Rick

Well, I don't understand his line of reasoning at all. Sons of God mingled with daughters of men. I don't know why he thinks the sons of God is from one human line and daughters of men are from another earthly line in particular. I get the impression that you don't know what idea I am trying to put forth here. Please, try this again and get rid of any ideas that you THINK I am trying to put forth and start all over again. First off, we aren't speaking of the definition of 'son' or sons'. We are trying to figure out what 'sons of God' and "son of God" mean, in the OT. Now, since there are only a few references to these exact words, we should be able to figure this out. We can look at each and every reference and decipher what they mean. They seem to mean different things - three different things. There might be 3 definitions then. Here they are: Definition 1) Adam (obviously human, but had no earthly father.) Definition 2) Those who approach God alongside satan 3) those who seem to be rejoicing in the heavenlies with God. The 'seems to' I was referring to is this. It 'seems' that since there are three different scenarios given to 'sons of God' or 'son of God' in the OT, as stated above. So, let's look at what all three have in COMMON. They were all created by God, and none had an earthly father. Therefore, 'sons of God' or 'son of God' is probably a definition encompassing anyone and anything created by God, having no earthly father. Especially since Adam is referred to this way, and that he is the ONLY human given this title, it SEEMS that, the meaning of sons of God means that God directly created them and that they had no earthly father. Understand? Whats so hard to understand about offering another point of view? And yes I do understand what you are trying to convey. As for sons of God encompassing anyone created by God, that is not so. Unless once again you choose to disregard that God has never called an angel his son. Angels are created beings. But they are not sons. The problem seems to be that Heb. 1:5 is going to be totally disregarded in this respect. If God's word is going to be used to search out who the sons of God are, then dont disregard what it says concerning the subject at hand. It being disregarded as a source of clarifying who these are, is what I do not understand. Rick

Isn't that what John Wesley did, which you are trying to do? We're all doing that. I AM aware that that there seems to be other possible meanings for 'sons of God", other than the line of Seth or whomever it was. Again, there seem to be FOUR Three in the OT 1) Adam (the only human 2) those who speak to god accompanying satan 2) those who had sex with the daughters of men 3) those who seem to be rejoicing in the heavenlies. And One in the NT 1) those who are born again But in the case of the OT, it seems that 'sons of God' simply means no earthly origin or no EARTHLY father. In the NT, it's those who now have a HEAVENLY father. In the NT it's clearly a spiritual thing having to do with a spiritual REbirth.

Artsylady, My purpose in responding to this thread is to show that there is another line of reasoning concerning the " sons of God" mentioned in Genesis. It is easy to attribute a meaning to a word and give it credibility outside of the context for which it was intended. That may or may not be the case here, but either way, it's important to not affix a meaning to something that may not be in the correct context, and have others come to see it as being the only possible conclusion. I realize there is a deception underway concerning aliens and the demonic forces behind them. But I also understand that by affixing a line of reasoning based on a Biblical passage that supports the possibility of aliens, that it would tend to lend credence to the deception. How many Bible believing individuals are going to succumb to this alien indoctrination because they believe the Bible supports it? I personally believe that the alien phenomenon can be attributed to demonic forces. There have been links that have shown a correlation between these encounters and occultic involvement. It troubles me to see a meaning applied to a scriptural passage that tends to lead it to a conclusion. For example the word "sons" has other meanings that can be applied to it. Some of the meanings that are used are children of, descendant of, etc. There are some meanings that can be drawn from to infer angels. This would allow for a wide variety of conclusions. Not just a particular one. There are also many sources that tend to see a different meaning than angels applied to the " sons of God" as used in the Gen. 6:2 passage. The 1599 Geneva Study Bible Chapter 6 6:2 That the a sons of God saw the daughters b of men that they [were] c fair; and they took them wives of all which they chose. (a) The children of the godly who began to degenerate. (b) Those that had wicked parents, as if from Cain. © Having more respect for their beauty and worldly considerations than for their manners and godliness. Commentary Critical and Explanatory on the Whole Bible 2. the sons of God saw the daughters of men--By the former is meant the family of Seth, who were professedly religious; by the latter, the descendants of apostate Cain. Mixed marriages between parties of opposite principles and practice were necessarily sources of extensive corruption. The women, religious themselves, would as wives and mothers exert an influence fatal to the existence of religion in their household, and consequently the people of that later age sank to the lowest depravity. According to John Wesley's Explanatory notes on the whole Bible. Gen. 6:2 The sons of God - Those who were called by the name of the Lord, and called upon that name, married the daughters of men - Those that were profane, and strangers to God. The posterity of Seth did not keep to themselves as they ought, but intermingled with the race of Cain: they took them wives of all that they chose - They chose only by the eye: They saw that they were fair - Which was all they looked at. I hope you can see that there is a danger involved in attributing a meaning to a passage in order to validate a belief. Its important to be aware that there are other possible meanings as well. As for ReflectionsofHim, I am in no way attempting to discredit her beliefs or what she feels is her calling. I am only providing a parallel point of view concerning a scriptural passage and its meaning. Which does exist. Under His Blood, Rick

