thilipsis

Got some kind of triple post, no idea why. Anyway DNA never blends, you get two sets of complete chromosomes from your mother and father, from the two the molecular mechanisms make one. The only other way DNA can be introduced to your genome is a virus. A virus is a small strand of DNA that just keeps reproducing itself. HIV, colds and flu are viruses. Blood borne pathogens can be introduced through bodily fluids.

23 hours ago, delade3 said:

Romans 5:12-14

 

"Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:

13(For until the law sin was in the world: but sin is not imputed when there is no law.

14Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come."

 

I'm not quite sure what this means, but it sure is specific to say, "From Adam to Moses". 

Indeed, the formal name for the doctrine is 'original sin' and it is reflected in the theology of Orthodox, Catholic and Protestant teaching. It is almost unanimous among the Early Church Fathers and emphasized unambiguously, in the Apostolic witness, canonized in the testimony of Scripture. Yet Theistic Evolutionists are conspicuously silent on this key element of Christian theism. One of the only prerequisites for us to receive the promise of the gospel is to realize that we are, in fact, sinners and God is holy, righteous and good. The question becomes how and why, not some of us, but all of us are sinners. The New Testament witness answers that question, 'judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation' (Rom. 5:16).

Grace and peace,
Mark 

I went to a Catholic school for the second grade, the nun who taught the class was talking to us about how God speaks in the Church one morning. She was asking us what we thought and I said I thought God spoke through other people. She kept saying that God can speak other ways but I insisted, walking home that day I heard something I can only describe as a voice, the actual words escaped me but it was something like your mine, your meant for more then this. I was a little startled and remember turning around, nothing there of course. Years later I went through a time of adolescent depression and I became aware of sin in my life which is troubling me. One evening someone I had never met was sharing the Gospel with me, standard your are a sinner and Christ died for you sin. Someone in the thread said he liked to keep it simple, well the gospel does keep it simple.

Later that night I was getting ready for bed, thinking deeply about what he said. I prayed God if this is real you will have to take me as I am and make me what you want me to be. Now I had heard the sinners prayer, prayed it numerous times. This time it was like God reached down and grabbed me and said, again I can't express any exact words but it was like he said you got it. I wasn't expecting that but shook it off and went to bed. I felt drawn to a little green give away pocket New Testament, and started reading the Gospels. I got to the narrative of the cross and it was like I could see the scene, it was dark, touches lit, the soldiers and people standing in a semicircle around the cross. This time I was really shaken up, I tossed the Bible in a drawer and wouldn't touch it for some time. 

I was working late shortly after that in a shop, the workbench had a Bible laying there. I was getting ready to leave but started to thumb through it. I happened upon Job where God speaks from the whirlwind and again I could see it kind of in my  minds eye, this time it was a very peaceful feeling. I think what was happening is God started opening up the Scriptures to me in a way that I could take personally, from him to me.

I've never experienced anything like the Bible, most books you read, this one reads you. Religious conviction is a personal thing but over the years I have sought out things like apologetics, studied creationism and Bible study has been one of my core desires. From the night I received Christ I have never really been alone, it's hard to explain but I believe because I have been persuaded from experience and what I could investigate with regards to the existing evidence concerning Scripture.

Grace and peace,
Mark 

On Saturday, December 03, 2016 at 6:50 PM, Jayne said:

I just now read on a closed thread where a poster denied the sufficiency of Christ's atonement and the need for Mary's mediation for us by citing - out of context - Colossians 1:24.  "I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ."

I've been on message boards since 2002 and this is the most distressing thing that I've ever read another person say - I am grieved.  This isn't a contest to see who can recite Bible history, or copy and paste the most of other people's work,  or give a recitation on the canon of scripture.  This is about salvation - heaven and hell - for eternity.

Here is what Colossians 1 actually says.

Verses 21-23 give the sufficiency of what Christ did in his body for us.

"And you, who once were alienated and enemies in your mind by wicked works, yet now He has reconciled in the body of His flesh through death, to present you holy, and blameless, and above reproach in His sight; if indeed you continue in the faith, grounded and steadfast, and are not moved away from the hope of the gospel which you heard, which was preached to every creature under heaven, of which I, Paul, became a minister."

Take note:

• Jesus Christ "reconciled" us in his body through death.  "It is FINISHED" - that's what he said on the cross.  We are reconciled Paul says - through the death of Christ.  That's all.  No more is needed.  He is all sufficient.
• We are presented "holy, blameless, and above reproach" in His sight.  There is no more sacrifice - no more reconciliation - no more reparations  - no need for a different or new mediator. 

Then what is Paul talking about in verse 24 and on in to verse 25?  "I now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up in my flesh what is lacking in the afflictions of Christ, for the sake of the His body, which is the church, of which I became a minister according to the stewardship of God....."

