# Questions for unbelievers.



## christianhunter

For those of you who get on here,with your questions of dis-belief.How many of you are sincere,with your question,and possibly want to understand more about GOD?

Versus

Those who get on here just to poke fun,blaspheme,or try to start arguments,or those who maybe in a cult,trying to get converts.(Jehovahs witness,mormons,scientologists,etc;.)
Which one fits you?


----------



## JuliaH

Why make that judgement?  All need the prayers of caring folks. We don't have to embrace their views to love and we don't have to embrace their views to treat folks with proper respect. God made us all, Jesus died for us all. 



christianhunter said:


> For those of you who get on here,with your questions of dis-belief.How many of you are sincere,with your question,and possibly want to understand more about GOD?
> 
> Versus
> 
> Those who get on here just to poke fun,blaspheme,or try to start arguments,or those who maybe in a cult,trying to get converts.(Jehovahs witness,mormons,scientologists,etc.
> Which one fits you?


----------



## Dixie Dawg

christianhunter said:


> For those of you who get on here,with your questions of dis-belief.How many of you are sincere,with your question,and possibly want to understand more about GOD?
> 
> Versus
> 
> Those who get on here just to poke fun,blaspheme,or try to start arguments,or those who maybe in a cult,trying to get converts.(Jehovahs witness,mormons,scientologists,etc;.)
> Which one fits you?



C:  Neither


----------



## christianhunter

JuliaH said:


> Why make that judgement?  All need the prayers of caring folks. We don't have to embrace their views to love and we don't have to embrace their views to treat folks with proper respect. God made us all, Jesus died for us all.



I'm not Judging.I'm asking a sincere question.Things get a little heated on here sometimes,usually by the same few.Are they sincerely seeking?


----------



## Dixie Dawg

christianhunter said:


> I'm not Judging.I'm asking a sincere question.Things get a little heated on here sometimes,usually by the same few.Are they sincerely seeking?



I can answer your last question for me... the answer would be no.  I don't come on here because I'm seeking God.  I don't come on here to convert anyone to... well, gee, since I have no religion, I guess I can't convert anyone to it, can I?  I come on here because I enjoy discussing and debating religion, theology, doctrine, etc.  I like talking about scripture and hearing other's understanding of it.  I like to hear YOUR idea of God.  And yes, I like to debate.

So for me, the answer is neither.  I'm not here actively looking for God.  I will say, however, that there have been a few occassions when I  have seen Him.  Regardless of religious preference.


----------



## footjunior

I'm somewhat like Dixie Dawg. I'm not coming here seeking to find God, but I am here to seek how fundamentalists view God. In order to find this out, I ask questions. I judge how they view God by their responses. I chose this forum because it seemed to have a lot of fundamentalists and the forum was semi-active.

So far so good. I think some people don't like me already, but that's just going to happen and is unavoidable given the questions that I have asked. I make assertions which I know will cause some to get upset, but that's just part of trying to understand how their minds work. If there was a way to get the information I need and be nice at the same time, I would do it that way. I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I'm sorry if I've hurt anyone or caused distress, although I really doubt I have.


----------



## gemcgrew

Dixie Dawg and footjunior, I enjoy reading your post for the simple reason you remind me of myself not to long ago. 

If you are atheist, you are in good company here for most pretend to know God.

You don't have to believe in God to be born again. You will believe because you have been.


----------



## christianhunter

A lot of times,well meaning Christians get on here and act as if we are not born again.We chastise and act critical of others for not seeing things as we do.We all should respond with Scripture,when answering a question.The LORD did,when HE was tempted by satan,If HE did we certainly should.


----------



## heavymetalhunter

christianhunter said:


> For those of you who get on here,with your questions of dis-belief.How many of you are sincere,with your question,and possibly want to understand more about GOD?
> 
> Versus
> 
> Those who get on here just to poke fun,blaspheme,or try to start arguments,or those who maybe in a cult,trying to get converts.(Jehovahs witness,mormons,scientologists,etc;.)
> Which one fits you?



personally, my reasoning is neither.

i am not here seeking god, nor would i ever. i am also not here to poke at other people. i feel that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want.

however, my main reasoning is that i am trying to understand how, just how in the world can someone bring themselves to avoid all of the simple laws of how the world / universe works, and logic, and devote their entire lives to the invisible man in the sky based on nothing more than a book that was written by a man, and "faith".

i personally believe that through a more thorough understanding of science the world would be a much better place. and when something happens that we dont understand, instead of looking at it as a miracle (or an act of god), maybe we should look at it as a coincidence, or just admit to ourselves that we dont know everything.


----------



## matthewsman

*That would make sense*



christianhunter said:


> A lot of times,well meaning Christians get on here and act as if we are not born again.We chastise and act critical of others for not seeing things as we do.We all should respond with Scripture,when answering a question.The LORD did,when HE was tempted by satan,If HE did we certainly should.



If scripture meant anything to them.


----------



## gtparts

footjunior said:


> I'm somewhat like Dixie Dawg. I'm not coming here seeking to find God, but I am here to seek how fundamentalists view God. In order to find this out, I ask questions. I judge how they view God by their responses. I chose this forum because it seemed to have a lot of fundamentalists and the forum was semi-active.
> 
> So far so good. I think some people don't like me already, but that's just going to happen and is unavoidable given the questions that I have asked. I make assertions which I know will cause some to get upset, but that's just part of trying to understand how their minds work. If there was a way to get the information I need and be nice at the same time, I would do it that way. I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I'm sorry if I've hurt anyone or caused distress, although I really doubt I have.



What is the motivation, the source of your "need"?


----------



## gtparts

heavymetalhunter said:


> personally, my reasoning is neither.
> 
> i am not here seeking god, nor would i ever. i am also not here to poke at other people. i feel that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want.
> 
> however, my main reasoning is that i am trying to understand how, just how in the world can someone bring themselves to avoid all of the simple laws of how the world / universe works, and logic, and devote their entire lives to the invisible man in the sky based on nothing more than a book that was written by a man, and "faith".




Why do you seek this understanding?



> i personally believe that through a more thorough understanding of science the world would be a much better place. and when something happens that we dont understand, instead of looking at it as a miracle (or an act of god), maybe we should look at it as a coincidence, or just admit to ourselves that we dont know everything.



But, you are trying to understand spiritual things. As for me, I readily admit I don't know everything, but I do know Jesus Christ and He knows me. If you are trying to wrap your mind around that, you are using your anatomy to no avail. God can be "known" by placing your spiritual heart in His hands. The physical body will follow were the spiritual leads.

Life does not have to present us with the supernatural for us to believe in God. Christians see and know God from the natural things in our lives, even the sad or painful things. He is in and part of everything we experience.


----------



## heavymetalhunter

gtparts said:


> Why do you seek this understanding?



its not to get god in my life if thats what your asking.

i just dont understand how people can live in what i call a "fantasy world" and still expect people to take them seriously.


----------



## gtparts

Guys and gals,

It just is so obvious that for some on this forum, their approach to the Bible is as a history or science book and their expectations are formed upon that premise. 

Folks, you are looking to the heavens with a microscope. The Bible is a love letter with the best advice on living the life God has given you. Dissecting it is not the answer. Observing the most accomplished Christian (one who is most Christ-like) you can find will only give you partial clues. You can ask all you want, but you will not grasp what life with Jesus is until you really "taste" it, all of it. You have no idea how much my heart aches for you to have faith as a mustard seed, to plant and nourish it.

Peace.


----------



## gtparts

heavymetalhunter said:


> its not to get god in my life if thats what your asking.
> 
> i just dont understand how people can live in what i call a "fantasy world" and still expect people to take them seriously.


 If that is all you seek to understand here, then you never will. You are starting with a false premise. It is not fantasy and those who understand that, take it and each other seriously.

You must begin again or resign your quest (to understand) to failure.

Wax on......wax off.  

Peace.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

gtparts said:


> Guys and gals,
> 
> It just is so obvious that for some on this forum, their approach to the Bible is as a history or science book and their expectations are formed upon that premise.
> 
> Folks, you are looking to the heavens with a microscope. The Bible is a love letter with the best advice on living the life God has given you. Dissecting it is not the answer. Observing the most accomplished Christian (one who is most Christ-like) you can find will only give you partial clues. You can ask all you want, but you will not grasp what life with Jesus is until you really "taste" it, all of it. You have no idea how much my heart aches for you to have faith as a mustard seed, to plant and nourish it.
> 
> Peace.



Well, now, see... that's a good example of why it is so difficult to put all 'faith' into the bible.  

You mentioned the mustard seed parable.  The KJV version of the NT says:  Mark 4:31 [It is] like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: 

The NKJV, NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, RSV all clarify this verse as saying that the mustard seed is the smallest seed on earth.

The mustard seed is not even close to being the smallest seed on earth.  If Jesus were God, and God created everything, then surely he would know that.  

In order to have 'faith' in the bible, one has to overlook all of these obstacles.  Some of us just can't do that.  

Question for believers... if the question were on a test at school, "the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world, true or false" and your child answered True... they would get it wrong.  What would you tell your child when they asked you why they got it wrong, when the bible said it was so?


----------



## bcm

The mustard seed is not the smallest seed known today,but it was the smallest seed used by farmers and gardeners in the day Jesus spoke that parable.


----------



## gemcgrew

Dixie Dawg said:


> Well, now, see... that's a good example of why it is so difficult to put all 'faith' into the bible.



It is worse than difficult, it is impossible, outside of Christ.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

bcm said:


> The mustard seed is not the smallest seed known today,but it was the smallest seed used by farmers and gardeners in the day Jesus spoke that parable.



  I don't know if your statement is correct or not since I haven't researched it (and wonder if you have either, or if you're just guessing), but even so, what difference would that make?


----------



## Dixie Dawg

gemcgrew said:


> It is worse than difficult, it is impossible, outside of Christ.



I don't think so... the Jews don't seem to have a problem with it, even though they don't accept your belief in Christ.


----------



## Israel

[PDF]
The Problem of the Mustard Seed
File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
modern). The only modern crop plant of importance with smaller seeds. than mustard is tobacco, but this plant is of American origin and was .


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Israel said:


> [PDF]
> The Problem of the Mustard Seed
> File Format: PDF/Adobe Acrobat - View as HTML
> modern). The only modern crop plant of importance with smaller seeds. than mustard is tobacco, but this plant is of American origin and was .



I'm not sure what purpose this has.... 

Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest on earth.  Nothing was mentioned about what type of seex, a 'crop' seed, or plant of importance, or even what part of the world or 'age'.   It said the smallest seed on earth.  

I actually have a necklace with a mustard seed in it that I have had since I was a kid... and I have planted many a vegetable and flower with much smaller seeds than it.

Now if Jesus is God, and he could predict 'wars and rumors of wars' and all of the other 'prophecies' that you believe have or will come true 2000+ years down the road, why didn't he know that the mustard seed wasn't the smallest seed of the earth?

I didn't really bring it up to start a debate... my point was that some of us who see these glaring inaccuracies of the bible can't just overlook them and let everything rest on 'faith'.  If the bible is wrong about something as simple as a mustard seed, how can I be sure that it's right about heaven, he11 and how to get to one and stay away from the other?


----------



## mtnwoman

In the Parable of the Mustard Seed, Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a mustard seed. Although having some of the smallest seeds, the mustard plant grows to a large size, providing shelter for birds: Mark 4:31-32.

In other words if you just have faith the size of a mustard seed it can grow bigger and bigger. That's the point from where I sit.


----------



## gtparts

Dixie Dawg said:


> Well, now, see... that's a good example of why it is so difficult to put all 'faith' into the bible.
> 
> You mentioned the mustard seed parable.  The KJV version of the NT says:  Mark 4:31 [It is] like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth:
> 
> The NKJV, NIV, NLT, ESV, NASB, RSV all clarify this verse as saying that the mustard seed is the smallest seed on earth.
> 
> The mustard seed is not even close to being the smallest seed on earth.  If Jesus were God, and God created everything, then surely he would know that.
> 
> In order to have 'faith' in the bible, one has to overlook all of these obstacles.  Some of us just can't do that.
> 
> Question for believers... if the question were on a test at school, "the mustard seed is the smallest seed in the world, true or false" and your child answered True... they would get it wrong.  What would you tell your child when they asked you why they got it wrong, when the bible said it was so?