Clearly mentioned in the Bible? You betcha. Ref is RIGHT ON! What people today think of as aliens, are really fallen angels. Demon

Mr. Gladiator, I think they were clearly mentioned in the Bible. Ref had this RIGHT ON!!! Me thinks ye should read more in Genisis and Ezekiel for starters, then get back to us, OK? Ref knows what she

The Ephesians were making silver idols of Diana which they worshipped and profited from. Many of the idols depict her with beauty. They believed that her " image" was sent down to them ( fell) from Jupiter, the highest god in their pagan belief system, who was also considered Diana's father. Rick

Tsth, They were involved in Diana worship. Diana was considered to be the daughter of Jupiter. Not the planet, but the one considered to be the highest god. The object of worship that they mention as coming down from Jupiter is Diana. Hope this helps, Rick

Annabelle, Although god is mentioned in freemasonry, it is not the same God we as christians know. The god of freemasonry is a multi faceted god who can be allah to the muslim, jehovah to the christian or any of the other gods that exists in the various religions. Their " great architect of the universe" is a god that is universal in nature in order to accomodate all religions. You mentioned the compass and the square being mentioned in the Bible. I think its interesting that they are tools used by builders. In the case of masonry, stone masons. They symbolize certain aspects of their craft. A verse to consider: " Mk:12:10: And have ye not read this scripture; The stone which the builders rejected is become the head of the corner:" A foundation that does not have Jesus christ as the chief cornerstone will not stand. I commend you for your desire to know the truth, and to recognize it when you see it. Rick

Cooks, As a fellow parent, Let me commend you on your love for your daughter. It's apparent that you care about your daughter very much. Although I am not an expert in this matter, I would like to offer some suggestions that may help with your situation. For whatever reason, your daughter has been led to believe that same sex relationships are acceptable. Getting to the basis of her beliefs and what formed them is important. It's possible that she has been exposed to an alternative lifestyle from someone that she associates with and respects through a friendship. She may not understand the reasoning behind this persons desires, but accepts them based on their friendship. It can be that your daughter is seeking acceptance or has had an emotional need met by an individual who was also influenced by either life experiences or just curiosity. Teens feel immense pressure to be accepted. As a parent we attempt to meet their needs as best we can. But even in that we can not always know every aspect of their exposure or to what extent it has shaped their belief system. That's why it is extremely important that we talk openly with them and allow them the freedom to express their beliefs, right or wrong, and deal with them in a constructive manner. Many teens fear rejection or shame for the secrets they have allowed themselves to keep. When they are allowed to safely express their views without criticism or fear of rejection, they are more apt to open up and reveal more about what has forged their belief towards a particular position. It's important for them to have someone with whom they can confide in and trust that they will not be rejected or brought to shame by what they believe. Only then can these issues be dealt with and the error shown to them and the truth about it received. Although your daughters circumstances may be different, I am aware of an individual who also dealt with some of the same issues that your daughter is facing. She too came from a christian home. Although there are varying reasons that would lead someone to have a curiosity about alternative lifestyles, this individual in particular had experienced sexual abuse in her life from a young age. It was a secret that she had held to for a very long time. After establishing trust, and defining safe boundaries that she was comfortable with, she began to open up and reveal what had brought her to the basis of her beliefs. She confided that she had a fear of men because of what had happened to her. It was a fear that tormented her immensely, and had caused her to seek out friendships with other females because she viewed them as being safer. She lacked a basic trust in anyone and even had a very difficult time in trusting God. In her need to have friendship, she was approached by someone with whom she could feel safe and with whom she did not feel was a physical threat to her. This individual too had experienced abuse early in her life and attempted to lead her into an alternative lifestyle. One which she had already embraced. Once the basis for her beliefs was known, it became clear as to how to approach this particular situation. She came to understand the reasons for her beliefs and why she chose to accept them. She ultimately came to see the psychology of her beliefs and why she was so ready to set aside what she knew to be right and accept them. In this case it was safer for her trust another female and have a relationship with them, than to relive a traumatic experience over and over with each male she encountered. My reason for sharing this is not to insinuate that your daughter has been sexually abused. But to show you that many times the reasons for this type of behaviour can be complex. We can easily say that it is wrong, that it is a sin etc., but not realize that something far more complex than we understand may be at the source of the belief. With this said, I would suggest that you seek out a qualified christian counselor who can be safe for her to trust, and allow them the freedom to get to the root of whatever may be affecting your daughters beliefs, and who can safely lead her to understand the implications of such a belief on her life. With proper guidance she can be shown the forces that are at work in her life to lead her into error, and can be set free from the bondage that is seeking to enslave her. Lifting up your family in prayer! Rick