• Is Paul saying that Jesus' death on the cross was NOT sufficient?  No, he just said it WAS.
• Is Paul saying that we need another mediator to "complete" the salvation of Jesus Christ? No.

Then what IS he saying?

He is talking about his own "sufferings" as a "minister to the church according to the calling of God".

He was writing, yet again, from prison.  And Paul suffered many, many things.  Prison on several occasions, being stoned and left for dead, being snake-bit, shipwrecked, and more.

He is not comparing his worldly sufferings to the suffering Jesus had on the cross.  He is saying that the sufferings for the "ministers" here on this earth "for the sake of the body of Jesus, which is the church" are part of the same things Jesus suffered for three  years in HIS ministry and he is adding to the sufferings that all who ministry to the "body" will suffer.

He is NOT associating his or any other person's sufferings to the REDEMPTIVE work of Christ on the cross.  There is no person who has lived, who is living, or who will live - man, woman, boy, or girl - who can add to the REDEMPTIVE work of Christ.

Paul is talking about sufferings of those in the true ministry - no any redemptive work.

There is nothing lacking in the redemptive work of Jesus Christ.  He, alone, completed it all.

I'll never forget walking into a Catholic church one Christmas eve, a nice service, a little play wn the writing of Silent Night. Then came prayer time and the guy leading the prayer says ' we come to you in the name of the blessed virgin', I was floored. Like anything else I checked into it and turns out this started about a thousand AD. Got a book on the subject I couldn't finish because the subject matter was too disturbing.

On 12/3/2016 at 10:04 PM, Enoch2021 said:

 

Did you ever figure out what the difference was between a Scientific Theory and a Colloquial 'theory' ??

Please CITE a Reference defining:

Empirical Theory...?

Unified Theory...?

I already did and you ignored it, that's on you. The only definition I need for an ad hominem is 'subject' your opponent, 'predicate' negative personal attacks. This exercise in illogical argumentation is devoid of substantive step wise logic. It's a fatally flawed line of reasoning that you seem determined to hold to regardless. That tells me all I need to know, it means you have nothing else. You don't really argue for Creationism, Theistic Evolution or even Darwinism, your focus is exclusively whoever posts something you want to make sport of. I think it's Poe's Law in action:

Poe's law is an Internet adage that states that, without a clear indicator of the author's intent, it is impossible to create a parody of extreme views so obviously exaggerated that it cannot be mistaken by some readers or viewers as a sincere expression of the parodied views. (Poe’s Law, Wikipedia)

Some people find it annoying but personally I think it reveals something about the poster when they resort to fallacious rhetoric to the exclusion of the actual substantive issues. Your actually conceding the point when resorting to this kind of illogical argumentation. Like I said, that's on you.

Grace and peace,
Mark

On 12/3/2016 at 5:56 PM, Hoddie said:

A question from the Catholics here on Worthy Christian.....

Can you tell/show us where you got your Canon of Scripture?

　

I'm talking about the Canonical books that are those books which have been acknowledged as belonging to the list of books considerd to be inspired and to contain a rule of faith and morals.

This question has been asked on numerous occasions in the past, and more recently in the now closed Lourdes thread. Many have claimed to have answered this question, but have failed to show any historical or Scriptural evidence to back it up. Back on the last page (pg.8) Hazard made an intersting comment coming from someone that adheres to the sola scriptura doctrine. as Follows.

On 12/3/2016 at 5:56 PM, Hoddie said:

Hazard: "The term "canon" is used to describe the books that are divinely inspired and therefore belong in the bible. The difficulity in determining the biblical canon is that the bible does not give us a list of the books that belong in the Bible."

You could never get a complete list of the canon of Scripture from the Scriptures while the books are being written. The Pentateuch would have been written before the children of Israel entered the promised land but they wouldn't have been called the canon, they were known as the Law. The various additions over the centuries to the Hebrew canon would have been to sole responsibility of the Levitical priesthood culminating after the return to Israel after the Babylonian captivity under the authority of Ezra who effectively closed the Old Testament canon. The New Testament canon was compiled over about ten years from 60 AD to 70 AD. The New Testament books were meticulously copied and circulated among the churches and are presently represented by some 30,000 extant manuscripts. As to the criteria, that's actually a little more complicated but still comprehensive:

One thing must be emphatically stated. The New Testament books did not become authoritative for the Church because they were formally included in a canonical list; on the contrary, the Church included them in her canon because she already regarded them as divinely inspired, recognizing their innate worth and generally apostolic authority, direct or indirect. The first ecclesiastical councils to classify the canonical books were both held in North Africa-at Hippo Regius in 393 and at Carthage in 397-but what these councils did was not to impose something new upon the Christian communities but to codify what was already the general practice of these communities (F. F. Bruce, The New Testament Documents: Are They Reliable?, Grand Rapids, Eerdmans, 1960, p. 27).

