Jump to content


Advanced Member
  • Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

176 Excellent


About thilipsis

  • Rank
    Advanced Member
  • Birthday 05/11/1963

Profile Information

  • Gender
  • Location
  • Interests
    Apologetics, Creationism and especially, Bible study

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. thilipsis

    Science Disproves Evolution

    First of all evolution is the change of alleles (traits) in populations over time, it's an obvious fact that it happens. What your calling evolution is a philosophy of natural history know as Darwinism, his famous tree of life diagram goes all the way back to a single common ancestor. At every node of the tree of life you have unexplained giant leaps in adaptive evolution, the human brain is a prime example. You brain is nearly 3 times bigger then the chimpanzee and nearly twice as dense. The only way this happens is literally thousands of changes in hundreds if not thousands of highly conserved brain related genes. Ok, so the Darwinian likes to retort, that was over a period of 5-7 million years, they accumulate slowly over time. So looking at the fossil record we have skulls from apes dated right around 2 million years ago and guess what, they are about 20% bigger then the modern chimpanzee. Lucy and the Taung Child are both just over 400cc, the average cranial capacity of the modern human is 1,300 and some change. Well that gives the Darwinian at least a million years until our mythical ancestors started their migration out of Africa, no problem right? Except Turkana Boy is the famous fossil found by Richard Leaky, the cranial capacity is nearly 1000 cc and Homo erectus follows very closely. The Homo erectus fossils are often so close to modern humans some creationists consider them to be human ancestors. What we now know from comparisons of human and chimpanzee DNA is that the brain related genes would have had to undergo an impossible, massive overhaul including 60 de novo (brand new) brain related genes. But wait, it gets better, Paranthropos is an obvious transitional that has a mohawk looking thing going down the middle of the skull, called the sagittal crest. A distinctive feature prominent in the gorilla skull. Representing a million years, from 3 mya to 2 mya it has been conclusively determined that this is definitely not one of our ancestors and they are the only fossils from that time period. Then for reasons that remain unexplained the Neanderthals appear in the fossil record, usually found in grave sites not just random fossil beds with a cranial capacity 20% larger then our own from Iraq to Spain. From years of reading the scientific literature and careful consideration I think I have the explanation. These fossils represent a migration pattern of humans and apes with no indication of a common ancestor. The early humans and primates start from modern Turkey and start spanning outward, the primates taking a more southern route, some going into Asia becoming the orangutans while the common ancestor for chimpanzees and gorillas moves into equatorial Africa, paranthropos being a transitional. The Neanderthals make their way across the Middle East, Turkey and Europe and since they buried their dead, in some places the conditions were right for them to be fossilized. This isn't really all that complicated when you finally get to the bottom of it, they are putting us on and I honestly believe they know it. If you've ever heard of the Piltdown hoax it is an obvious fraud. Someone finds a human skull in a mass grave site from the time of the Black Plague and puts an orangutan jawbone with it. After a while people are figuring out that jawbone doesn't belong with that skull so it becomes necessary to find another transitional. Louis Leaky was the son of missionaries in Africa and studied at Cambridge. Dart was the guy who found the Taung Child which was dismissed as a chimpanzee for decades, with the decline of the Piltdown fraud him and Dart came up with a much more believable contrivance. The Stone Age apeman, otherwise known as Homo habilis (handy man), but there was a problem called the Cerebral Rubicon, they had to be over 600cc to be considered human ancestors (hominids). Leaky writes a famous paper called, 'The Latest New from Oldovia Gorge', and uses every feature to argue around the cranial capacity and presto, the stone age ape man myth was born. We can kind of dismiss if not abandon probability arguments for the genetic comparisons, they are simply off the charts. I don't believe there is any way of calculating the probability because as we have seen for decades with abiogenesis the likelyhood is vanishingly small. It's all over the scientific literature from the RNA world hypothesis to the genomic comparisons of Chimpanzees and Humans, they simply have a presupposed common ancestry with no conceivable cause. Natural Selection is an effect without a cause and this is readily discernible from their venerated peer reviewed scientific literature. In all pagan mythology, creation does not go back to pagan gods, it goes back to the primordial elementals, earth, air, fire or water and the first cause was thought to be one of those four. Or there is only one alternative, God created Adam and Eve in his image which Genesis 1 emphasizes in absolute terms. The Stone Age apeman myth is so prominent now in secular academics that it's not even questioned, even in our seminaries and it's all based on a thinly veiled fraud designed to appeal to a naturalistic worldview. It's nothing new, pagans did it in the ancient world and secular clerics do it now in formal education. Grace and peace, Mark
  2. thilipsis