Nice post Marilyn777! I wonder if the alien phenomenon would cease for those that were in the occult at one time, if they closed the spiritual doors they opened through involvement?. Rick

Good info Arkon! Thanks for sharing!

Nebula, I have followed many of the posts that you have written concerning evolutionary science. I have read the comments you have made as well the responses you have given to others. It's evident that you have a tremendous love for science and hold it in extremely high regard. So much so, that you have possibly allowed it to be incorporated into your personal belief system. I pose a question, Does the word of God have to be verified or understood by science in order for it to be true and accurate in its written form? If all scriptures are given by inspiration of the Holy Spirit, then is it in error? What does faith say? What does the world say? I certainly dont think so. And I dont think you would believe that it needs the approval of man in order to have validity nor accuracy as well. If we as christians live by faith, we should embrace it, and not struggle against it. Or teach others to do so. Our faith is to be in God's word without the need for the approval of science or verification of a theory based on science. It is very easy to become a respecter of persons and place a higher value on their opinions when we view their words as having more validity or are more socially acceptable. But as a christian I personally place the word of God above any man's teaching when it comes to creation. He was there. He spoke the word and it was!. As to whether it was sudden or over a period of time. We can only know in the context of the time frames given. God chose to use the day as a measurement of that time frame. If we as traditional creationist choose to believe that God did exactly as He said He did. And we are wrong, then God is wrong in giving us a day as a unit of measure. And we know that isnt so. But if we choose to read more into God's word based on discovery or scientific data, we can easily add to it or take away from it. If we look foolish for adhering to God's word in the eyes of a secular world, so be it. We would much rather stand in the truth of God's word than in the admiration of man. Faith in God does not require that anyone understand the creationist account, But it does require that we believe God. Nor does it mean that we have to appeal to them intellectually in order for them to have faith in Him. The carnal mind is at enmity with God and cannot know Him. If any man comes to God, it will be on God's terms, not mans. Man has aspired to reach God with towers and a host of other devices throughout his existence. Nor will he reach God with intellect or with the approval of man. He will only reach God by coming to Him in faith. Faith does not require peer review, or proofs. It requires acceptance. It believes God!. and seeks His approval and not mans. It does not hold science up to God's word and require that we understand how God created, But that He did. God has already revealed to us that not everyone will come to Him by faith. Will science be one of the reasons for this? Will it be because some men will require proofs and need documentation or their theories validated first? Will some refuse to have faith because it is seen as foolishness in the eyes of such as these? Sadly, I think many will place science and their pride above the word of God that brings faith. We are called to overcome the world, not gain its approval. Faith overcomes by accepting the word of God over anything that is in opposition to it. Rick P.S.. Ive looked for the subliminal messages in the previous posts. I cant seem to find them. Is there a " Drink more coke" or " I want popcorn" message embedded in them? lol