On 12/3/2016 at 5:56 PM, Hoddie said:

Now if the bible does not give a list if the books that belong in the bible as Hazard states, how do Sola Scripturists determine that the books that are in the bible truly belong there? From a Protestant/nondenominational perspective, and if its not in the bible, by who's or what authority determined it?

Do those of you that beleive the bible alone holds all truth, and is sufficient as a sole rule of faith agree with Hazard? If so, doesn't this contradict the premise of Sola Scriptura?

　

Peace

 

Solo Scriptura and the Canon of Scripture are actually two different issues, they do have considerable overlap. Solo Scriptura emerged during the Protestant Reformation in response to the dogma of the ecclesiastical authority of Rome. According to Martin Luther:

"Unless I am convinced by Scripture and plain reason - I do not accept the authority of the popes and councils, for they have contradicted each other - my conscience is captive to the Word of God. I cannot and I will not recant anything for to go against conscience is neither right nor safe. God help me. Amen." (Luther at the Imperial Diet of Worms 1521)

Specific tests of canon vary somewhat but there are some basic principles that were involved:

The Tests of Canonicity
Specific tests to consider canonicity may be recognized.

(1) Did the book indicate God was speaking through the writer and that it was considered authoritative? Compare the following references: (a) God was speaking through the human author—Ex. 20:1; Josh. 1:1; Isa. 2:1; (b) that the books were authoritative—Joshua 1:7-8; 23:6; 1 Kings 2:3; 2 Kings 14:6; 21:8; 23:25; Ezra 6:18; Nehemiah 13:1; Daniel 9:11; Malachi 4:4. Note also Joshua 6:26 compared with 1 Kings 16:34; Joshua 24:29-33 compared with Judges 2:8-9; 2 Chronicles 36:22-23 compared with Ezra 1:1-4; Daniel 9:2 compared with Jeremiah 25:11-12.

(2) Was the human author recognized as a spokesman of God, that is, was he a prophet or did he have the prophetic gift? Compare Deuteronomy 18:18; 31:24-26; 1 Samuel 10:25; Nehemiah 8:3.

(3) Was the book historically accurate? Did it reflect a record of actual facts?(The Bible: The Holy Canon of Scripture J. Hampton Keathley III, Th.M.)

While I'm well aware that there are several excellent answers to the question posed, I thought I would jump in and offer my two cents worth.

Grace and peace,
Mark

6 hours ago, eileenhat said:

I have a long laundry list of 'ideas' (oops facts) outside of the box regarding Genesis.

Not sure what you mean so let's take them one at a time.

Quote

Evolution, wrong (vision of Garden/research).

Evolution is a phenomenon in nature, the 'theory of evolution' is a philosophy of natural history. Two very different things.

Quote

Earth globe, wrong (research).

The ancient Hebrews were not into cosmology.  God creating the universe on the other hand is something they knew about from the only one who was there, God himself.

Quote

"Tree of Life", God's eternal lineage (vision of it).

There are actually two of them in heaven, which is for the healing on the nations, the Revelation tells us.

Quote

"apple" from Tree of Knowledge (vision of it).  A processed wheat product (can source that in the Torah).

Its only thought to be an apple because of a lithographic print in Milton's Paradice Lost. I never heard of a wheat tree, I always thought something like figs. In tropical environments the can bear fruit year round

6 hours ago, Bonky said:

This is to say, the Bible will be used to defend the claims in the Bible, correct?

I would agree that darwinian evolution is in conflict with Christian theology, but having said that we still somehow have people like Dr. Francis Collins.

I'm saying before you make up your mind what you believe or don't believe you should learn what it says. Internal evidence is what Its called, there's also external and bibliographical testing.

Now as far as Collins he has said he believes the New Testament including the miracles. I remember him and Richard Dawkins chatting like old friends about the seventeen dimensions of the multiverse. It just reminded me that Darwinism and String theory are highly convoluted attempts at metaphysics that border on mythology.

I go on biologos occasionally, what they call a figurative interpretation is nothing but allergorizing the text. All well and good but don't call it an interpretation without specific reference to the text and what is being compared. The problem is Genesis has no figurative language.

When did essential doctrine become an 'ism', creation is a core Judaeo Christian doctrine. We have no reason as Christians to shy away from the historical narrative that the doctrine is based on. There are a lot of ways to go with this but I can sum up the first point with three words, 'created', 'made' and 'set'. There is a progression of thought in the Biblical account, certain things were 'created', the idea being a new creation generally being understood to be from nothing (ex nihilo). Then there is 'made' which is something made from something else, that's kind of an oversimplification but still the general idea. Then there is set where God makes adjustments to certain aspects and elements. It's commonly believed among creationists that the sun was created on day 4 but a closer look at the words and phrases used indicates that God was simply adjusting the 'firmament' to make the lights in the sky visible on a regular basis from the surface of the earth. 