Sweetheart,
You strain at gnats and swallow camels. You focus on the sprouting twig and miss the forest. You made it to my last sentence and, bless your pitiful short-term memory, forgot the earlier statement from that post: 

"It just is so obvious that for some on this forum, their approach to the Bible is as a history or science book and their expectations are formed upon that premise. 
Folks, you are looking to the heavens with a microscope. The Bible is a love letter with the best advice on living the life God has given you. Dissecting it is not the answer. Observing the most accomplished Christian (one who is most Christ-like) you can find will only give you partial clues. You can ask all you want, but you will not grasp what life with Jesus is until you really "taste" it, all of it."

You aren't seeking faith at all. You want proof and God will not play your game. 
While I did not make direct reference to the Biblical illustration, you jumped on it as if I had. My point and the point of the Biblical illustration is that it requires very little faith to cause a loving and compassionate God to respond to our spiritual needs. But, it is absolutely essential and God will provide more, as needed, when you pursue Him with ALL that is within you.


----------



## gtparts

DD, 

Let me simplify this for you.

Mark 4:31-32 is NOT a botany lesson.

Peace.


----------



## jawja_peach

heavymetalhunter said:


> its not to get god in my life if thats what your asking.
> 
> i just dont understand how people can live in what i call a "fantasy world" and still expect people to take them seriously.



****MY USE OF CAPS IS NOT TO YELL, BUT A PASIONATE STATEMENT*****************

It seems to me that you must have never seen the Hand of God. You must not have seen miracles. I have. There is no other explanation. How can you, or anyone, NOT see the hand of God. Are you Blind? Not being smart, actually want to know if you are, as it would explain some of your unbelief. How can you look at a tree, a baby, a sunrise/sunset, a canyon, all of nature, and healing of those that are sick & not see the hand of God? Now I'm not talking about TV 'healers' or TV Christians, as they are not what they claim to be, and give us TRUE CHRISTIANS a bad rep. I could sit here and tell you the many miracles I have seen with my own eyes! I have a good friend that has had cancer, and went through surgery and treatments. Had great results, Cancer - of the colon- gone. Then after a few years, a regular check because he has had cancer, his doc found a mass on his lung. They went in to do a biopsy and it came out as cancer. They were really worried because the mass was the size that it was (very large), and he already has breathing problems, that he might not make it through the surgery. But as bad as it was, death was a high possibility either way. We had prayer over him, and others around and about were in prayer constantly. They scheduled the surgery, went through pre-op, and on in to surgery. When they got in there THERE WAS NO TUMOR!! COMPLETELY GONE!! NO TRACE OF IT EITHER. The doctors were floored and had NO answer to it. They had seen it, done a biopsy, so it's not like it was an error in the imaging or anything. All of his doctors said it had to be a healing touch from God as their was no other way this could have happened. And a few of those were non-believers...who have their scientific beliefs. This was very hard for them to answer and finally said they had no explanation either. 

I have many more stories where I've seen healing. I have had healing and touches from God myself. Its not seeing is believing but believing is seeing. And too, just say, there is no God. No Jesus. OK, what harm is there in believing anyway?? What does it hurt?? Say it's all in our head... does believing make me feel better when I pray, as I'm praying to 'nothing'?? Say it does. Is it because it's in my head that I'm healing myself in the belief? So what, if it makes me feel better, what harm is it. I would rather be a  'Saved' believer and there not be an after-life, than to not be and it all be true...standing befor a Mighty God who says, 'depart from me for I never knew you..' and off into the lake of fire you go to live the rest of your after-life in H***!!! 

I love God and thank Him for sending Christ to this world to save that which was/is lost. I fell under that category, but now, God abides in my heart and I KNOW HE IS REAL, HIS SON IS REAL, THE HOLY GHOST/HOLY SPIRIT IS REAL AND I KNOW WHERE I WILL SPEND ETERNATY BECAUSE I'M A SAVED CHILD OF GOD!!


----------



## heavymetalhunter

jawja_peach said:


> How can you look at a tree, a baby, a sunrise/sunset, a canyon, all of nature, and healing of those that are sick & not see the hand of God?



tree = nature
baby = me and the wife doing our thing
sunrise / sunset = astrology
canyon = erosion
nature = nature
healing of sick = modern medicine

thats what i see.


----------



## jawja_peach

heavymetalhunter said:


> tree = nature
> baby = me and the wife doing our thing
> sunrise / sunset = astrology
> canyon = erosion
> nature = nature
> healing of sick = modern medicine
> 
> thats what i see.



Have you ever thought, which came first the chicken or the egg?? Same with humans. Now don't give me this stuff that we came from slime and grew feet and eventually we became monkeys. If this is true how come we don't see any other drastic 'evolutions'?? We evolve, but only  because of man made things, nature, gravity and such. Modern meds you say?? HE WASN'T ON MODERN MEDS FRIEND...(again passionate CAPS) Nothing to shrink it as he denied a lot of those meds because the made him sicker. You say baby-from man and woman...right? Well same thing. Which came first the adult man/woman or the child, a baby that only survives and inside of his mother until a certain point of time, when she is to deliver the baby. Have you ever looked at a babies face..I mean sat down and looked at a baby, in his/hers eyes...I can't see anything but the face of God. So pure and without sin (except Adam sin). Did you know that a lot of the Laws of Darwin have been proven wrong. Proven. And several Laws of Christianity have been proven. Fact. In fact they are exploring the mountains where they think they've found Noah's Ark?? They are, and this I saw on the Discovery channel who take a more scientific approach, usually the ones that try to dis-prove Christianity-- not this time. I'm sure that you won't just up and seek God out from my writings, or others.  But at least I did try to bring things out that I hope you will look closer at. I'm a Wildcrafter, and being out in nature is like my second home. Looking at the creatures and all that live in there, I can see Gods Hand. I wish all could. My husband was a drunk, along with other things, and was a very mean person. I can look at pictures of him then and see a cold stone per say. But he was Saved in Feb. 2000 and since, well, I have the best husband in the world and he is a great dad as well. I see the recent pics, and you see compassion and love... Hope you will at least humor some of us and just let God show you He is real, but you have to have an open mind, getting away from your beliefs at least for a little while, 
and let Him make Himself knowledgeable to you.
Peace be unto you~


----------



## thedeacon

if you would research a little further you would find that the mustard seed spoken of by Christ was not the mustard greens that we have today. It was a varity with a smaller seed and the plants would grow to an enormous size in proportion to the seed. 

come on guys, we are picking here. You can't force faith down the throats of unbelievers but you can bet I am praying for each one of you that doesn't seem to have faith in God.

All I can say is one day you will have faith, I just pray it is not to late. I love all of you but not as much as God does


----------



## heavymetalhunter

jawja_peach said:


> Have you ever thought, which came first the chicken or the egg?? Same with humans. Now don't give me this stuff that we came from slime and grew feet and eventually we became monkeys. If this is true how come we don't see any other drastic 'evolutions'?? We evolve, but only  because of man made things, nature, gravity and such. Modern meds you say?? HE WASN'T ON MODERN MEDS FRIEND...(again passionate CAPS) Nothing to shrink it as he denied a lot of those meds because the made him sicker. You say baby-from man and woman...right? Well same thing. Which came first the adult man/woman or the child, a baby that only survives and inside of his mother until a certain point of time, when she is to deliver the baby. Have you ever looked at a babies face..I mean sat down and looked at a baby, in his/hers eyes...I can't see anything but the face of God. So pure and without sin (except Adam sin). Did you know that a lot of the Laws of Darwin have been proven wrong. Proven. And several Laws of Christianity have been proven. Fact. In fact they are exploring the mountains where they think they've found Noah's Ark?? They are, and this I saw on the Discovery channel who take a more scientific approach, usually the ones that try to dis-prove Christianity-- not this time. I'm sure that you won't just up and seek God out from my writings, or others.  But at least I did try to bring things out that I hope you will look closer at. I'm a Wildcrafter, and being out in nature is like my second home. Looking at the creatures and all that live in there, I can see Gods Hand. I wish all could. My husband was a drunk, along with other things, and was a very mean person. I can look at pictures of him then and see a cold stone per say. But he was Saved in Feb. 2000 and since, well, I have the best husband in the world and he is a great dad as well. I see the recent pics, and you see compassion and love... Hope you will at least humor some of us and just let God show you He is real, but you have to have an open mind, getting away from your beliefs at least for a little while,
> and let Him make Himself knowledgeable to you.
> Peace be unto you~



cliffs notes?


----------



## matthewsman

*she read your post*



heavymetalhunter said:


> cliffs notes?



read hers......what you are saying here is it is not worth your time to read what she took the time to put out there.

I need a basic understanding of science,you seem a bright enough sort....

Where did it all really begin,and how?

Don't tell me "big bang"You'd have to be an idiot or either a humanist to believe that.

Here's the problem...

Particles floating in space,bam! they come together and stick...thus creating bigger particles,moving Banging together until they reach such a size that the impact is enough to generate a gravity to attract large enough particles to create an energy that would kick start or be the catalyst to start life not as we know it,but as it will morph and evolve to something we would finally recognize and accept.

To the problem...Where did the particles come from?What got them moving?Where are they coming from,to where are they going?

What broke into parcticles initially to create these floating particles?Who put it together?Is it all inside a basketball in God's closet?Or is the God I know supervising a whole universe that is only a space in a basketball in a bigger God's closet?Is it a mirror in a mirror in a mirror?

It starts bordering on ridiculous. 

Give me an example of something being made of nothing in the scientific community.Just one.....You'll convert me.


----------



## heavymetalhunter

matthewsman said:


> read hers......what you are saying here is it is not worth your time to read what she took the time to put out there.
> 
> I need a basic understanding of science,you seem a bright enough sort....
> 
> Where did it all really begin,and how?
> 
> Don't tell me "big bang"You'd have to be an idiot or either a humanist to believe that.
> 
> Here's the problem...
> 
> Particles floating in space,bam! they come together and stick...thus creating bigger particles,moving Banging together until they reach such a size that the impact is enough to generate a gravity to attract large enough particles to create an energy that would kick start or be the catalyst to start life not as we know it,but as it will morph and evolve to something we would finally recognize and accept.
> 
> To the problem...Where did the particles come from?What got them moving?Where are they coming from,to where are they going?
> 
> What broke into parcticles initially to create these floating particles?Who put it together?Is it all inside a basketball in God's closet?Or is the God I know supervising a whole universe that is only a space in a basketball in a bigger God's closet?Is it a mirror in a mirror in a mirror?
> 
> It starts bordering on ridiculous.
> 
> Give me an example of something being made of nothing in the scientific community.Just one.....You'll convert me.


i agree that the big bang is a rediculous theory.

i honestly have no clue how the universe / earth began. i honestly dont think it would ever be possible to know, but just because we dont know doesnt mean that we have to believe "god" did it.

"god" doesnt have to always be the answer to all our intellectual gaps.


----------



## matthewsman

*There are websites for that*



footjunior said:


> I'm somewhat like Dixie Dawg. I'm not coming here seeking to find God, but I am here to seek how fundamentalists view God. In order to find this out, I ask questions. I judge how they view God by their responses. I chose this forum because it seemed to have a lot of fundamentalists and the forum was semi-active.
> 
> So far so good. I think some people don't like me already, but that's just going to happen and is unavoidable given the questions that I have asked. I make assertions which I know will cause some to get upset, but that's just part of trying to understand how their minds work. If there was a way to get the information I need and be nice at the same time, I would do it that way. I'd like to take this opportunity to say that I'm sorry if I've hurt anyone or caused distress, although I really doubt I have.



Are you writing a thesis?Are you embarking on a vision quest?Maybe some research on demographics for concentrations of Christians for marketing a new product?Do you have a grant for funding breakthrough, non-scientific,small control group research for predominately Protestent message boards on V Bulletin?Is there any specific thing you "need" to know so that we may help expedite your search?Will we be financially compensated any way if we provide you with the info you "need" or do you intend to take it by force for free even though you admit you would rather do it by being nice?

You do not judge us by our responces,you judge yourself for your ability to disallow them.

The way our minds work is explained in great detail in volumes of medical journals...Same ol' stuff..Frontal lobe,synapses,electrical impulses,brainstems,voluntary and involuntary functions etc.

You are here to dissuade people of their belief system,create doubts of their faith in their minds, and then offer them nothing. If you had come here as a knowledge seeker,you would do more studying than teaching.More listening than expounding.More observing rather than performing.

Who do you serve?What do you believe?What hope or faith do you offer those who you sway?

You have nothing to offer them but confusion,along with a lie for your motivation.


----------



## Jeffriesw

If you are content with what you are.... so shall you remain....