What has evolution done for me lately? Actually alot! It has opened my eyes to so much! Where I was once in a spiritual haze, I have come to see that it actually has a great benefit to it. At least on the forums. It's a terrific tool for causing dissension among professing believers. It's even brought to the surface that some christians hold a different view than the creational account in Genesis. Its revealed that God may not have said what He meant, and that we can use the great minds of the scientific community to discover what he actually did. And if that fails to provide a clear explanation of what God did, then we can always look at the poetical interpretation and say that the creation account is maybe just another way that God confused us about what He did in the beginning. And thats just with the professing christians. Then we have the atheists. They have access to a christian forum board and are allowed to provide information in support of another alternative to the written word of God. But its o.k. to do since it has been peer reviewed by other godless scientists who agree. But its all in the interest of science, so its for the betterment of society as a whole. Its not actually denying the existence of God, Just what He said. Making Him out to be a liar and less than Holy. But that too is o.k., Because they are in dialogue with christians, many such as those above will lead these God denying individuals to the truth. Their agreement with this ungodly doctrine of evolutionary science does not mean they are not christians or denying their God. It only means that they have chosen to not believe His written word concerning the account He gave until the scientific community confirms it with further discovery. A very intelligent decision to make if you want to stand in approval of the scientific comunity. But not a very wise one when you will stand in judgement before a Holy God. And lets talk about the benefits of allowing this exchange of ideologies to continue. 1.) It increases the amount of posts. 2.) It provides reading material that reveals the dialogue between an atheist and christians who depending on whom they tend to agree with, continue to do battle over who is right. Science or God's word. 3.) It reveals that christian forum boards are a great place to obtain an audience for the scientific bashing of the Word of God. These are just a few. Im sure others can think of more. But all in all, evolution has its benefits. Much can be learned from it. We just have to be willing to have an open mind and allow scientific theory to take the place of faith in God. So in conclusion, there is a place for evolutionary science. It is a valuable tool. It sure has opened my eyes. Rick

Nice post Arkon. Ive enjoyed reading your posts. Its an pleasure to see that you are willing to make a stand and not fall for the evolutionary lies and blasphemous statements that have been presented along with it. Evolutionists are bad enough, but its disgraceful that many professing christians deny His power in creation through unbelief. Opting instead to adhere to the religion of science instead.

" Rom:5:10: For if, when we were enemies, we were reconciled to God by the death of his Son, much more, being reconciled, we shall be saved by His life." We are saved by His Life. Not our own.

The Parable of the Tares " Mt:13:36: Then Jesus sent the multitude away, and went into the house: and his disciples came unto him, saying, Declare unto us the parable of the tares of the field." The " tare" mentioned in Matthew is thought to be a weed called the " darnell" ( Lolitum temulentum ). It's appearance to wheat is very similar. So much so, that often times it is mistaken for wheat. Even the most experienced farmers can sometimes be mistaken by the appearance of the " tare" when it is growing in the midst of the wheat. Only when it begins to bear it's fruit is it truly distinguishable. At this stage the fruit it bares is clearly different, and it can be properly seperated from the wheat, without accidently uprooting the wheat by mistake. Although the " tare" may resemble wheat, and grow in the midst of it, the similarities end there. Wheat is used to make breads, cereals, etc., and can be safely eaten. Bringing nourishment to the body. Whereas, the grains of the tare if eaten, can result in convulsions and even death. The spiritual implications of the tare can be seen in the following verse, where the enemy planted tares as a means of destroying his foe. " But while men slept, his enemy came and sowed tares among the wheat, and went his way. " Matt. 13:25. Jesus used the parable of the "tare" to relay to us the deceptive practices of the enemy, and to reveal the final seperation that will take place between the believer and the non-believer. " Mt:13:38: The field is the world; the good seed are the children of the kingdom; but the tares are the children of the wicked one;" "Mt:13:40: As therefore the tares are gathered and burned in the fire; so shall it be in the end of this world." The parable of the " tare" reveals alot about the death that sin brings. And the final judgement that faces those that have rejected Jesus Christ as their saviour. Jesus has declared Himself " The Bread of Life". Jesus gives nourishment and life to the body as well as to the soul. A far cry from the fate that awaits the "tares" of life. Let the parable of the "tare" serve as a warning and a reminder. Let it warn us that we have an enemy that seeks our destruction, and let it also remind us that the season of the harvest is coming. " Jn:4:35: Say not ye, There are yet four months, and then cometh harvest? behold, I say unto you, Lift up your eyes, and look on the fields; for they are white already to harvest." " Rv:22:20: He which testifieth these things saith, Surely I come quickly. Amen. Even so, come, Lord Jesus." Rick