The Genesis Account of Creation:

Thought I would post up some of my notes from my studies of Genesis 1. One interesting point is that there are three different words used to describe God's activities during creation week. Just hoping someone might take an interest in a more detailed exposition of the text.

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.

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).

Then there is a third term when God 'set' (nathan H2414), the lights of the sun, moon and stars so that their light is reqularly 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'.

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.

Original Sin

Accepting human evolution from that of apes is not only a rejection of the Pauline doctrine of original sin, it's a myth of human ancestry. When the New Testament writers mention Adam they speak of him as the first man and the reason why all of us are under the curse of sin and death. Paul tells us that 'by one man sin entered the world' and 'by one man's offense death reigned'. (Rom 5:12-19). Paul ties Adam directly to the need for justification and grace in his exposition of the Gospel in his letter to the Romans. Luke lists Adam in his genealogy calling him 'son of God' indicating he had no human parents but rather was created (Luke 3:23-28). My concern is simply this, the myth of human lineage linked to ape ancestry contradicts the clear testimony of Scripture and essential doctrine, specifically justification by faith. Paul is clear that all have sinned in Adam and that is the reason that we cannot keep the Mosaic law.

To receive Christ as Savior and Lord is to worship him as Creator.

According to Paul:

The Bible is a book of history and our true lineage is found there, not in the modern mythology of Darwinian evolution. Essential doctrine is at stake and while you can accept evolution as natural history in part rejecting the creation of Adam and original sin runs contrary to sound doctrine. Accepting human evolution is not a rejection of orthodoxy but the rejection of the creation of Adam and original sin definitely is. Believing that land dwelling creatures became amphibians, transposed into whales and dolphins are certainly interesting ideas but would have no bearing on doctrinal issues. The doctrine of justification by faith has a central focus, the sin of Adam and it's inextricably linked to special creation.

The book of Romans tells us that God's invisible attributes and eternal nature have been clearly seen but we exchanged the truth of God for a lie (Rom 1:21,22). As a result the Law of Moses and the law of our own conscience bears witness against us, sometimes accusing, sometimes defending (Rom 2:15). We all sinned but now the righteousness of God has been revealed to be by faith through Christ (Rom 3:21). Abraham became the father of many nations by faith and the supernatural work of God (Rom 4:17). Through one man sin entered the world and through one man righteousness was revealed (Rom 5:12). It looks something like this in Romans, taken chapter by chapter:

1. Exchanging the truth of God for a lie, the creature for the Creator.
2. Both the Law and our conscience make our sin evident and obvious.
3. All sinned, but now the righteousness of God is revealed in Christ.
4. Abraham's lineage produced by a promise and a miracle through faith.
5. Through one man sin entered the world and death through sin.
6. Just as Christ was raised from the dead we walk in newness of life.
7. The law could not save but instead empowered sin to convict.
8. Freed from the law of sin and death (Adamic nature) we're saved

The Scriptures offer an explanation for man's fallen nature, how we inherited it exactly is not important but when Adam and Eve sinned we did not fast. This is affirmed in the New Testament in no uncertain terms by Luke in his genealogy, in Paul's exposition of the Gospel in Romans and even Jesus called the marriage of Adam and Eve 'the beginning'.

Now I realize I have dumped a ton of stuff in the opening post and this is a casual discussion forum. It's just that what this comes down to are two worldviews competing in this controversy, as Bible believing Christians ours is a Biblical one. I've poured over the scientific literature, philosophy, history even sociology and came to one core conviction, Creationism is an exercise in evidential apologetics. When attempting to defend the Bible as being true and reliable history it becomes essential to realize, the Bible is primary source material, at least, in a Judaeo Christian context. I've debated Catholics, Protestants, Darwinians, Theistic Evolutionists and an army of trollers for years. In this thread I'm inviting you to a Bible study on the subject of creation.

The trend in the Church, both Protestant and Catholic, has been toward Intelligent Design. The reason for it is some times scientific but essentially theological. At some point you are going to have to decide what you are going to stand on because the Theory of Evolution and the Bible as Redemptive history are clearly in conflict. You have to wonder what is at stake here because it's more then a philosophy of history, essential Christian doctrine is at stake. I leave you with a couple of choice quotes:

Grace and peace,
Mark

6 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Yes, we know.

I suspect thats the point

Quote

 

1.  They are CITATIONS, ya know... that SUPPORT thing.

2.  Appeal to Format: (Red Herring Fallacy)  

3.  Baseless 'bare' Assertion (Fallacy): "many tangents". 

As far as I can tell you never read the opening post and this spam of definitions and fallacies, is classic, undiluted projection. You cite things, and there are some interesting quotes, but it bears relevance to nothing substantive. I have no reason to have you chase a red herring, the challenge with you is to get something on topic, which you haven't managed once, and bare assertion, seriously? Your whole argument is nothing more then on long ad hominem attack and as far as I can tell, it's the same one no matter who you respond to. 