----------



## matthewsman

*I understand you...*



heavymetalhunter said:


> i agree that the big bang is a rediculous theory.
> 
> i honestly have no clue how the universe / earth began. i honestly dont think it would ever be possible to know, but just because we dont know doesnt mean that we have to believe "god" did it.
> 
> "god" doesnt have to always be the answer to all our intellectual gaps.



I understand and agree....God doesn't have to be an answer for intellectual gaps.I also believe that a person has every reason to believe, based on other proven things in a theory ,a source used for research that explains the heretofore unproven portions of a theory...

For instance, taking into account all the things proven or verified through secular scientists,geography,and archeological findings in the Bible,I am confident in believing it's accounts of things I don't follow.


----------



## Leddyman

Imagine my chagrin when I realized I had quoted the wrong person.  I shall repost the corrected version.  man I'm smooth.


----------



## Leddyman

Dixie Dawg said:


> I'm not sure what purpose this has....
> 
> Jesus said the mustard seed was the smallest on earth.  Nothing was mentioned about what type of seex, a 'crop' seed, or plant of importance, or even what part of the world or 'age'.   It said the smallest seed on earth.
> 
> I actually have a necklace with a mustard seed in it that I have had since I was a kid... and I have planted many a vegetable and flower with much smaller seeds than it.
> 
> Now if Jesus is God, and he could predict 'wars and rumors of wars' and all of the other 'prophecies' that you believe have or will come true 2000+ years down the road, why didn't he know that the mustard seed wasn't the smallest seed of the earth?
> 
> I didn't really bring it up to start a debate... my point was that some of us who see these glaring inaccuracies of the bible can't just overlook them and let everything rest on 'faith'.  If the bible is wrong about something as simple as a mustard seed, how can I be sure that it's right about heaven, he11 and how to get to one and stay away from the other?



Hi sweetie,  You must be the apple of someone's eye.

To answer your question, 
1. Jesus was speaking a parable.  He certainly knew that the mustard seed was not the smallest seed on earth.  Remembering that the bible was written in Greek not 
English, this part of it any way, it is necessary to look at the word gees (KJV translates earth) (forgive my lack of the accent mark which goes over the second e).  It certainly could be used to mean earth, but also land ground soil etc.  NT:1093

NT:1093 <START GREEK>gh=, gh=$, h(<END GREEK> g¢  earth; soil; ground; land 
(from Exegetical Dictionary of the New Testament © 1990 by William B. Eerdmans Publishing Company. All rights reserved.)

Also Jesus was speaking to a certain people whom he was trying to teach an important point.  The contrast between small and great was used of the kingdom of heaven, which started so very small with the 12, but now numbers in the millions, or billions.   Actually buttressing His claim to be God, because despite all of the odds against it, it happened.

Lastly, he used an accepted standard figure of speech, the mustard seed was commonly used to denote something tiny.
; Mark 4:30-32

5. THE PARABLE OF THE MUSTARD SEED (4:30-32) (Matt 13:31-32; Luke 13:18-19)

4:30-32. This parable has an elaborate double-question introduction which states in essence that the emergence of God's kingdom is similar to what happens to a mustard seed (the common black mustard, sinapis nigra) after it is sown on the ground. In Jewish thinking, its small size was proverbial since it was the smallest of all the seeds sown in the field. It took 725-760 mustard seeds to weigh a gram (28 grams equal one ounce). The mustard shrub is an annual plant which, growing from seed, becomes the largest of all garden plants (ta lachana, "large, fast-growing annual shrubs") in Palestine, reaching a height of 12-15 feet in a few weeks. Birds of the air (undomesticated fowl) are attracted by its seed and the shade of its large branches (cf. TDNT, S.V. "
'sinapi
," 7:287-91 ). This parable emphasizes the contrast between the smallest of the seeds growing into the tallest of the shrubs. It contrasts the insignificant, even enigmatic beginning of God's kingdom, embodied in the presence of Jesus, with the greatness of the end result to be established at His Second Advent when it will surpass all the earth's kingdoms in power and glory.
(from Bible Knowledge Commentary/Old Testament Copyright © 1983, 2000 Cook Communications Ministries; Bible Knowledge Commentary/New Testament Copyright © 1983, 2000 Cook Communications Ministries. All rights reserved.)

Jesus was teaching a lesson and He used a common figure of speech.  He used a word which can be translated different ways. 

(gees-earth) Used in the context of gardening, it is most likely that He was referring to seeds which one would plant in the ground for the purpose of agriculture.

If I say I run every morning you would assign a meaning to the word run, but if I say I run a drill press machine at the plant you would assign a different meaning to the same word, How about I run guns across the border?  Can't talk gotta run.  Am I literally running?

My dearest love, you are stretching on this one.


----------



## footjunior

matthewsman said:


> Are you writing a thesis?Are you embarking on a vision quest?Maybe some research on demographics for concentrations of Christians for marketing a new product?Do you have a grant for funding breakthrough, non-scientific,small control group research for predominately Protestent message boards on V Bulletin?Is there any specific thing you "need" to know so that we may help expedite your search?Will we be financially compensated any way if we provide you with the info you "need" or do you intend to take it by force for free even though you admit you would rather do it by being nice?



Errr... none of these. I don't think anyone would give me a grant to do research on a forum like this lol. That would be awesome though.



> You do not judge us by our responces,you judge yourself for your ability to disallow them.



I'm not judging individuals, I'm just trying to understand the pathways to which fundamentalists sort through criticism to maintain their belief structure.



> The way our minds work is explained in great detail in volumes of medical journals...Same ol' stuff..Frontal lobe,synapses,electrical impulses,brainstems,voluntary and involuntary functions etc.



I'm not talking about the physical brain. I mean it in more of an abstract sense. More of a psychology sense.



> You are here to dissuade people of their belief system,create doubts of their faith in their minds, and then offer them nothing. If you had come here as a knowledge seeker,you would do more studying than teaching.More listening than expounding.More observing rather than performing.



I'm sorry sir but you are incorrect. I'm really not here trying to persuade people from their belief system, I'm simply asking some of the same questions as a person who's goal is to dissuade people would be asking. While the questions are the same, the goal is not the same. Where am I teaching, expounding, performing? I doubt I'll ever be able to change your mind about the reasons I ask what I ask.



> Who do you serve?



No one.



> What do you believe? What hope or faith do you offer those who you sway?



Well I believe a lot of things, could you be more specific? I personally cannot give hope or faith to anyone I sway. First off I doubt I really sway anyone (which is why I'm wondering why you seem so upset ). But to answer your question directly... I do not offer hope nor faith to anyone I sway.



> You have nothing to offer them but confusion, along with a lie for your motivation.



Again you're simply mistaken. I don't want anyone to be confused, I simply want them to answer my questions to the best of their ability. There might be some who get confused, but that is an unintended result. I don't think that confusion should be looked down upon though. In order to sort through their confusion people may research the topic more and come to a better understanding of it. I think we can agree that we both want people to come to a better understanding of topics.

I've listed my motivation, but I honestly have no way to prove to you that it is my true motivation. I guess you have every right to say that I'm lying, even though I will continue to tell you that you're wrong. I don't understand how you think you can know my motivations.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

gtparts said:


> DD,
> 
> Let me simplify this for you.
> 
> Mark 4:31-32 is NOT a botany lesson.
> 
> Peace.




I know that.  Jesus could never be a teacher if that's the kind of information he gives out.

I have read the bible.  I know what the parable meant.  I used to be a christian, remember?  I have the cute little mustard seed in the glass charm that I used to wear around my neck. 

There are other ways that it could  have been said and it not been wrong.  Jesus could have said, "look how small this mustard seed is. If you have faith like this, that's all you need."  But instead he said it was the smallest seed on earth, which it is not.   

I know you don't understand why this is a 'big deal'... and I suppose it's not... but maybe Jesus said it best himself...   1 Cor. 5:6  Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump of dough? 


And for gtparts and Leddyman... since I can sense the 'spirit' (read: condescending tone)  in which it was used, I'm thinking that neither of you really know me well enough to use the terms 'sweetheart' or 'my dearest love'.  Unless, of course, y'all are going to start using those terms with footjunior or some of the other guys on here as well.....


----------



## footjunior

Dixie Dawg said:


> And for gtparts and Leddyman... since I can sense the 'spirit' (read: condescending tone)  in which it was used, I'm thinking that neither of you really know me well enough to use the terms 'sweetheart' or 'my dearest love'.  Unless, of course, y'all are going to start using those terms with footjunior or some of the other guys on here as well.....







lol what you tryin to start DD?!?!?


----------



## Dixie Dawg

footjunior said:


> lol what you tryin to start DD?!?!?




Nothin'.  I just wanna make sure that if they're going to start spreading that christian love, they spread it everywhere.


----------



## fivesolas

Dixie Dawg said:


> Nothin'.  I just wanna make sure that if they're going to start spreading that christian love, they spread it everywhere.



DD:

I find it interesting that when saying the Bible isn't a "science book" in order to try to discredit it, you will take that rhetoric, but when it seems to suit your intent in trying to discredit the Scripture you then turn it into a science book, as with the case in this parable. 

Perhaps you should let the Bible speak as it speaks, historically, poetically, figures of speech, exaggerations, all common, normal uses of language. 

I did a google search to find if this question had been asked before and answered before. Seems it has. I read this guy's response and he ran the same line of thinking as I did: http://ldolphin.org/unruh/mustard.html

My hunch is that this answer will not be sufficient for you to drop the "accusation" against the Scripture any more than your "challenge" seems to be of any consequence at all to me. 

-five


----------



## Dixie Dawg

fivesolas said:


> DD:
> 
> I find it interesting that when saying the Bible isn't a "science book" in order to try to discredit it, you will take that rhetoric, but when it seems to suit your intent in trying to discredit the Scripture you then turn it into a science book, as with the case in this parable.



   where?



> Perhaps you should let the Bible speak as it speaks, historically, poetically, figures of speech, exaggerations, all common, normal uses of language.
> 
> I did a google search to find if this question had been asked before and answered before. Seems it has. I read this guy's response and he ran the same line of thinking as I did: http://ldolphin.org/unruh/mustard.html
> 
> My hunch is that this answer will not be sufficient for you to drop the "accusation" against the Scripture any more than your "challenge" seems to be of any consequence at all to me.
> 
> -five




It's not sufficient, sorry.
If I shouldn't take Jesus at his word when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed on the earth... if I'm to assume it's a figure of speech, how do you know that his return isn't a figure of speech, or that it's not literal either?  After all, he said that the generation he was speaking to would not pass before his return, yet that was nearly 2000 years ago.  And whenever things don't happen the way Jesus said they did, excuses are made as to why Jesus wasn't 'really' wrong.

It really all boils down to one thing... Christians overlook the inconsistencies in the bible because they don't care.  It doesn't matter to them if things aren't correct, congruent or logical because they dismiss those things with 'faith'.
And that's fine... for them.  Some of us can't do that.  

Although I did enjoy this quote from the website you provided the link to:

"After one sees the magnitude, profundity, and significance of the good Lord's message in the parable of the mustard seed, the clever but foolish obsession of our gainsayers in their quibbling over the size of the seed becomes a wondrously self evident absurdity in itself, for such triflings boarder on insanity."

  

Well if we want to talk about what borders on insanity... I  think we have much more to work with than a mustard seed


----------



## crackerdave

Since D.D. has been here for 5 years and has not changed her mind - why bother arguing or trying to change her? Her purpose here should be obvious by now - even to the newcomers.
I refuse to take the bait anymore.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

rangerdave said:


> Since D.D. has been here for 5 years and has not changed her mind - why bother arguing or trying to change her? Her purpose here should be obvious by now - even to the newcomers.



I'm just curious... is your purpose on this part of the forum to lead others to Christ?


----------



## crackerdave

Dixie Dawg said:


> I'm just curious... is your purpose on this part of the forum to lead others to Christ?



I know for a fact I led at least one from this forum,possibly more.This was done in private messages and face-to-face meetings. This was done through no power or ability of mine - it was done through the power of God,also which you know nothing about.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

rangerdave said:


> I know for a fact I led at least one from this forum,possibly more.This was done in private messages and face-to-face meetings. This was done through no power or ability of mine - it was done through the power of God,also which you know nothing about.



That wasn't my question... but congratulations.

My question was, is your whole purpose for posting in this part of the forum so that you can lead others to Jesus?