Tolerance can lead to apathy and acceptance. It de-sensitizes to sin. Most people see no harm in being overly tolerant. Until it's to late. Rick

Hi all! I once had the same questions about Judas. I searched and found many of the same scriptures that have been posted here concerning him. There's a thread located here somewhere that addressed the same issue. In trying to understand Judas's fate, I too read where he was called the son of perdition. " Jn:17:12: While I was with them in the world, I kept them in thy name: those that thou gavest me I have kept, and none of them is lost, but the son of perdition; that the scripture might be fulfilled." I found that the title is again mentioned at a later time. Verse 10 in the following scriptures, reveals the condition of the son of perdition. " 3: Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition; 4: Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God. 5: Remember ye not, that, when I was yet with you, I told you these things? 6: And now ye know what withholdeth that he might be revealed in his time. 7: For the mystery of iniquity doth already work: only he who now letteth will let, until he be taken out of the way. 8: And then shall that Wicked be revealed, whom the Lord shall consume with the spirit of his mouth, and shall destroy with the brightness of his coming: 9: Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, 10: And with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved. 11: And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: 12: That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness." In addition, The names of the Apostles are given in Matt. 10:2. " 2: Now the names of the twelve apostles are these; The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3: Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Lebbaeus, whose surname was Thaddaeus; 4: Simon the Canaanite, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him ( 12 apostles). I think what provided me with the most insight into Juda's fate was in reading that Matthias replaced Judas as an apostle. If Judas were yet considered an apostle that would have increased the number of apostles from 12 to 13. Since the death of an apostle did not change their title. " 23: And they appointed two, Joseph called Barsabas, who was surnamed Justus, and Matthias. 24: And they prayed, and said, Thou, Lord, which knowest the hearts of all men, shew whether of these two thou hast chosen, 25: That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place. 26: And they gave forth their lots; and the lot fell upon Matthias; and he was numbered with the eleven apostles." ( Making Matthias the 12th apostle, replacing Judas.) We are told later the number of the Apostles again. Notice that the number of the apostles named in the foundations in the following verse is 12 and not 13. " Rv:21:14: And the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb." This number mentions only 12 apostles and not 13. This would indicate that Judas was not numbered among them. Since he had by transgression fell, or that Matthias was not numbered with the twelve. The latter would be in contradiction to him being selected to replace Judas as an apostle, after Judas fell, and being numbered with the pre-existing eleven apostles. " Lk:22:3: Then entered Satan into Judas surnamed Iscariot, being of the number of the twelve." " Acts:1:25: That he may take part of this ministry and apostleship, from which Judas by transgression fell, that he might go to his own place." The use of " his own place" refers to a place prepared specifically for him. It is possible that this place is the same place prepared for the devil and his angels. Hope this helps. Rick

Just having fun with the post Charlie. Being a Tennesseean, I would much rather it be moonshine than a toxin that was being used in some terroristic plot etc. I havent seen any other articles as yet concerning this. But I will be interested in learning more if anything further is released. Rick

Finding bottles of liquid in Tennessee, whose contents resemble fuel is nothing new. It's been going on for many years. One of the more popular comes packaged in a quart mason jar and is akin to rocket fuel. If they are Isreali's...They are probably just visiting some good ol' boys back in the mountains for a little help in interrogation techniques. Seems the properties in these home made concoctions are useful in causing the ones indulging in them to spill secrets. Rick