Quote

 

Try a coherent argument, perhaps your 'luck' might change.

 

regards

I know what your doing and it has nothing to do with creation. This is nothing but one long ad hominem fallacy and as I predicted, you never recovered from it. You are fairly unique in one respect, you started right off with it, usually it's a downward spiral. Fallacious rhetoric is the bane of debate, it paralyzes the substance of the issues and polarizes normal rationality. What actually fascinates me, what may well have kept my interest all these years, is that there is someone like you in virtually every thread. I honestly don't know what your motive here is, but your arguments are fallacious, that much is obvious. 

Yet I'm curious, did you ever figure out the difference between an empirical theory and a unified theory. I doubt it but thought I would ask anyway.

Grace and peace,
Mark

8 hours ago, Bonky said:

Enoch I think you managed to copy and paste your defense of your copy/paste routine.  Well done.

BTW, if you ever debate Lawrence [or anyone really] publicly I'd love to know.  Also, the reason why I give you grief about your copy / paste routine is because the routine doesn't address me.   Also, rarely do your posts actually dive into what I'm responding to.   As other's have said, you don't really seem to be interested in dialogue, you seem interested in arguing.  Until you realize this and make some adjustments, you're going to continue to struggle to get anybody to take you serious.  

Yea I don't get it either. He has some interesting quotes if you can get through the formatting and the many tangents. I haven't had much luck but I never liked heavy semantics and rationalistic rhetoric much. Guess I never seen the benefit of it. 

Grace and peace,
Mark

5 hours ago, MorningGlory said:

I was going to respond to several of the posts in this thread until I came to the realization that you guys are WAY more informed on the subject than I!  ALL of you.  But I've enjoyed reading through the thread and I've learned things too so...good job.  If y'all can keep ME from challenging and arguing then my hat is off to you. 

Hey jump in any time, like Bonky said, a fresh perspective is always welcome. This stuff has so many twists and turns and the evidence seems to go on forever. The challenge isn't so much doing the reading and the research, it's a thankless time consuming task but that's not the hardest part. It's boiling it down to something conversational and substantive. If you could help us out with that it would be most welcome. 

Grace and peace,
Mark

14 hours ago, Bonky said:

It almost looks like you're helping me out here.  I said from the beginning that the scientific community did not jump on the bandwagon that this was any kind of missing link.   I'm also becoming very confused by your statements.  You seem to earlier claim this was just a chimp fossil and yet you say here "clearly not in the Hominid range"...a chimp is a HOMINID.

I agree that your confused but it seems it is due to the fact that you are misreading the quote:

First of all Keith is talking about the endocast of the Taung child, "an examination of the casts...", indicates the claim that this specimen being a human ancestor,  "will satisfy geologists that this claim is preposterous". Bear in mind this is the leading comparative anatomist of his time. He continues, "The skull is that of a young anthropoid ape... and showing so many points of affinity with the two living African anthropoids, the gorilla and chimpanzee", in other words it's the cast of an ape brain not a human descendent at all. Keith concludes, "that there cannot be a moment's hesitation in placing the fossil form in this living group" (Arthur Keith, letter to Nature Magazine) 

It wouldn't be considered a human ancestor until it became increasingly obvious that Piltdown was a hoax. He was right, the Taung Child is nothing more then a chimpanzee, arguments to the contrary are still, 'preposterous'. 

As far as the term, 'Hominid', we are talking about an ancestral taxonomic category not a contemporary one. Expanding it to include gorillas, chimpanzees and orangutans is a reference to a taxonomic category at the level of 'family' which includes all genus and species. Hominid is a reference to the genus 'Homo', in this context and I don't think I've been ambiguous on this fact. 

Quote

Which once again just shows that scientists aren't just marching lockstep.

Again I don't think you are paying much attention to the source material:

Dean Falk, a specialist in neuroanatomy, noted that Dart had not fully considered certain apelike attributes for Taung.

    "In his 1925 article, Dart had claimed that the brain of Taung was humanlike. As it turned out, he was wrong about that. . . . Taung's humanlike features were overemphasized".

    "Like humans, other primates go through stages as they grow up. In his analysis of Taung, Dart did not fully appreciate that infant apes have not had time to develop features of the skull, such as thickened eyebrow ridges or attachment areas for heavy neck muscles, that set adult apes apart from human. Apparently he did not carefully consider the possibility that Taung's rounded forehead or the inferred position of the spinal cord might be due to the immaturity of the apelike specimen rather than to its resemblance to humans". (Taung Child, Wikipedia)

A couple of things here, first, 'the humanlike features were overemphasized' and Faulk points out, ", spinal cord might be due to the immaturity of the apelike specimen rather than to its resemblance to humans". This explains why the Taung Child can be explained as nothing more then an immature chimpanzee thus accounting for the seemingly bipedal forearm magnum. It's much more likely that the Taung Child is nothing more then a chimpanzee ancestor.  