----------



## Leddyman

Dixie Dawg said:


> And for gtparts and Leddyman... since I can sense the 'spirit' (read: condescending tone)  in which it was used, I'm thinking that neither of you really know me well enough to use the terms 'sweetheart' or 'my dearest love'.  Unless, of course, y'all are going to start using those terms with footjunior or some of the other guys on here as well.....



Very well madam, I withdraw my terms of endearment which were meant in all sincerity.  I do not condescend to you, I respect your intellect, but by all means have it your way. 

You continue to suggest that the only use of the word is "in all the world" when I clearly provided linguistic evidence that makes the parable make sense in the context of "in the land or soil" and explained that the use of mustard seed for the tiniest of seeds was proverbial.

If you wanted to debate as you claim; you would refute the evidence or concede the point.


----------



## celticfisherman

As long as someone is asking questions I really don't care in which manner it is. You never know when someone being a pain gets hit with something that changes his mind.


----------



## JuliaH

Yup 






celticfisherman said:


> As long as someone is asking questions I really don't care in which manner it is. You never know when someone being a pain gets hit with something that changes his mind.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

rangerdave said:


> No.I have a life outside this forum - do you?



Sure do 

But since that wasn't part of the question either... back to the point instead of the smoke and mirrors... you say that you don't post on this part of the forum just to lead people to Jesus.   If you're not here to lead people to Jesus, then why do you post in this part of the forum?  Isn't that the same sort of 'logic' you give me?  

If what you said is true then you should be able to grasp the fact that my reason for posting on this part of the forum is not to lead them away from Jesus, either.  So how about instead of using that as your catch-all retort, you come up with something different?  Or at least a little more accurate?


----------



## fivesolas

> It's not sufficient, sorry.



THought so.


----------



## gtparts

Dixie Dawg said:


> And for gtparts and Leddyman... since I can sense the 'spirit' (read: condescending tone)  in which it was used, I'm thinking that neither of you really know me well enough to use the terms 'sweetheart' or 'my dearest love'.  Unless, of course, y'all are going to start using those terms with footjunior or some of the other guys on here as well.....



I gave great consideration to the use of the particular address, considering what your response might be and almost changed it so as not to alienate you. 
But given that God loves you and I am called to love all people (even those who have problems with their sensors), I left it as originally typed. I categorically deny any condescension or malice. It is difficult to express sympathy and kindness in this medium. How does one express a sadness and a platonic warmth for one so intransigently lost? I think I would have the same sense if you were my younger adult sibling who was determinedly headed for self-destruction.  

Sometimes, I just can't help but feel heartache for you, pnome, footjunior, ambush80, and others. God has sent His Son. He will not send another. Jesus is the truth, the way, and the life.

Peace.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

gtparts said:


> I gave great consideration to the use of the particular address, considering what your response might be and almost changed it so as not to alienate you.
> But given that God loves you and I am called to love all people (even those who have problems with their sensors), I left it as originally typed. I categorically deny any condescension or malice. It is difficult to express sympathy and kindness in this medium. How does one express a sadness and a platonic warmth for one so intransigently lost? I think I would have the same sense if you were my younger adult sibling who was determinedly headed for self-destruction.
> 
> Sometimes, I just can't help but feel heartache for you, pnome, footjunior, ambush80, and others. God has sent His Son. He will not send another. Jesus is the truth, the way, and the life.
> 
> Peace.




And likewise, you will have to understand as well that I don't know from one day to the next what the 'mood' or tone of anyone on here will be.  One day you are condemning me to hades and telling me you are going to put me on ignore and that I'm the devil... the next you are calling me 'sweetheart'.  Forgive me if I am a bit leary of the changing tides around here. 

Between you and Rangerdave this last few weeks, whenever I log into this part of the forum I never know if I should come armed with a pitcher of sweet tea and some extra glasses, or a dagger and a mirror to watch behind me.  I usually try to start out with the sweet tea, but the dagger and mirror are always just inside the doorway.

I'm sure I'm not easy for many of you to deal with. I'm stubborn and hard-headed and have to have proof of things for which you yourselves claim there is no proof of.  I can't apologize for that any more than you can apologize for your faith.  Sometimes it works out where we can have civil discussions, sometimes it doesn't.  That's to be expected when you discuss things as near and dear as religion (or lack thereof).  I TRULY do my best to refrain from personal comments and keep it to the topic at hand.  I don't always succeed.

I don't really doubt that when you posted what you did, that you meant it sincerely.  But I have learned not to let the guard down too much around here... it has come back to bite me more than once.  So I apologize if you were offended by what I said... I just hope you can also take a moment to look at it from my point of view.

Let me also add that I have no contempt for anyone on here... not a single one of you.  I am actually quite fond of many of you, including some that probably wouldn't think I was.  And you can believe that or not... but it doesn't change my feelings whether you do or don't.


----------



## DYI hunting

Not really an unbeliever, not trying to poke fun/argue or all that other nonsense.  I guess I would be a partial believer that questions everything trying to make sense of it and understand it more.


----------



## christianhunter

Dixie Dawg said:


> Sure do
> 
> But since that wasn't part of the question either... back to the point instead of the smoke and mirrors... you say that you don't post on this part of the forum just to lead people to Jesus.   If you're not here to lead people to Jesus, then why do you post in this part of the forum?  Isn't that the same sort of 'logic' you give me?
> 
> If what you said is true then you should be able to grasp the fact that my reason for posting on this part of the forum is not to lead them away from Jesus, either.  So how about instead of using that as your catch-all retort, you come up with something different?  Or at least a little more accurate?



If you don't get on this forum,just to cause discord.Then why the satanic symbol used on your avatar?


----------



## Dixie Dawg

christianhunter said:


> If you don't get on this forum,just to cause discord.Then why the satanic symbol used on your avatar?



It's not a satanic symbol.


----------



## christianhunter

heavymetalhunter said:


> personally, my reasoning is neither.
> 
> i am not here seeking god, nor would i ever. i am also not here to poke at other people. i feel that people should be allowed to believe whatever they want.
> 
> however, my main reasoning is that i am trying to understand how, just how in the world can someone bring themselves to avoid all of the simple laws of how the world / universe works, and logic, and devote their entire lives to the invisible man in the sky based on nothing more than a book that was written by a man, and "faith".
> 
> i personally believe that through a more thorough understanding of science the world would be a much better place. and when something happens that we dont understand, instead of looking at it as a miracle (or an act of god), maybe we should look at it as a coincidence, or just admit to ourselves that we dont know everything.



My 1st cousin was a nurse for a while.No matter how long someones been married,or what ever.The main two names called out in or out of pain right at the point of death are LORD/JESUS and mother(mama,etc;.).This was also a scientific survey at one point.You will call on JESUS one day,whether it be from the depths of the lake of fire,The White THRONE Judgement,or at your own or a dear ones death.The day is coming you are more than worm food,besides the body you occupy at the present,there are two other parts to you that will not die,the soul and the spirit.What ever you believe is not going to change the outcome of eternity.There are only two places to be,and the grave is not one of them.These two places are with or without GOD.There is no in between,and no second chances AFTER death.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

christianhunter said:


> No matter how long someones been married,or what ever.The main two names called out in or out of pain right at the point of death are LORD/JESUS and mother(mama,etc;.).This was also a scientific survey at one point.



Well..... even I admit I still call out Jesus' name in certain circumstances ....  but I don't see what the point is.  There are even atheists who will curse using the name of God, but that isn't because they believe in it.  I think a lot of things come from environment.  It's a common thing here.  If they did a scientific survey in China, they would probably find that people cry out to Buddah on their death bed.


----------



## jawja_peach

christianhunter said:


> My 1st cousin was a nurse for a while.No matter how long someones been married,or what ever.The main two names called out in or out of pain right at the point of death are LORD/JESUS and mother(mama,etc;.).This was also a scientific survey at one point.You will call on JESUS one day,whether it be from the depths of the lake of fire,The White THRONE Judgement,or at your own or a dear ones death.The day is coming you are more than worm food,besides the body you occupy at the present,there are two other parts to you that will not die,the soul and the spirit.What ever you believe is not going to change the outcome of eternity.There are only two places to be,and the grave is not one of them.These two places are with or without GOD.There is no in between,and no second chances AFTER death.



 
You are so right friend. I was saved back in '97. My hubby wasn't saved until 2000. I lived with a mean drunk for 3 yrs. and everyday I stepped away from God. Not meaning to, but when you aren't living for God, your living for Satan/this world. There are only two people, Saved/Lost. If you are not Saved by the Blood of Christ you belong to this World and Satan is the ruler of the World. You can not straddle the fence. There are no atheist...there are only believers because one day EVERYONE will stand in front of a just God and all will believe. Yes, people cry out to God when they are afraid. Or in pain...and that pain will never ceese when the Lost are thrown in the Lake of Fire..like you said. I tried to 'straddle the fence'...You can't have one foot in Christ and the other in the world. God will spew you out of His mouth as you can not be lukewarm...either hot or cold, for God or against God. WHAT'S YOUR FINAL ANSWER???????   op2:


----------



## jawja_peach

Dixie Dawg said:


> Well..... even I admit I still call out Jesus' name in certain circumstances ....  but I don't see what the point is.  There are even atheists who will curse using the name of God, but that isn't because they believe in it.  I think a lot of things come from environment.  It's a common thing here.  If they did a scientific survey in China, they would probably find that people cry out to Buddah on their death bed.



Dixie Dawg, surely you know the difference that cursing and calling out to God to help you, stop the pain, stop the hurt (hurt and pain can be two different things) free me from bondage. (this bondage can be drugs, sex, etc) Sure people that believe/don't believe curse and say the G.D. word. But you know that's not what he's talking about. He's saying when you have nothing else, nothing, will you cry out and ask for God to stop what ever it is, or are you going to just go limp and accept it and that be it?? So hard for me to believe you/others would not call out...I mean  really...??


----------



## jawja_peach

Dixie Dawg said:


> where?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's not sufficient, sorry.
> If I shouldn't take Jesus at his word when he says that the mustard seed is the smallest seed on the earth... if I'm to assume it's a figure of speech, how do you know that his return isn't a figure of speech, or that it's not literal either?  After all, he said that the generation he was speaking to would not pass before his return, yet that was nearly 2000 years ago.  And whenever things don't happen the way Jesus said they did, excuses are made as to why Jesus wasn't 'really' wrong.
> 
> It really all boils down to one thing... Christians overlook the inconsistencies in the bible because they don't care.  It doesn't matter to them if things aren't correct, congruent or logical because they dismiss those things with 'faith'.
> And that's fine... for them.  Some of us can't do that.
> 
> Although I did enjoy this quote from the website you provided the link to:
> 
> "After one sees the magnitude, profundity, and significance of the good Lord's message in the parable of the mustard seed, the clever but foolish obsession of our gainsayers in their quibbling over the size of the seed becomes a wondrously self evident absurdity in itself, for such triflings boarder on insanity."
> 
> 
> 
> Well if we want to talk about what borders on insanity... I  think we have much more to work with than a mustard seed



Well, you know, everyone believes things a little different and so you're going to hear a lot of different views. So here's mine. The writings that make up the Bible were written for those there at that time. Many things are not understandable because at times they have certain traditions, rules, practices that we don't have now. Back then the things that you say are contradictions aren't that at all, just things we do not totally understand or we're missing it because it's spiritual. The Bible to us is to be discerned SPIRITUALLY. When we look at the Bible carnally that's when you have problems understanding. But once you are Saved and the Holy Spirit abides in your heart you can see the Spiritual meanings. But it first takes YOU/WHO EVER getting "Spiritual" and by that I mean getting Saved. Once you look at it through the eyes of a Born again Christian (John 3:3 kjv) you will not only understand but then you will see the _*Kingdom*_...


----------



## christianhunter

Dixie Dawg said:


> It's not a satanic symbol.



Thought you would say that,sure looks like an upside down pentagram to me,supposed to represent satan,even has the rounded bottom legs,to symbolize a rams horn better,better than a goats head right.I knew you were going to say it wasn't satanic,what is it,a beautiful symbol of tranquility?


----------



## Dixie Dawg

christianhunter said:


> Thought you would say that,sure looks like an upside down pentagram to me,supposed to represent satan,even has the rounded bottom legs,to symbolize a rams horn better,better than a goats head right.I knew you were going to say it wasn't satanic,what is it,a beautiful symbol of tranquility?



How about if you really want to know what it is, you stop being a lazy christian and go look it up?


----------



## christianhunter

Dixie Dawg said:


> How about if you really want to know what it is, you stop being a lazy christian and go look it up?