As parents, my wife and I pulled our daughter from the public school sytem due to the crime that was taking place in the schools. We had seen a definite change in her behaviour and increased stress from being in an environment that was plagued by drugs, fighting, and sexual promiscuity. We had struggled with whether it was the right thing to do. We can safely look back now with no regrets as to whether we did the right thing or not. It was definately the right choice. Our reasoning was not based on a call from any organization to take their advice. But was based solely on her particular circumstances. After seeing the call from the " Baptist Activist" to take your children from the public school system in order to ensure they recieve proper instruction and guidance, I am reminded of an article that I read concerning the Southern Baptist's Convention's internal investigation into freemasonry among it's members. http://www.namb.net/evangelism/iev/mason.asp The findings concluded that although their were occultic symbolism involved, and some of the requirements were contrary to christian doctrine, They left the final choice as to whether to participate in this organization to the members. A severe compromise of Biblical teachings. Placing individual preference over the teachings of God's word. But acceptable to the members who's feathers they were refusing to ruffle. Not surprising since some of the past presidents of this organization were members of this organization. You may ask what this has to do with the topic. But the point Im attempting to make is that an organization's call to act on their comments may not necessarily be what is right to do in every situation. They call others to do what they have refused to do themselves. Properly teach those of their own households. Instill in them a clear and concise difference between right and wrong, and to provide them with the uncompromised truth of God's Word. We can each blame our school systems for the immorality that has become such a part of our educational system, or we can take responsibility for our own lives and those of our children, and see to it that we as parents do what we can to provide a safe, God honoring education for our children. They are in the world, but do not have to be of the world. In each case let it be because we seek to do what is in the best interest of our children based on the merits of his / her particular circumstances, in the light of God's Word, and not on the call of an organization that has failed to provide it's own members with the safe, God Honoring environment, it has called others to obtain. Rick