Quote

Except for the FACT that the Piltdown hoax wasn't exposed until the 50's!!!   So it seems the chronology of the events don't support your assertion.  Even IF the chronology matched up you would still need to show some kind of evidence that there was a causal link between the two.  Otherwise you just have your opinion which doesn't tell me much.

Oh I think the evidence is more then supportive and the source material is sufficient to demonstrate exactly that. People knew the jawbone didn't belong with the skull and while Louis Leaky knew that it had not dawned on him it was a fabrication of a transitional. 

Quote

 

I'm not sure special creation explains much.  It attempts to answer a question, that I would agree.

It's the alternative explanation for the evidence. As late as 1946 Wilfrid Le Gros Clark was intent on proving the Taung Child was just an ape. 1947 was the first time a prominent academic even entertained the notion publicly and it turned into a complete reversal of all that had proceeded:

In early January 1947 at the First Pan-African Congress on Prehistory, he was the first anthropologist of such stature to call the Taung Child a "hominid", that is, an early human. An anonymous article published in Nature on 15 February 1947 announced Le Gros Clark's conclusions to a wider public. On that day, Arthur Keith, who had been one of Dart's most virulent critics, composed a letter to the editor of Nature announcing that he supported Le Gros Clark's analysis: "I was one of those who took the point of view that when the adult form [of Australopithecus] was discovered it would prove to be near akin to the living African anthropoids—the gorilla and the chimpanzee. I am now convinced ... that Prof. Dart was right and that I was wrong." As Roger Lewin put it in his book Bones of Contention, "a prompter and more thorough capitulation could hardly be imagined." (Taung Child, Wikipedia)

The handwriting was on the wall, they were scrambling to find a replacement transitional and the solution would be that Taung would be promoted to the status of human ancestor and the Homo habilis followed in it's wake. 

Quote

You are making a claim of intentional misrepresentation and deception, you haven't supported that in the slightest.  If you want to say their conclusions are wrong, all the more power to you.  I don't mind at all that creationists have different views but when they try to sell this conspiracy theory that scientists are a bunch of untrustworthy crooks THEY are the ones being dishonest.  No doubt there are bad scientists out there, no doubt scientists have been wrong.   Having said that, science has shown me a lot more than religion has.  It's not perfect, but at least I can question it, put it on trial and criticize it w/o being told I'm a wicked person.

This isn't a conspiracy theory and I don't really care what their motive might have been. I see the fact that there are no recognized chimpanzee ancestors in the fossil record but Taung Child should be. That doesn't even begin to scratch the surface, there are also the contrived tools of Homo habilis and the cerebral rubicon being removed as the cut of for the genus Homo. 

What is far more important is the genetic basis for the three fold expansion of the human brain from that of apes. This key line of evidence shows a growing body of research indicating highly conserved genes would have to undergo massive overhauls and some 60 de novo genes appearing out of nowhere but uniformly assumed is a symphony of illogic. What is at the heart of the controversy isn't science but the prevailing presuppositional bias against the inverse logic that remains intuitively obvious. 

Grace and peace,
Mark

How about political jokes? I like political jokes myself, the only problem with political jokes is sometimes they get elected.

Biblical Humor:

I always like this quote, If only you would be altogether silent! For you, that would be wisdom. (Job 13:5)

It sounds like even when he was suffering so much grief, pain and verbal abuse he managed to keep his sense of humor. It's like he is saying, do something intelligent, stop talking.

Grace and peace,
Mark

1 hour ago, Omegaman 3.0 said:

WoundedDog told that same joke in this thread, on Nov 17, except the it was the Satan, not a unnamed angel. Thanks anyway!

Its an old one I'm not surprised. Got another one though.

Where is the first mention of a car in the Bible? Acts two, there were all in one Accord.

13 minutes ago, LadyKay said:

Fine fine. I end this debate here for me. If you so wish to continue to believe that the Democratic Party is the same as the Socialist Party then so be it. I do not think that any amount of facts that I come up with is going to change that. As you simply refuse to believe them.  With that said I do not know what you are so angry about. 

It's amazing, the Republicans control Congress, the Presidency and a majority of state legislatures. As a matter of fact right wing nationalism is a trend in Europe. But their favorite thing to do is to bash liberals, seems like the topic would be the road forward.