    Genesis ch 1&2

    The phrase, 'heaven and the earth', is a Hebrew expression meaning the universe. All we really get from this passage is that the cosmos and earth were created, 'in the beginning'. The perspective of creation week is from the surface of the earth, starting with the Spirit of God hovering over the deep (Gen. 1:2). In the chapter there are three words used for God's work in creation. The first is 'created' ('bara' H1254) a very precise term used only of God. Create ‘bara’ (H1254) - 'This verb has profound theological significance, since it has only God as it’s subject. Only God can create in the sense implied by bara. The verb expresses the idea of creation out of nothing...(Vines Expository Dictionary) It is used once to describe the creation of the universe (Gen 1:1), then again to describe the creation of life (Gen 1:21). Finally, in the closing verses, it is used three times for the creation of Adam and Eve (Gen. 1:27). The word translated, 'made' (asah 6213) , has a much broader range of meaning and is used to speak of the creation of the 'firmament' (Gen 1:7), the sun, moon and stars (Gen 1:16), procreation where offspring are made 'after his/their kind' (Gen 1:25) and as a general reference to creation in it's vast array (Gen 1:31). Made ‘asah’(H6213) "A primitive root; to do or make, in the broadest sense and widest application" (Gen 1:7, Gen 1:16, Gen 1:25, Gen 1:31, Isa. 41:20, 43:7, 45:7, 12, Amos 4:13). (Strong’s Dictionary). "The verb, which occurs over 2600 times in the Old Testament, is used as a synonym for “create” only about 60 times…only when asah is parallel to bara…can we be sure that it implies creation." (Vine 52). Then there is a third term when God 'set' (nathan H2414), the lights of the sun, moon and stars so that their light is regularly visible from the surface of the earth. In this way the narrative shifts from the very precise word for 'created' to the more general 'made', and then the much broader use of 'set'. Set (nathan H5414) A primitive root; to give, used with greatest latitude of application (Gen 1:17, Gen 9:13, Gen 18:8, Gen 30:40, Gen 41:41). Elsewhere translated ‘put’, ‘make’, ‘cause’, etc. The creation account has great significance for the rest of Scripture and how these terms are used in the original and their natural context is essential to really following the text as it was intended to be understood.
  3. Welcome to the forums, hope you enjoy your stay.
  4. Thanks Lou, hope your enjoying your time here. Some nice people post here.
  5. My Grandfather used to say, you can't outrun that radio. Wonder what he would have thought of a teletype. I guess there is only so much you can do. Such a senseless crime, I can understand wanting to bring them to account. I'll bet you do, it's always comforting to know guys like you are out there. For some reason I used to hate the cops, thought they were kind of arrogant. One day a friend of mine was riding around on his motorcycle and had this hand with a middle finger up, he was just messing around but a cop noticed it. He pulls him over and they are giving him the business, he says, it's not offensive it's how you take it. A Sargent comes out and says it's a free country and let us go. I remember thinking, these guys are alright. Guess you had to be there.
  6. If I were a criminal I would hate to have you coming after me. But seriously, thank you for your service and I wish you great success in your recovery. With your background and education I imagine you could be a great teacher, maybe an author.
  7. Welcome, hope you enjoy your stay.
  8. thilipsis

    The Holy Trinity?