Scientific Atheist, " And perhaps you're simply paranoid - which, given that you don't know me from Adam (if you don't mind the biblical reference), and yet you are convinced that I am sent to lead the flock astray - would be a theory that fits well with the evidence." This could possibly concern me if you were qualified to make a mental assessment, but since you are not, It means virtually nothing. Or has clinical psychology been added to the list of requirements for a physics degree? Another unfounded theory based on observational error and assumptions. Im beginning to understand your logic. Or lack thereof. " Now here I don't believe you Rick. If you genuinely cared about the readers of this forum and what they believe then you would have done the tiniest bit of homework on the post you copied and pasted from a creationist website. However you didn't. You just posted it up, in the hope that it was true. Unfortunately, it wasn't. It was provably and demonstrably false, and demonstrated the wholesale ignorance of the author (as I have shown in my response to it, which you duly, open mindedly, ignored). It also demonstrated that you hadn't read my original post on this thread, in that if you had read it, you'd have realised that point 4. in your copy and paste job was incorrect. It is sad to find a fellow whose mind is closed to the extent that he will not even read what his opponents say." If you will refer back to the post in question, you will hopefully notice that I said " Interesting information. Thought I would pass it along." strange that you take offense with what I find to be interesting information. Maybe you take offense with anything that disagree's with your lofty intellectual prowess. Or maybe it's because it deals with creation science with which you so blatantly are against. I apologize if I am not standing in amazement of your intellect as you possibly deem I should. As for whether its accurate or not, that would have to be an issue you would have to take up with the author. But that doesnt seem to be the way you operate. You instead choose to debate on a forum board with those that are not as learned in the sciences as you are. My personal observation is that you are nothing more than an intellectual bully attempting to feed your ego on these boards. The bullies always prey on the weaker. In this case it happens to be a scientific weakness. "More paranoia, yet, as I have made clear, this is not a theological argument. The earth may be 5000 or 5000 million years old - it has absolutely nothing whatever to do with whether or not God exists. This unfortunate mixing up of a scientific and theological argument probably accounts for your self-imposed ignorance regarding science." Again you overstep the boundaries of your educational limits and assume the role of a clinical psychologist, by assuming paranoia. Im not sure what degree in physics qualifies you for this, but you certainly seem to have a well rounded education. Maybe it qualified you for woodworking as well? As for what you deem a self-imposed ignorance regarding science, that is not the case at all. I just prefer to be selective as to what I accept as the truth. " More paranoia. Also, just to be correct, what I post up here is not "so-called science" - but actual science. It is testable, evidence, falsifiable and predictive and therefore meets alli the criteria of baconianism. It has also been subject to peer review and repetition, thereby meeting the highest levels of integrity in science." This is the 3rd time you have mentioned paranoia in this post. Again over stepping your scientific qualifications. You might want to consider changing your name to " Scientific Atheist / Clinical Psychologist". Im sure there is a level of integrity in the scientific community. But I do not think it exists only among atheistic scientists. It exists among creationist scientists as well. "I think we can dispense with the sarcasm now, and speak plainly Rick.' I think the sarcasm has been been mutual. " It does remain to be seen, very much so, in that you have refused point blank to answer the criticisms that I had of them!" I have refused to address them because I did not author them. As I posted earlier I provided them as something of interest to pass along. "No, I am merely confused that this so called reason, which really ammounts to your ignorance of science, should really have stopped you posting here in the first place, given that, in your ignorance, you had no way of knowing whether your creationist copy and paste was true. In actual fact, it was not, as I have shown. In fact, to go further, it was a hotch-potch of old and thoroughly debunked creationist invention, which as I showed in my response ignored basic observable physical fact, such as the saline cycle, and reversals in the earth's magnetic field. Cerran has shown in his/her response that it also ignored basic physical laws such as the second law of thermodynamics and entropy." You assume an ignorance of science based on the posting of something I found to be interesting and my refusal to debate their authenticity? That's a false assumption. Im sure many theories are formed much along the same lines. And with just as much error involved. I for one refuse to elevate science to the level of an absolute truth. " Again Rick, I would like to impress the fact upon you that you do not know me, and that since I have not informed you of the reasons why I no longer communicate with professional creationists, that you cannot assume them, or in this case make them up. But then, it would seem that in the confusion of your paranoia over what I represent, you have lost your better and higher instincts against inventing criticisms about people." This is the 4th mention of paranoia. Im beginning to question whether you are a physicist or a psychologist. Maybe you should clarify your qualifications to make such assumptions. As for assumptions being made, they have been mutually made. One has just as much credibility as the other. Either they are based on fact or they are not. Personally I feel that my assumptions fall somewhere between the difference of accuracy and precision. " From someone who criticises the principle of uniformitarianism, you use it with a liberty that no scientist would take. You assume that I am like other atheists or scientists that you have met. This assumption is of course prejudicial. It's materially the same as saying "all blacks are the same" or "all Christians are the same" or "all men are the same". There is no real basis for it, evidential or otherwise - it is merely fantasy." Your assuming that you are not. A fact you could not dispel unless you also had know the others I have spoken with. Seems to be alot of assumptions being made that are without merit. "I would not ever try to hide my religious beliefs - and indeed I have made them plain for all to see in my screen-name. If I were part of an atheist conspiracy to cast doubt in the minds of believers then this screen-name would hardly be a good starting point for deception. Anyhow, as I have made clear before, and I will do again, science and theology are essentially seperate areas of philosophy that deal with different things. My scientific beliefs are fundamentally seperate from my theological ones." The conspiracy to interject doubt far exceeds you as a man. Although science and theology are seperate philosophies, there is a common denominator being used here. And it is that you are using science to attempt to debunk creation science. Creation is theological. "It is her choice to make, but an odd choice indeed given that the only possible objection to such an argument is one of atheist dogma, and Cerran is a theist. Could it be that the real difference between you and I Rick is not that I am an atheist and you a Christian, but that I am educated, and you are in a state of self-imposed ignorance - and the reason that Cerran and I agree here is not because we are of the same religion or denomination, we clearly are not - but that we share a bond of education about fact and truth in this matter? In other words, does Cerran's dissent here not explode your argument that my disagreement with you is based on my atheism, rather than on real science? If it were, then Cerran would agree with you, not me, about the second law of thermodynamics - after all, the only reason to disagree is atheism, right?" Once again you bring your seemingly esteemed educational merits to the fore front to give yourself a lofty superior position and attitude. Again , I am not impressed. I find it amazing that you have lifted science to the position of a "god" in your life. In addition, the position of Cerran has little to do with whether your intent and purpose here is based on atheism or not. To agree on a scientific basis does little to give you credibility. " Yet surely it is you, with your insistance that this is a religious issue, that is trying to divide and conquer. By attempting to convince the inhabitants of this board that I am a nasty atheist coming here to rip apart their faith, and that my scientific beliefs are anti-Christian, it is you who are prejudicing the argument. I can only rely on the few brave and well educated souls on this board to speak out against the nonsense that creationist websites preach. Cerran, having been educated in thermodynamics and statistical mechanics, can vouch for the fact that evolution does not contradict the law of entropy. That's only a start. It's only a matter of time until you come across a theist who can vouch for radiometric dating. And it's only a matter of more time until you come across a theist, who, like me, has had the pleasure of viewing Lucy, as well as other human transitionals, at various museums around the globe. Slowly but surely your certainty that my science is based on atheism will be eroded - not by me, for you clearly won't listen to me or read what I have to say but by open-minded and thinking Christians who will inform you, one by one, of the falsehood of creationist claims about science." I think your relying more on your ability to swell their heads with your brand of science by impressing upon them that education and knowledge are superior. And makes them superior. Subtly seducing with intellect to draw them away from God, as expressed by your attempts to debunk creation science. It reminds me of the account in the garden of Eden, where there was a tree that was desired to make one wise. where satan enticed eve with the words " You will be like gods" if you eat thereof. As an atheist you have already placed yourself in the position of a self made god. As a scientist you are attempting to lure others away as well. Enticing them to eat of a fruit that brings separation from God. Rick