7 hours ago, Bonky said:

So a "ring" of high concentrations of iridium around the globe is "anecdotal evidence"?   I believe there are competing and indeed intriguing  alternatives to what made the dinosaurs go extinct but I don't see how the KT boundary is anecdotal evidence for a meteor impact.

Exactly, a ring of Iridium around the earth is just a ring of Iridium around the earth. Now If there were high concentration, and there would be a lot, around the Yucatan peninsula and say not as much as it spans out It might look like an asteroid. What It looks like is a naturally occurring element. One has to wonder who the genius was who decided an element that can literally be found anywhere else in the world can only be found on meteorites. 

Only Darwinians could believe that an event so catastrophic it kills virtually every main genus of land dwelling reptillians without killing off the mammals as well. What is far worse is these arguments always come in a condescending tone instead of a logical explanation.

That it's what I'm supposed to replace the Biblical account of creation with, some mass extinction dinosaur theory? Seriously?

56 minutes ago, Salty said:

Because in the 1980's a distinct layer of the substance only common to meteorites, asteroids, and comets was found in the fossil record at the same time the dinosaurs became extinct, it is not longer thought they were destroyed just by some natural climate change.

Like most of these theories it's based on anecdotal evidence and highly speculative scenarios. They find iridium 30 someplace unexpected and we are just supposed to believe the only explanation is a catastrophic event that kills off the dinosaurs. Ok, but this is a little like expecting mutations and viruses being the principle driving force of evolution, environmental challenges can trigger adaptive evolution but they certainly cannot facilitate it. Mass extinction is just that, a huge die off, that's not a formula for adaptive radiation on a global scale. It makes more sense to me that living populations with nearly pristine genomes had the requisite gene pools necessary for accelerated evolution. Some greenhouse effect from an asteroid hardly seems like a viable scenario for a major overhaul of highly conserved genes at the level of genus and phylum.

Grace and peace,
Mark 

The wall in the documentary was helpful and the Bible clearly supports a mid-15th century BC date for the exodus:

“In the four hundred and eightieth year after the Israelites had come out of Egypt, in the fourth year of Solomon’s reign over Israel, in the month of Ziv, the second month, he began to build the temple of the Lord.” (1 Kgs 6:1)

Working back from Solomon’s fourth year, ca. 966 bc,20 brings us to ca. 1446 bc for the date of the exodus.

Another point raised is the name Rameses used in Exod 1:11 is an editorial updating of an earlier name that went out of use. I've been tracking some of the archeology in Israel but this is the first I've heard someone might have found Joseph's house. This was not a typical documentary, when it comes to the Bible they are usually contrary to the Biblical account and rarely follow actual archeology. 

Thoroughly enjoyed it. 

Well I just watched it and I'm impressed, with the film making if nothing else. The house thought to be Joseph's and then many of actual evidences. The time line has me puzzled and it all lines up so well with what I've learned before. I'm going to have to watch it again and do some cross referencing but all in all a solid documentary. I must admit, I'm impressed. 

7 hours ago, Salty said:

The total destruction of species larger than 55 lbs., a mass extinction event of those to never live again (like dinosaurs), and that's not about a gap in the fossil record? We have the proof of their existence with their skeletal remains. And yes, newer species did spring up suddenly after that per the fossil record. Large groups of species of dinosaurs that were robust creations hard to destroy with them all of a sudden gone is why scientists use that idea of a 'mass extinction' event! Then with newer species after that does present a 'GAP' in the fossil record. A mass extinction event = a gap in the fossil record.

And like I said before, if the dinosaurs were created in this present world with Adam, then at least some of them should still be walking around today, since God told Noah to take two of all living creatures aboard the ark, which is what we have today, unless of course you don't believe that flood event with Noah actually happened as written. Or maybe you think God made the dinosaurs extinct by causing them to miss the boat, so to speak?

I don't think so dinosaurs were just larger versions of what we have today. Some people lived close to a thousand most likely animals enjoyed simular longivety. I'm also pretty sure the world was a lot more lush for a lot they same reason I think the movie Jurrasic Park is impossibly. How much do you think a T Rex eats?

There is also a problem with cumulative mutations. Following the flood the genomes must have been prestige, now a lot less variety.

On Sunday, November 27, 2016 at 0:25 PM, Your closest friendnt said:

Jesus is telling Nicodemus, that anyone who believes in him after his death on the Cross, will have a Heavenly inheritance together with him, he must earn the Heavens first , he must die on the Cross first, give himself up as the Attoning sacrifice for all people . 

The question Jesus is answering is what is new birth. Of course he makes reference to the crucifixion but the emphasis is on the Holy Spirit to make the believer a New creature in Christ. This isn't really clear in the Old Testament, they were commanded to obey the Law period. There was just one problem all of us are ' by nature objects of wrath', that old nature cannot receive the things of God. 