I know what it is I grew up in the late 70's and early 80's,it is an upside down pentagram.Used by satanists to symbolize satan,you look it up.I wasn't born yesterday.You play games,I don't.Witches,satanists,etc;,use this symbol to represent satan,as do they an upside down cross.Please spare me any ridiculous change,to these by pagan "humanist"and various other cults to hide the true meaning.An Ank(Sp.?) looks a lot like a cross,but it is totally different in what it symbolizes.Give me a break,I certainly don't have to look that one up,a 2 year old could figure that one out.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

christianhunter said:


> I know what it is I grew up in the late 70's and early 80's,it is an upside down pentagram.Used by satanists to symbolize satan,you look it up.I wasn't born yesterday.You play games,I don't.Witches,satanists,etc;,use this symbol to represent satan,as do they an upside down cross.Please spare me any ridiculous change,to these by pagan "humanist"and various other cults to hide the true meaning.An Ank(Sp.?) looks a lot like a cross,but it is totally different in what it symbolizes.Give me a break,I certainly don't have to look that one up,a 2 year old could figure that one out.



Well then gee... you must be dumber than a 2 year old.

It isn't a pentagram.  It's called a heartagram.  It is symbolic of a representation of opposites... love/hate, life/death, yin/yang, good/evil, etc.  But, of course, being the christian that you are, you will twist it into anything evil because that's the way you look at the world... as one big evil scary place where the devil is out to get you.  

My suggestion would be for you to put me on ignore so that you can't be subconsciously influenced by the demonic heart that is in my avatar.   

If you want to continue this discussion, I'll be back in a bit... it's after 10pm, time for me to sacrifice a goat.


----------



## Big10point

Dixie Dawg said:


> Well then gee... you must be dumber than a 2 year old.
> 
> It isn't a pentagram.  It's called a heartagram.  It is symbolic of a representation of opposites... love/hate, life/death, yin/yang, good/evil, etc.  But, of course, being the christian that you are, you will twist it into anything evil because that's the way you look at the world... as one big evil scary place where the devil is out to get you.
> 
> My suggestion would be for you to put me on ignore so that you can't be subconsciously influenced by the demonic heart that is in my avatar.
> 
> If you want to continue this discussion, I'll be back in a bit... it's after 10pm, time for me to sacrifice a goat.



according to Scripture, the world is an evil place and the devil is out to get us...  since those are God's words... they dont mean anything...


----------



## Jeffriesw

From Wikipedia
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heartagram#Heartagram


The heartagram is the trademarked symbol of HIM, best described as a combination of a heart and an inverted pentagram (love & hate), created by Ville Valo the day of his twentieth birthday. Valo has said that "the heartagram stands for HIM as a band, as an entity, and for 'love metal' in general."[13] Many fans of the band have heartagram tattoos, or tattoos of other HIM emblems — such as the single heart on Valo's right wrist, and a number of fan-submitted photos of same decorated the lyric booklet for the limited edition of Dark Light. Ville Valo has allowed his close friend, Jackass star, actor, and professional skateboarder, Bam Margera to share the license on the heartagram image and Margera has accordingly used it for his promotional purposes, including using it on his Adio shoes and Element skateboards. Because of the shared license, the symbol is often thought to belong solely to Margera. According to Valo, the band has become better known for their logo than their music.[14]

In a video interview, Ville has stated that the Heartagram is a "Modern Yin Yang," the heart being the Yin and the inverted pentagram being the Yang.

A heartagram appears at the end of the music video for the song DARE by the band Gorillaz, where Murdoc wakes up, on the wall to the left hand side. It was also parodied, as the "horseagram" — a combination of a horse shoe and a pentagram — in the episode "Ode to Sue" of the video game comedy troupe Mega64.

During the filming of Jackass Number Two, cast member Steve-O got a parody tattoo of a heartagram called a "********".[15]


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Dixie Dawg said:


> It is symbolic of a representation of opposites... love/hate, life/death, yin/yang, good/evil, etc.





Swamp Runner said:


> The heartagram is the trademarked symbol of HIM, best described as a combination of a heart and an inverted pentagram (love & hate),
> Heartagram is a "Modern Yin Yang," the heart being the Yin and the inverted pentagram being the Yang.




That's pretty much what I said....


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Big10point said:


> according to Scripture, the world is an evil place and the devil is out to get us...  since those are God's words... they dont mean anything...



Of course.

You know, maybe I should reconsider being a christian again.  Sure seems a heck of a lot easier.  If I do something bad, I can blame it on the devil tempting me.  And then be guiltless because Jesus took the punishment for me.  No accountability!   

On second thought... I can't do that, because I know that I am responsible for my own actions... no invisible evil force.   But I gotta say, I do envy you for being able to push the blame elsewhere.  Oh... dang it!! Envy... one of the seven deadly sins!!  It's just everywhere, isn't it?


----------



## Big10point

Dixie Dawg said:


> Of course.
> 
> You know, maybe I should reconsider being a christian again.  Sure seems a heck of a lot easier.  If I do something bad, I can blame it on the devil tempting me.  And then be guiltless because Jesus took the punishment for me.  No accountability!
> 
> On second thought... I can't do that, because I know that I am responsible for my own actions... no invisible evil force.   But I gotta say, I do envy you for being able to push the blame elsewhere.  Oh... dang it!! Envy... one of the seven deadly sins!!  It's just everywhere, isn't it?





i dont believe in "once saved always saved", which teaches no accountability so you are incorrect about me.

and satan tempts people and we do have to resist by putting our faith in Christ...

i am totally accountable for all that i do.. God judges people for their actions, he doesnt judge satan for peoples actions...

dont take this the wrong way, but maybe you should try being a Christian for the first time...  i am not sure that a saved Christian can ever turn their back on God the way you seem to have...  i dont know you, but i'd have to guess (by your posts) that you were just religious before... but not saved...


----------



## christianhunter

Can't get to them with the pentagram any more,Hey let's use the heartagram.Gee sounds just like,"satan coming as an angel of light" to me.By the way,you are on my ignore list and have been for months.It doesn't ignore you when someone quotes you though.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Big10point said:


> dont take this the wrong way, but maybe you should try being a Christian for the first time...  i am not sure that a saved Christian can ever turn their back on God the way you seem to have...  i dont know you, but i'd have to guess (by your posts) that you were just religious before... but not saved...



Thanks... but I don't think so.  If I lived the way I lived and went through all I did before when I was a christian but I wasn't truly 'saved', then there is no hope (or point) for me doing it again.

You are correct, you don't know me and you didn't know me then... and I don't know really how to explain how I felt or what I believed back then.  The closest I can probably ever get is by this... what I used to do in my spare time back then... of course, it seems very cheesey to me now, but it is what it is...    http://kerris.angelcities.com/faithpages.html


----------



## Big10point

Dixie Dawg said:


> Thanks... but I don't think so.  If I lived the way I lived and went through all I did before when I was a christian but I wasn't truly 'saved', then there is no hope (or point) for me doing it again.
> 
> You are correct, you don't know me and you didn't know me then... and I don't know really how to explain how I felt or what I believed back then.  The closest I can probably ever get is by this... what I used to do in my spare time back then... of course, it seems very cheesey to me now, but it is what it is...    http://kerris.angelcities.com/faithpages.html



so is it possible that you were an unsaved Christian? there is such a thing...


----------



## Dixie Dawg

christianhunter said:


> Can't get to them with the pentagram any more,Hey let's use the heartagram.Gee sounds just like,"satan coming as an angel of light" to me.



Of course it does 



> By the way,you are on my ignore list and have been for months.It doesn't ignore you when someone quotes you though.




Ummm yeah... and it doesn't show my avatar when they quote me, either....


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Big10point said:


> so is it possible that you were an unsaved Christian? there is such a thing...



Sure... why not.  My point is, if I wasn't saved then, I won't ever be.


----------



## Big10point

Dixie Dawg said:


> Sure... why not.  My point is, if I wasn't saved then, I won't ever be.



thats not true DD.  there are millions of people in the world now who are not saved but will at some point in their life.  i was not saved 5 years ago but i am now... i was very religious but not saved.

my brother just spent 51 years as a Christian but wasnt saved. he lived his life for himself and not for Christ...  he was a heathan just calling himself a Christian b/c he thought it would take him to heaven.... he figured it out tho... nows he's got it right. he sifted thru the religious garbage that on the earth and found Jesus the way God wanted him to...

John 6:40
And this is the will of Him that sent me, that every one which seeth the Son, and believeth on Him, may have everlasting life: and I will raise him up at the last day.

i would guess that nobody comes out of the gate (from birth) getting it right... we all have to stumble and screw up many times. there is a Right way of being a Christian...

Matthew 7:8
For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened.

John 4:23
But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth: for the Father seeketh such to worship him

we can find the True God of the Bible, if we choose to.  it begins with fear of the Lord... and prayer. i feared helll so much that God showed me the way.  if a person doesnt fear the Lord or helll,,, it will be difficult for them to find the way to eternal salvation...


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Big10point said:


> thats not true DD.  there are millions of people in the world now who are not saved but will at some point in their life.  i was not saved 5 years ago but i am now... i was very religious but not saved.
> 
> my brother just spent 51 years as a Christian but wasnt saved. he lived his life for himself and not for Christ...  he was a heathan just calling himself a Christian b/c he thought it would take him to heaven.... he figured it out tho... nows he's got it right. he sifted thru the religious garbage that on the earth and found Jesus the way God wanted him to...
> 
> we can find the True God of the Bible, if we choose to.  it begins with fear of the Lord... and prayer. i feared helll so much that God showed me the way.  if a person doesnt fear the Lord or helll,,, it will be difficult for them to find the way to eternal salvation...



Well, I'm not you and I'm not your brother.  I did fear God and he11... so much so that I was so worried over whether or not I was a 'real' Christian that I had anxiety attacks, panic attacks and depression, but wouldn't take medication for it because I felt that would be somehow not putting my trust into God.   I would be assured of my place in heaven and then read the verses about people who thought they were going to heaven but wind up in he11 and worry... how do I know if that's me or not???  I read book after book on spiritual warfare because I felt that the anxiety and panic attacks were from satan.  I prayed all the time, listend to nothing but christian music and spent ALL of my free time reading the bible or a christian book or watching what was going on in Israel to prepare for Jesus' return..  I was obsessed with God and Jesus. 

So please... I am sure you mean well, but don't lecture  me about being religious or having a 'relationship' with Jesus.  Like I said, if I didn't have it then, I will  never have it.


----------



## crackerdave

Well,one would think that last line pretty well sums it up.
Others can continue to cast their pearls before swine - I'm through with the famous "Dixie Dawg."


----------



## Dixie Dawg

rangerdave said:


> Well,one would think that last line pretty well sums it up.
> Others can continue to cast their pearls before swine - I'm through with the famous "Dixie Dawg."



Yep.... let that be a lesson to you... when someone comes to you with questions or doubts about their beliefs, before you give them the ol'e... "you just need more faith" line... think about what I've said and where you could lead them to.  

  Glad the meds are working for you... I couldn't take them.  There but for the grace of God... well, you know...


----------



## celticfisherman

Dixie Dawg said:


> Well, I'm not you and I'm not your brother.  I did fear God and he11... so much so that I was so worried over whether or not I was a 'real' Christian that I had anxiety attacks, panic attacks and depression, but wouldn't take medication for it because I felt that would be somehow not putting my trust into God.   I would be assured of my place in heaven and then read the verses about people who thought they were going to heaven but wind up in he11 and worry... how do I know if that's me or not???  I read book after book on spiritual warfare because I felt that the anxiety and panic attacks were from satan.  I prayed all the time, listend to nothing but christian music and spent ALL of my free time reading the bible or a christian book or watching what was going on in Israel to prepare for Jesus' return..  I was obsessed with God and Jesus.
> 
> So please... I am sure you mean well, but don't lecture  me about being religious or having a 'relationship' with Jesus.  Like I said, if I didn't have it then, I will  never have it.



I wouldn't say never. But I also don't believe you are bad person because of not having it. Things change. You may have something occur in your life that does bring you to some understanding of faith. Nor do I believe you just needed to have more of it. More of something you are not prepared for nor grasp is useless. That would be like giving me a book on string theory when I barely passed Algebra II in HS.

You may not ever come to that conclusion about faith. I have known many fine people that did not and were proud to call them my friends and fellowship with them in the woods and around many a camp fire.

I hope that didn't come across condescending...


