've lost it! Let me just hit upon one point of yours for now.
You said: "the most logical and reasonable among all of us on the forum HAS to be Lynn and Nightengale".
To begin with, I'm starting to think your a sexist. It seems like every time you fall back on an opinion--it's a womans!
Beside that, lets see how "logical" and "reasonable" Lynn and Nightingale truly are. You seem to be impressed by the fact that they "'know' what they 'believe' and they don't have to prove a darn thing!"--And that's REASONABLE to you? Giving an opinion, and then NOT proving it to be true is REASONABLE to you? You seem to have become an out and out SUBJECTIVIST!
But lets look even deeper. You say Nightingale has to be one of the "most logical and reasonable" but look at her last post! HOW DARE SHE quote ANYTHING from that "scientifically" biased website talkorigins.org? How dare she think their information is any more valid than answersingenisis.org? It's all the same, right? Just opinion? Nobody KNOWS anything.
And beside that, isn't she a witch? Of course she won't say what kind of a witch she is, but she's still a witch, right?
And then there's Lynn. I like Lynn, but she couldn't choose a side if her life depended upon it. Anyone who would quote Lord Dunsany's "Logic, like whiskey, loses its beneficial effect when taken in too large quantities", has no idea what logic is all about. Logic can NEVER be "taken in too large quantities". Of course it can be mis-used, but you don't throw the baby out with the bath water, do you?
'Footsie' post
Nice post mirabelle.
It brings this thought to my mind, My faith tells me God knows all about what's at the center of a supermassive black hole, but what does science tell us about it?
Maybe Drew could explain how science fails to explain what is happening inside a supermassive black hole.
Footsie with Mr. Buckley....
My, my, Drew! Ain't we superior? Are we pulling Robert's Rules of Order out now? I didn't know we were engaged in FORMAL debate! Should I wear a suit and tie?=-)
You used the word "pretty" as an escape. Let's just face it, you REALLY want to eliminate that word, and you darn well know it. It's all there in black and white in your analogy when you say "...the fact that there are proven, universally accepted rules for doing it right." Then you belittle my 'passion' and my 'emotion'. Why? Well, to prove the superiority of your rationalist religion! You think I'm too gosh darn stupid to see that?!
My God, man, have you NEVER read Thomas S. Kuhn?!!!
What's 'right' today is often 'wrong' tomorrow. So much for the infallibility of science.
I certainly did address your point...the mere fact that there are universal 'rules'...things like gravity, mass, energy and the like, does NOT instantly translate into a person being able to comprehend or even understand them, even if they affect the body. If you bother to examine the progression of the great God science, you'll see that quite often our understandings change and things unseen are suddenly viewed "discovered" (dark matter). It's not quite the infallible constant you seem to feel it is, since there are so many things we are discovering that revolutionize our viewpoint. You can't 'know' about a thing unless you have a perception of it. Even science is subjective when you view the descriptions of scientists over the past few centuries. Look at how Leibniz describes the universe's structure. Who else saw 'monads'?
Tell me Drew, where is the 'right' in science? Where is the logic of 'right'? Was Einstein 100% right?
You were accurate in describing Deacon's dilemma in applying the Bible as a universal, but you NEGATE your own fallible science when you fail to accept how flawed it is, as demonstrated by Kuhn's book.
Then you say this: " That's why science, in its purest form, is not dependent on emotion or subjective opinion."
And that's PRECISELY what our friend Deacon says about God. Do you now see how you've raised 'science' to the level of the Godhead? What really pisses me off, Drew, is your smugness about your position. Truth be told, Drew, the most logical and reasonable among all of us on the forum HAS to be Lynn and Nightengale. You never see them engage in argumentation, because they 'know' what they 'believe' and they don't have to prove a darn thing! What does that say when theists are more logical and reasonable than any atheist on this board?
Let me ask you this: "Is God testable by science?, Is God a valid question for science to answer?"
If not, why the hell are you here? Have a martini and get back to me.=-}