Interesting word 'atonement', William Tyndale actually invented it. It means 'at one moment'. it's the idea of the blood being sprinkled on the mercy seat once a year. It was the only time anyone entered the holy of holies. 

We are aware that we receive the righteousness of God by faith, but the old wineskin can't hold it. That's why you must be born again. Gods not reforming the old nature he is replacing it.

On Thursday, September 29, 2016 at 8:50 AM, Leerah said:

Hi Everyone

I understand the purpose of baptism. I haven't been baptized yet have so much passion for Christ.

What happens to unbaptized believers?

Its depends on why, many Pauline churches don't baptize. You can go in a dry sinner and come out a wet one. Being baptized identify a disciple with the death, burial and resurrection of Christ. What if you don't participate in the Lords Supper, well it depends. In the Old Testament there was a Sabbath but when Jesus worked on the Sabbath his critics quickly faulted him. Jesus says the Sabbath was made for man not man for the Sabbath. Some Times We should think of these rites as gifts rather then obligations.

2 hours ago, Enoch2021 said:

Good Grief, what a trainwreck.

 

regards

 

Done deal

40 minutes ago, StanJ said:

Well first off, I didn't reject original sin because you never broached it, you talked about sin nature and that's what I responded to.  We're not going to get very far if you keep reframing your thoughts after I respond to them. It would probably be better if you proof read what you want to post before you actually post it to make sure you're conveying what you're actually wanting to?

Maybe you don't like my approach and that's fine, the subject is total depravity at least as far was we have gone at this point.

Quote

I appreciate you quoting parts of Romans 5 but the fact is it must all be read and understood together, not as separate points to support a single concept, but in its entirety to convey the thoughts that Paul was teaching.  Paul was drawing parallels between the Old Testament / Covenant and the New Testament / Covenant. In verse 14 Paul shows that there are people that did not sin but they still suffered the consequences/ repercussions of the fall.  As far as the "no one is righteous" verses, it appears you don't really understand the context that Paul used them in Romans 3, nor how they were being used in the Old Testament.  Never-the-less, they are not applicable to what I was addressing you about.

Two natures, that was my point. Repentance is not a change of life style or behavior but a change in nature. There is only one way that happens, God must produce that in you. The earthly, carnal, sinful nature still exists but the believer has a new nature and is empowered by the Holy Spirit. I understand the context of Romans 3 perfectly fine, especially at the point of the heart of the emphasis:

 But now apart from the law the righteousness of God has been made known, to which the Law and the Prophets testify. This righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ to all who believe. There is no difference between Jew and Gentile, for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. (Rom. 3:21-23)

Paul is quoting from the Old Testament and it's directly relevant to what we are discussing. You are incapable of repentance apart from the new nature. 

Quote

As far as repentance is concerned, I don't know why you're bringing up this lexical lesson because I did not address it, but repentance is not only a change in behavior, precipitated by a change in direction, it is also agreeing with God that what you have done is sin.

The seat of moral reflection is the heart, God must give you a new one. Behavior is the effect, grace is the cause. The lesson gets to the heart of the issue of what repentance really is.

Quote

It's not 'either way', it's the way I explained it in response to your assertion. Glossing over it like this is is not very conducive to productive discussion and makes me think you're either not understanding what is being said or don't want to admit to it?

As far as Grace is concerned, I completely understand what the Bible says about it, just not why you brought it up or made this unwarranted 'dissertation' about it?

I don't think a discussion of justification by grace through faith is unwarranted, l think it is vital. Now I may well be misunderstanding you but when it comes to repentance being grieved over sin is only part of it, you can only truly repent when God gives you new birth. The seed comes to you incorruptible, if the devil doesn't steal it away from unbelief, it doesn't get dried up under testing, if it doesn't get chocked out by the weeds of worldly care and the deceitfulness of riches it bears fruit to the glory of God. That seed becomes the new man and the one clearing, plowing and weeding the soil is God. Not you.

Quote

I think it will be much more productive if we just address each other's posts succinctly rather than wander off into minefields of scripture.  Have you heard of the old expression, 'Cutting off your nose to spite your face'?  

Let's just try to deal with one issue at a time, shall we?

Fair enough, the issue is total depravity. I'm not cutting anything off, this conversation is just getting started. Maybe I seem a little confrontational, my apologies if that is the case. I honestly believe that there is no such thing as repentance apart from new birth. When Adam ate we did not fast, just as when Levi paid a tithe through Abraham Levi paid tithes. We are cursed, we are ruined and left to ourselves we will only get worse. I have no animosity toward Arminian theology except for one major point, justification by grace through faith. That simply means that you have to come to realize that you are lost, hopelessly broken and helpless, apart from the grace of God.

Adam didn't listen to the warning not to eat the forbidden fruit, there is a simple explanation for that. He didn't believe it or do you have a better explanation?

Grace and peace,
Mark