----------



## Dixie Dawg

celticfisherman said:


> I wouldn't say never. But I also don't believe you are bad person because of not having it. Things change. You may have something occur in your life that does bring you to some understanding of faith. Nor do I believe you just needed to have more of it. More of something you are not prepared for nor grasp is useless. That would be like giving me a book on string theory when I barely passed Algebra II in HS.
> 
> You may not ever come to that conclusion about faith. I have known many fine people that did not and were proud to call them my friends and fellowship with them in the woods and around many a camp fire.
> 
> I hope that didn't come across condescending...




Not at all.  Thank you


----------



## Ronnie T

Dixie Dawg said:


> Thanks... but I don't think so.  If I lived the way I lived and went through all I did before when I was a christian but I wasn't truly 'saved', then there is no hope (or point) for me doing it again.
> 
> You are correct, you don't know me and you didn't know me then... and I don't know really how to explain how I felt or what I believed back then.  The closest I can probably ever get is by this... what I used to do in my spare time back then... of course, it seems very cheesey to me now, but it is what it is...    http://kerris.angelcities.com/faithpages.html




I read the things you wrote a few weeks ago concerning your early life and how you were exposed to so many different beliefs and spiritual understandings.  As soon as I read of your past I could see how simple it could be for someone to get terribly confused with so many things being taught and many of them contradicting each other.

As you grew, you probably begin reading and studying for yourself and realized that you had been taught many things that simply weren't true.  You went from one church to another and each one taught something different from the last.
No wonder people get so confused with their Christian lives.  The church was always suppose to be that dynamic force that held Christ's teaching out to the world.  But the church, in recent decades has turned into church....es.  

I can't say if I would have handled it any better myself DD.  I'm personally, very anger at what's happened with Christ's church.

I began my Christian life in the Church of Christ.  I grew up in that church and now as an old man I'm back at that very church as it's preacher/minister.  I no longer teach the things that I was taught at that church 50 years ago.  Fifty years ago, church doctrine was taught.  Today, we teach the gospel.  Originally, I was taught that a person had to be a member of the Church of Christ in order to go to heaven.  Now I know that it was an ignorant thing to teach or believe.

DD, I pray that you will at least keep an open mind.  I believe that eventually your faith will return.
And I want you to know something else.  I love you. 
I'll still get angry with you in the future I imagine.  But I think I understand you now.  I won't go into details.  If I did, you would disagree with me anyway.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Ronnie T said:


> I read the things you wrote a few weeks ago concerning your early life and how you were exposed to so many different beliefs and spiritual understandings.  As soon as I read of your past I could see how simple it could be for someone to get terribly confused with so many things being taught and many of them contradicting each other.
> 
> As you grew, you probably begin reading and studying for yourself and realized that you had been taught many things that simply weren't true.  You went from one church to another and each one taught something different from the last.
> No wonder people get so confused with their Christian lives.  The church was always suppose to be that dynamic force that held Christ's teaching out to the world.  But the church, in recent decades has turned into church....es.
> 
> I can't say if I would have handled it any better myself DD.  I'm personally, very anger at what's happened with Christ's church.
> 
> I began my Christian life in the Church of Christ.  I grew up in that church and now as an old man I'm back at that very church as it's preacher/minister.  I no longer teach the things that I was taught at that church 50 years ago.  Fifty years ago, church doctrine was taught.  Today, we teach the gospel.  Originally, I was taught that a person had to be a member of the Church of Christ in order to go to heaven.  Now I know that it was an ignorant thing to teach or believe.
> 
> DD, I pray that you will at least keep an open mind.  I believe that eventually your faith will return.
> And I want you to know something else.  I love you.
> I'll still get angry with you in the future I imagine.  But I think I understand you now.  I won't go into details.  If I did, you would disagree with me anyway.



I'm glad... that's why I thought it would be good to put that thread up... not just for my story, but for any and all of us who post in here.   It's easy to point fingers and judge others when you don't know where they've been or what they've gone through to get to where they are.  What's that old song... walk a mile in my shoes?

And I love you to.  As I said in a previous post, I don't dislike anyone here.  There are a few that I bump heads with (often) and get steamed over, but if they ever needed anything I would do whatever I could to help them out. 

I do try to keep an open mind... but I'm not going to lie, it's difficult, I truly have become jaded when it comes to doctrine.  And I don't have faith.  But I guess I shouldn't say 'never'.... after all, at one time I never would have thought I would ever reject Jesus either. 

xox


----------



## JuliaH

Hi Dixie 

There is plenty in what you say for others to hear, and we must all quit focusing on the negative 

Pointing fingers is almost always the wrong thing to do. It leads to confrontation almost every time... gosh, I sure am using the almost word a lot...lol. But I bet you understand what I am trying to say 

In my mind, there is no way all the confrontation and arguement are going to show anyone the love and the commitment to our faith that we all want to show. All that, to me anyhow, is much different from having a different understanding, agreeing to disagree and even standing our ground on our principles   There is a time and a place for all of that... but I am concerned that our bent to confrontation (I am right and you are wrong stuff from all sides...lol) and our bent to make your heartagram into something evil. I don't have the answer, and so don't make the judgement 

If it is a bad thing, I would not accept it for myself, but that does not give me the right to take it away from you... if that makes sense   If my interest and love for Jesus Christ is not acceptable to others, they are free to not accept Him or me, but it does not give the right for them to attempt to take Him away from me. Since He is the reason I am still here... right or wrong... alive and breathing, I am commited to love Him  and others through Him if I can 

As to faith, we can't have more... we are all given the measure of faith that we need. It's up to us to use it... we never lose it, but we can feel like we have lost it. So very many times I have been sure that my faith was just gone. No way could it be there!! But it has always been with me   Check out this little bit of Scripture , and not because I want to hit you with it... but just to give you a thought I want to share   Please accept it in the spirit I send it to you 

Romans 12: 3 For by the grace (unmerited favor of God) given to me I warn everyone among you not to estimate and think of himself more highly than he ought [not to have an exaggerated opinion of his own importance], but to rate his ability with sober judgment, each according to the degree of faith apportioned by God to him.


Julia





> I'm glad... that's why I thought it would be good to put that thread up... not just for my story, but for any and all of us who post in here. It's easy to point fingers and judge others when you don't know where they've been or what they've gone through to get to where they are. What's that old song... walk a mile in my shoes?
> 
> And I love you to. As I said in a previous post, I don't dislike anyone here. There are a few that I bump heads with (often) and get steamed over, but if they ever needed anything I would do whatever I could to help them out.
> 
> I do try to keep an open mind... but I'm not going to lie, it's difficult, I truly have become jaded when it comes to doctrine. And I don't have faith. But I guess I shouldn't say 'never'.... after all, at one time I never would have thought I would ever reject Jesus either.


----------



## crackerdave

Dixie Dawg said:


> Yep.... let that be a lesson to you... when someone comes to you with questions or doubts about their beliefs, before you give them the ol'e... "you just need more faith" line... think about what I've said and where you could lead them to.
> 
> Glad the meds are working for you... I couldn't take them.  There but for the grace of God... well, you know...



Please show me were I ever told anyone they "needed more faith."
You are truly an evil person,and you obviously have no "questions or doubts" about your beliefs.Everybody else is wrong and you alone are right.


----------



## celticfisherman

rangerdave said:


> Please show me were I ever told anyone they "needed more faith."
> You are truly an evil person,and you obviously have no "questions or doubts" about your beliefs.Everybody else is wrong and you alone are right.



Man why go there?


----------



## JuliaH

I find myself defending someone I don't even know... but I read back a ways to be more comfortable with this... NO ONE outside of the devil and the rest of the fallen angels who fell from heaven before the earth was made, and I repeat NO ONE is truly an evil person. 

Be careful when you make such a judgement toward another. I have not seen, and someone will have to prove to me where she thinks she alone is right...lol. 

In the time I have been here, I see a lot of  and  and mostly because of our differing church beliefs, which is usually not worth the struggle it brings. Our Christianity and our Christian love gets lost in our Churchianity and our dogmas... 

Just for the record, how would anyone who might be searching for God find Him in all this when we dare to tell others they are "truly an evil person".

My goodness! 

Julia



rangerdave said:


> Please show me were I ever told anyone they "needed more faith."
> You are truly an evil person,and you obviously have no "questions or doubts" about your beliefs.Everybody else is wrong and you alone are right.


----------



## jason4445

And people ask why don't more turn to Christianity and go to church - what is wrong with Jesus?  Nothing is wrong with Jesus, its the Christians that are the problem.


----------



## JuliaH

This problem is the same as the early church. For a while they were ok, but if you read, the arguing, even over doctrine, started very early.... before any denominations were heard of.... we are still doing the same thing...lol. But, you don't toss out the baby with the bathwater either 

Julia




jason4445 said:


> And people ask why don't more turn to Christianity and go to church - what is wrong with Jesus? Nothing is wrong with Jesus, its the Christians that are the problem.


----------



## celticfisherman

JuliaH said:


> This problem is the same as the early church. For a while they were ok, but if you read, the arguing, even over doctrine, started very early.... before any denominations were heard of.... we are still doing the same thing...lol. But, you don't toss out the baby with the bathwater either
> 
> Julia



That's right. Corinthians and 1 Tim are full of this topic.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

rangerdave said:


> Please show me were I ever told anyone they "needed more faith."
> You are truly an evil person,and you obviously have no "questions or doubts" about your beliefs.Everybody else is wrong and you alone are right.



I wasn't accusing you of anything... it was an accumulation of posts from many threads.... aaah, never mind... it doesn't matter anyway.  You obviously have some personal issues with me that I don't know about or understand.  You put posts on here and in PM asking for a 'truce' and then come right back with your personal attacks... for which I am guilty of allowing you to 'push my buttons' and respond back with the like.  

For you to say that I have no questions or doubts about my beliefs means that you haven't really read my posts, you pick out what you want to use against me and then use the excuse that you're 'standing up to the devil' and then try to bring attention to yourself (looking for praise?  )that you're doing it.   I have never said that my way is the only way... or that ANY way is the 'only' way... although that IS what you believe.  

At any rate, I don't hold anything against you Dave, and you can play the game by yourself now.  It doesn't do anyone any good, least of all me, and I apologize for allowing you to push my buttons with your childish digs and for responding with my own.  I sincerely wish you nothing but peace.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

JuliaH said:


> Hi Dixie
> 
> There is plenty in what you say for others to hear, and we must all quit focusing on the negative
> 
> Pointing fingers is almost always the wrong thing to do. It leads to confrontation almost every time... gosh, I sure am using the almost word a lot...lol. But I bet you understand what I am trying to say
> 
> In my mind, there is no way all the confrontation and arguement are going to show anyone the love and the commitment to our faith that we all want to show. All that, to me anyhow, is much different from having a different understanding, agreeing to disagree and even standing our ground on our principles   There is a time and a place for all of that... but I am concerned that our bent to confrontation (I am right and you are wrong stuff from all sides...lol) and our bent to make your heartagram into something evil. I don't have the answer, and so don't make the judgement
> 
> If it is a bad thing, I would not accept it for myself, but that does not give me the right to take it away from you... if that makes sense   If my interest and love for Jesus Christ is not acceptable to others, they are free to not accept Him or me, but it does not give the right for them to attempt to take Him away from me. Since He is the reason I am still here... right or wrong... alive and breathing, I am commited to love Him  and others through Him if I can
> 
> As to faith, we can't have more... we are all given the measure of faith that we need. It's up to us to use it... we never lose it, but we can feel like we have lost it. So very many times I have been sure that my faith was just gone. No way could it be there!! But it has always been with me   Check out this little bit of Scripture , and not because I want to hit you with it... but just to give you a thought I want to share   Please accept it in the spirit I send it to you
> 
> Romans 12: 3 For by the grace (unmerited favor of God) given to me I warn everyone among you not to estimate and think of himself more highly than he ought [not to have an exaggerated opinion of his own importance], but to rate his ability with sober judgment, each according to the degree of faith apportioned by God to him.
> 
> 
> Julia




Thank you Julia.  I don't think I've ever seen so many smiley faces in a post before... it made me smile before I even read it!!!   

Kerri


----------



## JuliaH

Your welcome    I am not sure of any other way to let myself come thru than these little smilies or frownies...lol... or whatever! 

I never intend to hurt or make a wound deeper. But sometimes I think of something that might even be helpful. 