scientific atheist, " a) God didn't write this piece, it was co-authored by several human beings, it is therefore emphatically not "His" position on anything, This I can agree with. Im sure God is far from an atheist who seeks to impress upon His people that there are perceived misconceptions, based on so called science, in His creation. " I'm afraid I've given up writing to creationist websites, it's rather a waste of time." Thats a very interesting statement. It leaves me with additional questions about your reason for posting here. Even so, Im sure it's more difficult to impress your theories on those whose scientific knowledge exceeds your own. But at least you have the christian forum boards to post on, where your intellectual prowess is seemingly superior. " Also, notice that Cerran (a Christian right?) is also taking issue with your post. Unfortunately, he/she's gone rather off topic into thermodynamics, and he/she hasn't managed to convey the concept of entropy particularly well, and why the creationist second law argument is wrong. However, given that you clearly believe that I think the earth is old as a matter of faith, isn't it funny that someone of similar faith to yourself should be disagreeing also?" As to whether Cerran finds issue as a christian to the post I made is his/her choice to make. If Cerran chooses to find error in the creationist second law argument, he/she does not answer to me. As for your attempt to use a fellow believer as a proof of your position, I think the divide and conquer position will do little here to achieve your goal. "ps. if you're actually serious about arguing these points, and I take it from your last post you are not, but if you are, I'd be happy to tell you about entropy and the second law of thermodynamics on another thread." Im no more interested in arguing science with you, than you are with the creation scientists. Rick

Scientific Atheist, Im sure you are confident in your scientific knowledge, and trust highly in its exactness. I too am just as confident in God's ability to create just as He said He did. As for whether you accept as scientific fact the information that is presented here or even agree or disagree with it. That is your perogative. My postings were not to address you personally, but were for the benefit of all reading this thread. As for debating them, I have no reason to have to defend God. Nor His position. As for when He created, or what time frame He used, one theory is just as well as another. Neither can be proven or disproven based on scientific facts. From a scientific point of view I have a limited understanding in the sciences. But there are others who are more capable of addressing the sciences that are involved in creation than I. If it is debate you seek, why not address Dr. Walt Brown who according to his website on creation science will freely debate anyone, in written debate? I provided the link on a previous post. His scientific credentials far exceed mine and yours as well. Maybe his intellectual view of science will impress you into a clearer understanding that exceeds your own. If it is truth you seek as a scientist, then rise to the challenge. There is no challenge here. If its an atheistic viewpoint that you seek to prove, I'm not interested in what you have to say. I do know enough about science to know that many theories have passed through time. Some have failed miserably. Some are still intact. Other's will take a leap in technology to either prove or disprove. I choose to not hold to science and allow it to define myself, my world, or my life. You on the other hand hold to theories that were taught. I think it would be very interesting to know just how much of what you believe, because someone you esteemed as a scientist, told you it was the truth? You have placed much of your belief in science blindly, and with a faith that would equal any believers. Im sure you sound very impressive when you impart your learned scientific facts to those that esteem science as truth, and are impressed with your physics degree. But when I see you standing next to an Almighty God, The Creator, I see you as just another lost man in need of a saviour. Many have come before you , and many may well preceed you. But in the end of all things, God's word will still be true! " God forbid, yea, Let God be true, but every man a liar, as it is written, that thou mightest be justified in thy sayings, and mightest overcome when thou art judged." Rom. 3:4. Rick