    All I can tell you is what I have come to discern as the distinction of the Holy Spirit. It's something you have to develop over time, which is the best way I can describe it: Therefore, as the Holy Spirit says: “Today, if you will hear His voice, Do not harden your hearts as in the rebellion, In the day of trial in the wilderness, Where your fathers tested Me, tried Me, And saw My works forty years. Therefore I was angry with that generation, And said, ‘They always go astray in their heart, And they have not known My ways.’ So I swore in My wrath, ‘They shall not enter My rest. (Heb. 3: 7-11) My problem was the incarnation, God becoming man was too much for me. Over time I came to think about the voice of the Holy Spirit as something indicating personality and I can only express this as a personal conviction. I heard his voice so real in the Psalms, distinct and at the same time in harmony with the Father and Son. There is the personal pronoun 'he' which is often cited but for me it was more about something like a sound. The Father is more authoritative, the Son more conciliatory, both saying the same thing but in ways that were discernibly distinctive. The Holy Spirit I have long thought is more personable, I hear it clearly in the Psalms, not so much in the Law. I realize this is my perception in a lot of ways but it's important. You can take the verse a lot of ways I suppose but consider this: But to the Son He says: “Your throne, O God, is forever and ever; A scepter of righteousness is the scepter of Your kingdom. 9 You have loved righteousness and hated lawlessness; Therefore God, Your God, has anointed You With the oil of gladness more than Your companions. (Heb. 1:8-9) The Father says this of the Son, later the Spirit speaks. I don't have a road map here nor I pretend to have the proof text. But what I am seeing is a conversation between the members of the Trinity, sometimes with one another and sometimes concerning you. This is my take on this and I realize we all have things we work out over time. Sure, at the baptism of Christ the Father is speaking from heaven, Christ is on earth and the Holy Spirit descending like a dove. The Father isn't saying listen to him as you would me, or listen to me period, he is saying you must hear and head the words of my Son. Jesus was all the time saying he did the will of the Father and if he spoke from his authority it meant nothing. So how does that work if God incarnate isn't using the same authority as God speaking from heaven? In John 1:1 where it says the Word was with God and was God it actually means, literally, face to face. You see, for me it came down to the incarnation and the distinction between Father and Son was a very big deal. The Upper Room Discourse is an important point to consider. Look at the distinction Jesus makes between himself and the Holy Spirit. I didn't write it and I can't tell you what to make of it but it's very clear. Jesus is telling them, I am leaving and the Holy Spirit will come, but I will return. In addition he promised them the Holy Spirit would be with them forever, even though he would soon be leaving. It's simply not an easy doctrine to wrap your mind around. I can tell you what I think and how I came to believe the way I did but I think it will come down to you doing the work of learning the Scriptures. The Upper Room Discourse is a very key place to start. May God guide you in your understanding and I'm happy to discuss this at any length. Grace and peace, Mark
  9. thilipsis

    The Holy Trinity?

    At baptism the Holy Spirit descended in the bodily form of a dove, the Father spoke from heaven. The Holy Spirit was with them because the Holy Spirit was with him. At Pentecost the Holy Spirit took charge of the church and one day Christ will return. The Apostles were upset that Jesus was leaving but he was telling them the Holy Spirit will come, if I don't leave he wont, but he will and be with you forever. Then sometime later I will return. It makes sense if you can juggle some of the confusing overlap.
  10. thilipsis

    The Holy Trinity?