I also have been through some of the "trying to read enough, be holy enough, be perfect enough" and I just ain't   But thankfully through my son and his friend, God was able to teach me those things He needed me to know for survival, for my faith (sorely shaken at times) for my sanity at times I think 

Julia



Dixie Dawg said:


> Thank you Julia. I don't think I've ever seen so many smiley faces in a post before... it made me smile before I even read it!!!
> 
> Kerri


----------



## Big10point

Dixie Dawg said:


> Well, I'm not you and I'm not your brother.  I did fear God and he11... so much so that I was so worried over whether or not I was a 'real' Christian that I had anxiety attacks, panic attacks and
> 
> dd, does this parable mean anything to you...?
> 
> 
> Matthew 13
> 1The same day went Jesus out of the house, and sat by the sea side.
> 
> 2And great multitudes were gathered together unto him, so that he went into a ship, and sat; and the whole multitude stood on the shore.
> 
> 3And he spake many things unto them in parables, saying, Behold, a sower went forth to sow;
> 
> 4And when he sowed, some seeds fell by the way side, and the fowls came and devoured them up:
> 
> 5Some fell upon stony places, where they had not much earth: and forthwith they sprung up, because they had no deepness of earth:
> 
> 6And when the sun was up, they were scorched; and because they had no root, they withered away.
> 
> 7And some fell among thorns; and the thorns sprung up, and choked them:
> 
> 8But other fell into good ground, and brought forth fruit, some an hundredfold, some sixtyfold, some thirtyfold.
> 
> 9Who hath ears to hear, let him hear.
> 
> 10And the disciples came, and said unto him, Why speakest thou unto them in parables?
> 
> 11He answered and said unto them, Because it is given unto you to know the mysteries of the kingdom of heaven, but to them it is not given.
> 
> 12For whosoever hath, to him shall be given, and he shall have more abundance: but whosoever hath not, from him shall be taken away even that he hath.
> 
> 13Therefore speak I to them in parables: because they seeing see not; and hearing they hear not, neither do they understand.
> 
> 14And in them is fulfilled the prophecy of Esaias, which saith, By hearing ye shall hear, and shall not understand; and seeing ye shall see, and shall not perceive:
> 
> 15For this people's heart is waxed gross, and their ears are dull of hearing, and their eyes they have closed; lest at any time they should see with their eyes and hear with their ears, and should understand with their heart, and should be converted, and I should heal them.
> 
> 16But blessed are your eyes, for they see: and your ears, for they hear.
> 
> 17For verily I say unto you, That many prophets and righteous men have desired to see those things which ye see, and have not seen them; and to hear those things which ye hear, and have not heard them.
> 
> 18Hear ye therefore the parable of the sower.
> 
> 19When any one heareth the word of the kingdom, and understandeth it not, then cometh the wicked one, and catcheth away that which was sown in his heart. This is he which received seed by the way side.
> 
> 20But he that received the seed into stony places, the same is he that heareth the word, and anon with joy receiveth it;
> 
> 21Yet hath he not root in himself, but dureth for a while: for when tribulation or persecution ariseth because of the word, by and by he is offended.
> 
> 22He also that received seed among the thorns is he that heareth the word; and the care of this world, and the deceitfulness of riches, choke the word, and he becometh unfruitful.
> 
> 23But he that received seed into the good ground is he that heareth the word, and understandeth it; which also beareth fruit, and bringeth forth, some an hundredfold, some sixty, some thirty.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Big10point said:


> dd, does this parable mean anything to you...?




Yes.
But I have a feeling that we'll get different things from it.


----------



## ambush80

celticfisherman said:


> I wouldn't say never. But I also don't believe you are bad person because of not having it. Things change. You may have something occur in your life that does bring you to some understanding of faith. Nor do I believe you just needed to have more of it. More of something you are not prepared for nor grasp is useless. That would be like giving me a book on string theory when I barely passed Algebra II in HS.
> _
> You may not ever come to that conclusion about faith. I have known many fine people that did not and were proud to call them my friends and fellowship with them in the woods and around many a camp fire._
> 
> I hope that didn't come across condescending...




Finally!!!   Someone making sense.


----------



## ambush80

rangerdave said:


> Please show me were I ever told anyone they "needed more faith."
> _You are truly an evil person_,and you obviously have no "questions or doubts" about your beliefs.Everybody else is wrong and you alone are right.



How do you think your Jesus or your Satan feels about this kind of talk?


----------



## Big10point

ambush80 said:


> How do you think your Jesus or your Satan feels about this kind of talk?



Jesus called people:   snakes, brood of vipers, satan, hypocrites and others...  if the shoe fits then the shoe fits... i am not saying that the shoe fits in this instance i am just saying... its ok to call a duck a duck... as long as you're not guilty of being a duck yourself....


----------



## WTM45

rangerdave said:


> Please show me were I ever told anyone they "needed more faith."
> You are truly an evil person,and you obviously have no "questions or doubts" about your beliefs.Everybody else is wrong and you alone are right.




Pot, meet kettle.


----------



## ambush80

Big10point said:


> Jesus called people:   snakes, brood of vipers, satan, hypocrites and others...  if the shoe fits then the shoe fits... i am not saying that the shoe fits in this instance i am just saying... its ok to call a duck a duck... as long as you're not guilty of being a duck yourself....



I think your Satan is spreading his wings and having a deep chuckle over this one.


----------



## JuliaH

Myt recollection is that He called the Scribes and Pharisees those sorts of names... never the man or woman having a tough time... Who on here do you think is being guilty of being as haughty as were the teachers (Scribes and Pharisees) of their time?

Julia



Big10point said:


> Jesus called people: snakes, brood of vipers, satan, hypocrites and others... if the shoe fits then the shoe fits... i am not saying that the shoe fits in this instance i am just saying... its ok to call a duck a duck... as long as you're not guilty of being a duck yourself....


----------



## ambush80

christianhunter said:


> For those of you who get on here,with your questions of dis-belief.How many of you are sincere,with your question,and possibly want to understand more about GOD?
> 
> Versus
> 
> Those who get on here just to poke fun,blaspheme,or try to start arguments,or those who maybe in a cult,trying to get converts.(Jehovahs witness,mormons,scientologists,etc;.)
> Which one fits you?




I would like to see a move towards Universalism.  Would that be doing the work of da Debil?


----------



## Big10point

ambush80 said:


> I think your Satan is spreading his wings and having a deep chuckle over this one.



my "satan"... thats a new one i havent heard...  interesting.


----------



## ambush80

Big10point said:


> my "satan"... thats a new one i havent heard...  interesting.



He ain't mine.  I don't even think he exists.   Certainly not in the same way that Christians do.


----------



## christianhunter

ambush80 said:


> He ain't mine.  I don't even think he exists.   Certainly not in the same way that Christians do.



I know I'm not getting it totally right,and don't even remember the movie it was said on,but here it goes,"The greatest trick satan ever played,was to make people think he didn't exist."


----------



## christianhunter

I started this Thread trying to understand more about the un-believers.I have wound up being taught a little more about myself,by some of my Brothers and Sisters.I'm not letting THE HOLY SPIRIT do HIS work.I should have just planted a seed,and left it.

Michael


----------



## celticfisherman

christianhunter said:


> I know I'm not getting it totally right,and don't even remember the movie it was said on,but here it goes,"The greatest trick satan ever played,was to make people think he didn't exist."



Steven Seagal and DMX were in it and Roseanne's ex husband... TOM ARNOLD!

Exit Wounds was the name of the movie I believe.

I'm a nut...


----------



## JuliaH

Michael, 

I think the Holy Spirit is doing his work... and we can tend the garden I believe, just the work of growth belongs to Him Who can and does make that seed grow! 

I have learned and this has been a good thread!! 

I also believe you are correct that Satan does his best work while we are busy saying he does not even exist   or arguing over his methods...

Julia



christianhunter said:


> I started this Thread trying to understand more about the un-believers.I have wound up being taught a little more about myself,by some of my Brothers and Sisters.I'm not letting THE HOLY SPIRIT do HIS work.I should have just planted a seed,and left it.
> 
> Michael


----------



## pnome

christianhunter said:


> For those of you who get on here,with your questions of dis-belief.How many of you are sincere,with your question,and possibly want to understand more about GOD?
> 
> Versus
> 
> Those who get on here just to poke fun,blaspheme,or try to start arguments,or those who maybe in a cult,trying to get converts.(Jehovahs witness,mormons,scientologists,etc;.)
> Which one fits you?



I'm not here to poke fun.  I am here to bring you the good news.  The good news that you need not live in fear of eternal ****ation.  No fear of satan or of gods wrath.  You can shrug off your superstitions and open your eyes upon a new and awe inspiring world.



> "On mine honor, my friend," answered Zarathustra, "there is nothing of all that whereof thou speakest: there is no devil and no hades. Thy soul will be dead even sooner than thy body; fear, therefore, nothing any more!"


----------



## earl

Pnome, you can't tell him anything .He still believes in burning books.


----------



## christianhunter

If they are trash you are absolutely correct.My step-son brought a Marilyn Manson book into my house,when I found out about it.I burned it in the driveway.I will also burn any book or movie on the occult or any other blasphemas subject that I find in my house NO apologies.So there is one thing you are right about finally.


----------



## pnome

christianhunter said:


> If they are trash you are absolutely correct.My step-son brought a Marilyn Manson book into my house,when I found out about it.I burned it in the driveway.I will also burn any book or movie on the occult or any other blasphemas subject that I find in my house NO apologies.So there is one thing you are right about finally.



Well, I won't begrudge you burning a Marilyn Manson book (he can write? who knew?).  He ("It" may be a better term) is indeed trash.


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> Well, I won't begrudge you burning a Marilyn Manson book (he can write? who knew?).  He ("It" may be a better term) is indeed trash.


----------



## earl

''blasphemous subjects''  I bet you have a long list. Pure ignorance !


----------



## Double Barrel BB

pnome said:


> I'm not here to poke fun. I am here to bring you the good news. The good news that you need not live in fear of eternal ****ation. No fear of satan or of gods wrath. You can shrug off your superstitions and open your eyes upon a new and awe inspiring world.


 

Pnome... No offense... But I don't live in fear of eternal ****ation... You see I have a Savior, His name is Jesus Christ, and I pray that one day he pays your heart a visit, for when that happens you will know the Love that we as Saved People feel...

DB BB


----------



## celticfisherman

Double Barrel BB said:


> Pnome... No offense... But I don't live in fear of eternal ****ation... You see I have a Savior, His name is Jesus Christ, and I pray that one day he pays your heart a visit, for when that happens you will know the Love that we as Saved People feel...
> 
> DB BB



Yep.


----------



## pnome

Double Barrel BB said:


> Pnome... No offense... But I don't live in fear of eternal ****ation... You see I have a Savior, His name is Jesus Christ, and I pray that one day he pays your heart a visit, for when that happens you will know the Love that we as Saved People feel...
> 
> DB BB



If you don't fear eternal ****ation, then why would you need a "Savior"?


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> If you don't fear eternal ****ation, then why would you need a "Savior"?



Christ has offered himself in our stead. You and I will be held accountable for all our deeds. Good and bad. For the bad we will have to pay a price. And trust me you will do far more harm than good in your life (collective not you you) so there is not outweighing it. And when that bill is due mine will say paid in full. Calvary.


----------



## PoBoy

Yeah yeah yeah, and the earth is only 5000 years old.  I am solid in man is another animal on this earth.  One without a hereafter and no great devine leadership to follow.  With all of the evil taking place on earth now, if there is a god looking over it, he or she is doing a lousy job.


----------



## celticfisherman

PoBoy said:


> Yeah yeah yeah, and the earth is only 5000 years old.  I am solid in man is another animal on this earth.  One without a hereafter and no great devine leadership to follow.  With all of the evil taking place on earth now, if there is a god looking over it, he or she is doing a lousy job.



You shouldn't jump in and make assumptions on what people believe...


----------



## Double Barrel BB

celticfisherman said:


> christ has offered himself in our stead. You and i will be held accountable for all our deeds. Good and bad. For the bad we will have to pay a price. And trust me you will do far more harm than good in your life (collective not you you) so there is not outweighing it. And when that bill is due mine will say paid in full. Calvary.


 
*amen!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!*


----------



## heavymetalhunter

PoBoy said:


> I am solid in man is another animal on this earth.  One without a hereafter and no great devine leadership to follow.  With all of the evil taking place on earth now, if there is a god looking over it, he or she is doing a lousy job.



 agreed

when you think about it, you have to realize that, in all honesty, humans are really one the slowest, weakest, and most poorly adapted species on this planet. the only thing that even gave us a fighting chance was intelligence. we had to figure out how to adapt to our environment in "unnatural" ways.