    That really doesn't fit the Upper Room Discourse, Jesus makes a clear distinction between himself, the Father and the Holy Spirit: Do you not believe that I am in the Father, and the Father in Me? The words that I speak to you I do not speak on My own authority; but the Father who dwells in Me does the works. (John 14:10) “If you love Me, keep My commandments. And I will pray the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may abide with you forever— the Spirit of truth, whom the world cannot receive, because it neither sees Him nor knows Him; but you know Him, for He dwells with you and will be in you. (John 14:15-17) There are a number of examples of this and it's very consistent. Some pretty general statements, let's see where you go with this. I assume the reference to 'God' is causing some confusion. Got to be honest here, I went through something a lot like this years ago. My thing wasn't the Holy Spirit or the Father but the Incarnation. I did all the cross referencing and for the life of me I couldn't see it for quite a while, actually a year or two. Eventually the opening verses of John's Gospel and Hebrews began to sink in but what broke through was Jesus' before the High Priest convinced me. The Trinity is one of the great paradoxical doctrines of the New Testament, the Old Testament puts so much emphasis on God being one and then with the New Testament revelation emerges with all the elements of three persons all being the one eternal God. I do a lot of debate, I can understand if you find it tiresome and tedious, you'll have to work this out over time. Just a word of advice, not interested in being confrontational here because believe me I can empathize. Find a text like the Upper Room Discourse and take some time to do a careful exposition, the cross referencing will come in time. Take as much as time as you need and let me know if there is anything I can do to help. I enjoy this kind of thing, sorting through expositions is one of my favorite pass times. That's a solid point, sound Biblical support. Every now and then a point like that just needs to be allowed to sink in. “Nevertheless I tell you the truth; It is expedient for you that I go away: for if I go not away, the Comforter will not come unto you; but if I depart, I will send him unto you. And when he is come, he will reprove the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment:” (John 16:7-8) Grace and peace, Mark
  11. Welcome to Worthy Christian Forums. Hope you enjoy your time on here.
  12. People forget the forces that forged the scientific revolution and the rise of democracy had their roots in the Protestant Reformation. I think in the wake of the American Revolution there was a religious lateral drift into a more emotive sensibility. Our seminaries have gone to seed and after generations upon generations we got wave after wave of philosophical atheism and naturalism put in theological terms. A Christian moral consensus would be a profound force in US politics except its working in reverse. That's not on elected officials it's been far too much compromise on doctrine and moral issues and that fiasco is on professing Christians selling out to the spirit of the age.
  13. Welcome to WCF discussion forums. Some nice folks here hope you enjoy your stay
  14. thilipsis

    The Day of the Lord

    The 'day of the Lord', appears to be final judgment day. It's also called the Great White Throne. The OT tends to speak of it as a day when God destroys his enemies in one final decisive battle so one wonders if this happens at the return of Christ.
  15. thilipsis

    Kerry says settlements endanger peace

    According to some uncustomarly detailed references from Wikipedia: "The international community has taken a critical view of both deportations and settlements as being contrary to international law. General Assembly resolutions have condemned the deportations since 1969, and have done so by overwhelming majorities in recent years. Likewise, they have consistently deplored the establishment of settlements, and have done so by overwhelming majorities throughout the period (since the end of 1976) of the rapid expansion in their numbers. The Security Council has also been critical of deportations and settlements; and other bodies have viewed them as an obstacle to peace, and illegal under international law." (Roberts, Adam. "Prolonged Military Occupation: The Israeli-Occupied Territories Since 1967". The American Journal of International Law. American Society of International Law.) "the establishment of the Israeli settlements in the Occupied Palestinian Territory has been considered illegal by the international community and by the majority of legal scholars." (“Legal Consequences of the Construction of a Wall in the Occupied Palestinian Territory': A Missed Opportunity for International Humanitarian Law?". (In Conforti, Benedetto; Bravo, Luigi. The Italian Yearbook of International Law. 14. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers. Pertile, Marco 2005) "The real controversy hovering over all the litigation on the security barrier concerns the fate of the Israeli settlements in the occupied territories. Since 1967, Israel has allowed and even encouraged its citizens to live in the new settlements established in the territories, motivated by religious and national sentiments attached to the history of the Jewish nation in the land of Israel. This policy has also been justified in terms of security interests, taking into consideration the dangerous geographic circumstances of Israel before 1967 (where Israeli areas on the Mediterranean coast were potentially threatened by Jordanian control of the West Bank ridge). The international community, for its part, has viewed this policy as patently illegal, based on the provisions of the Fourth Geneva Convention that prohibit moving populations to or from territories under occupation." (Barak-Erez, Daphne 2006. "Israel: The security barrier—between international law, constitutional law, and domestic judicial review". International Journal of Constitutional Law. Oxford University Press.) That's a short list with quotations, for more see the references for: International law and Israeli settlements, Wikipedia. Look, I don't agree with the legal reasoning or the international consensus but it's real. Grace and peace, Mark