----------



## crackerdave

christianhunter said:


> I started this Thread trying to understand more about the un-believers.I have wound up being taught a little more about myself,by some of my Brothers and Sisters.I'm not letting THE HOLY SPIRIT do HIS work.I should have just planted a seed,and left it.
> 
> Michael



Hard to leave it as a planted seed,ain't it,brother?


----------



## crackerdave

heavymetalhunter said:


> agreed
> 
> when you think about it, you have to realize that, in all honesty, humans are really one the slowest, weakest, and most poorly adapted species on this planet. the only thing that even gave us a fighting chance was intelligence. we had to figure out how to adapt to our environment in "unnatural" ways.



Yep.Humans are the only critter where not just the fittest survive.


----------



## gtparts

I think I'll start a poll on how many have oposable thumbs.


----------



## christianhunter

earl said:


> ''blasphemous subjects''  I bet you have a long list. Pure ignorance !



In reference to another Thread.No I'm not scared,self proclaimed book burner.You betcha',if they are satanic,or of the occult.Pure ignorance?
NO!
You are judged for what you allow in your household.
No I didn't make a ceremony of it either,it was the safest place to burn it.I make no apologies to you or anyone who may agree with you about burning Manson's auto-biography.It is only one book to date,but I would do it again if I felt the same conviction to do so.Proving a point to my step-son of the evils of this world,is between me and my LORD JESUS.Having an "open mind" in the sense that some people use that term,is an excuse for wickedness.My three son's or even my wife,are not going to bring something that is undeniably evil into our house.I'm very careful about not pushing my convictions on my household or anyone else for that matter,but allowing a book from a professing satanist,in my home is crossing the line.Sorry you can't understand that.


----------



## celticfisherman

heavymetalhunter said:


> agreed
> 
> when you think about it, you have to realize that, in all honesty, humans are really one the slowest, weakest, and most poorly adapted species on this planet. the only thing that even gave us a fighting chance was intelligence. we had to figure out how to adapt to our environment in "unnatural" ways.



Of course how many other animals carry guns???


----------



## gtparts

We have not adapted, we have manipulated our environment. Man is no better adapted to withstand -40 temps or +120 temps now than 4000 years ago. He only makes external adjustments so as to bring the immediate area into a more hospitable state for his personal survival and comfort.


----------



## PoBoy

rangerdave said:


> Yep.Humans are the only critter where not just the fittest survive.



Correct!  We are the only species that holds our evolution back by allowing the most unintelligent and weakest to continue to breed.  Just think, we manage our deer for QDM and have no concern for the human breeding outcome.


----------



## footjunior

gtparts said:


> We have not adapted, we have manipulated our environment. Man is no better adapted to withstand -40 temps or +120 temps now than 4000 years ago. He only makes external adjustments so as to bring the immediate area into a more hospitable state for his personal survival and comfort.



I would disagree with this. Humans have certainly evolved. Look at the dark skin of people who live near the equator. Look at the facial blood vessel structures of native Inuit's. You think these variations did not come about via natural selection?

Homo sapiens are most definitely fit for survival. They are tool users, and more importantly social animals. Could one human stand up to a wooly mammoth unarmed? Obviously no. Could a pack of tool-wielding humans take down a mammoth? Yes. Humans have surprising endurance. Our ability to walk for miles without stopping is a very beneficial trait. It's what makes us hunter-gatherers. It's what allows us to follow herds for days on end.


----------



## CAL

Oh ye of so little to no Faith..........if we Christain believers are wrong in our belief,we have lost nothing.If you non-believers are wrong in your disbelief,well,you have all eternity to celebrate it.

Might better think about this for just a little.Give our Lord a chance to come into your life and he will.If you think you have it good right now..........well,you ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## CAL

Oh ye of so little to no Faith..........if we Christain believers are wrong in our belief,we have lost nothing.If you non-believers are wrong in your disbelief,well,you have all eternity to celebrate it.

Might better think about this for just a little.Give our Lord a chance to come into your life and he will.If you think you have it good right now..........well,you ain't seen nothing yet.


----------



## jawja_peach

*Believers, pass this one by, just another d-dog beating!!*

Here we go _*AGAIN *_, beating that same dead dog. I came on here hopefully to see something worth reading....I should have known better. 

Anyone that would post on here after the thread has been dead for so long,( 5 days-- that's dead on here)... more than likely does it to cause an argument   

Why do unbelievers keep kicking that dead dog? *WE GET IT! WE KNOW YOU AREN'T A BELIEVER!!! AND NO MATTER WHAT WE SAY YOU WON'T BE IF YOU AREN'T BY NOW!! *Give us all a break and move on to something else. Geeesh!


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> I would disagree with this. Humans have certainly evolved. Look at the dark skin of people who live near the equator. Look at the facial blood vessel structures of native Inuit's. You think these variations did not come about via natural selection?
> 
> Homo sapiens are most definitely fit for survival. They are tool users, and more importantly social animals. Could one human stand up to a wooly mammoth unarmed? Obviously no. Could a pack of tool-wielding humans take down a mammoth? Yes. Humans have surprising endurance. Our ability to walk for miles without stopping is a very beneficial trait. It's what makes us hunter-gatherers. It's what allows us to follow herds for days on end.



Only 2 problems with your points:

1. Micro Evolution can be proved all day long. 

2. Macro evolution can't. Where are the fossils?


----------



## footjunior

CAL said:


> Oh ye of so little to no Faith..........if we Christain believers are wrong in our belief,we have lost nothing.If you non-believers are wrong in your disbelief,well,you have all eternity to celebrate it.
> 
> Might better think about this for just a little.Give our Lord a chance to come into your life and he will.If you think you have it good right now..........well,you ain't seen nothing yet.



Pascal's Wager has already been discussed on these boards numerous times.



> Only 2 problems with your points:
> 
> 1. Micro Evolution can be proved all day long.
> 
> 2. Macro evolution can't. Where are the fossils?



Where is the line drawn for you (personally) between micro and macro? It seems to be different for every person. What species would you like me to provide transitional fossils for? How many transitional fossils do you want? Every single fossil from one species to another? I'm asking this because if I provide links to a transitional fossil, I want to make sure that it will be good enough for you. I know that if I provide a link to one TF, you'll say it's inadequate for that species. So I just would like to know.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Where is the line drawn for you (personally) between micro and macro? It seems to be different for every person. What species would you like me to provide transitional fossils for? How many transitional fossils do you want? Every single fossil from one species to another? I'm asking this because if I provide links to a transitional fossil, I want to make sure that it will be good enough for you. I know that if I provide a link to one TF, you'll say it's inadequate for that species. So I just would like to know.



There are no fossils that link birds and dinosaurs. There are fossils that link cows to buffalo and etc. No fossil has ever been found to link Humans to apes and etc.

Micro evolution is not a disputed term. It is a very specific term. One that means evolution thru environmental changes. For instance mammals being larger away from the equator but reptiles being smaller.


----------



## pnome

celticfisherman said:


> There are no fossils that link birds and dinosaurs. There are fossils that link cows to buffalo and etc. No fossil has ever been found to link Humans to apes and etc.



<embed src="http://channel.nationalgeographic.com/channel/videos/satellite/satelliteEmbedPlayer.swf" bgcolor="#000000" flashvars="videoRef=06291_00&autoStart=false&shareURL=http%3A%2F%2Fchannel%2Enationalgeographic%2Ecom%2Fchannel%2Fvideos%2Ffeeds%2Fcv%2Dseo%2FAnimals%2D%2DNature%2FFeatured%2DVideos%2FPrehistoric%2DTurkeys%2D5%2Ehtml" allowfullscreen="true" name="flashObj" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" swliveconnect="true" pluginspage="http://www.macromedia.com/shockwave/download/index.cgi?P1_Prod_Version=ShockwaveFlash" width="496" height="279">

And..  http://blog.wired.com/wiredscience/2009/02/lucy.html






> Micro evolution is not a disputed term. It is a very specific term. One that means evolution thru environmental changes. For instance mammals being larger away from the equator but reptiles being smaller.


So, at what point do you have a new species?  How many different microevolutionary changes add up to something entirely new?


----------



## celticfisherman

Can't help but notice he said "characteristics"...

Never said special evolution didn't happen. Bass are proof enough of that. Spots, smallmouth, shoals, largemouth. But it is a great leap between that to apes becoming man.


----------



## footjunior

Wait... so you just admitted that there are TF's between cows and buffalos, and you consider that microevolution?


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Wait... so you just admitted that there are TF's between cows and buffalos, and you consider that microevolution?



Not following you. Don't use initials. There are those of us who are a long way from college.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Not following you. Don't use initials. There are those of us who are a long way from college.



Why do you insist on bringing up the college thing over and over? I never mention it yet you continuously bring it up.

TF = Transitional Fossils


----------



## Dixie Dawg

jawja_peach said:


> Anyone that would post on here after the thread has been dead for so long,( 5 days-- that's dead on here)... more than likely does it to cause an argument



Or perhaps they have other things going on in their life (for example footjunior happens to be in college with a large course load) and can't get on here every day.  Not everything has a sinister intent.  



> Why do unbelievers keep kicking that dead dog? *WE GET IT! WE KNOW YOU AREN'T A BELIEVER!!! AND NO MATTER WHAT WE SAY YOU WON'T BE IF YOU AREN'T BY NOW!! *Give us all a break and move on to something else. Geeesh!



Well no one forces you to read these threads... why are you reading them and posting in them if you truly feel that way? Unless you are the one trying to cause an argument?


----------



## jawja_peach

Dixie Dawg said:


> Or perhaps they have other things going on in their life (for example footjunior happens to be in college with a large course load) and can't get on here every day.  Not everything has a sinister intent.
> 
> 
> 
> Well no one forces you to read these threads... why are you reading them and posting in them if you truly feel that way? Unless you are the one trying to cause an argument?



Hmm, kinda like the POT calling the kettle black there sis'ta....  I can't count the number of times I've seen your lil' hands stir'n the soup made of Dung Beatles.

Like I said at the beginning of my message, I thought I was going to find something else, something worth reading, and yes, that was my opinion..I'm sure there are others that find it appealing. I was told to go on and check this out again, as there were comments made to me...so I did. I don't go on here much, I stay on the Spiritual support now.Yes, I did know footjunior is in class, as he told us all back when he announced we were a project of his.
I have honestly given up on this forum, as it's not as positive as the 'other side'...the prayer requests and devotions are more important to me than the debate of beliefs of the Word. I'm not like others that can sit still and read things penned down by people who have NO IDEA what the Love of God is. I guess you can say I'm like Peter, and although the Lord told him not to, Peter had already cut off the soldiers ear off. I'm better not to even be around it, knowing it's my weakness. My hubby is very smart and studied and can 'debate' in love. I can NOT, therefor I have 'excused' myself, like a Proper Southern Lady would, as to not bring any reproach on my Lord and Saviour. The Word teaches us to love one another, and for me to love you, footjunior, and all the others, it's just best for me to remain in prayer on the flip-side... I have gotten several PM's of several different people who know that my past entries were in love, and had actually gotten something out of it. 

So, to all, love and blessings... and watch those 'pots' out there, because when you point fingers there are always 3 pointing back...


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> There are no fossils that link birds and dinosaurs. There are fossils that link cows to buffalo and etc. No fossil has ever been found to link Humans to apes and etc.
> 
> Micro evolution is not a disputed term. It is a very specific term. One that means evolution thru environmental changes. For instance mammals being larger away from the equator but reptiles being smaller.





> Wait... so you just admitted that there are transitional fossils between cows and buffalos, and you consider that microevolution?



I would like a response on this.

Do you consider the transitional fossils between cows and buffaloes to be evidence for microevolution or macroevolution?


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Why do you insist on bringing up the college thing over and over? I never mention it yet you continuously bring it up.
> 
> TF = Transitional Fossils



Cause it's funny.


----------



## matthewsman

*Not a good example,*



footjunior said:


> I would like a response on this.
> 
> Do you consider the transitional fossils between cows and buffaloes to be evidence for microevolution or macroevolution?



No wonder you are pounding on it...Cows and Buffalo can crossbreed,hence "Beefalo"Not that different to me...You could just as easy call the bones of a "Labrdoodle" transitional fossils between a lab and a poodle,when in reality it's the offspring of the two.

In both cases they are close enough geneticly to crossbreed.


You know the TF(Transitional fossils) he is speaking of.

The human missing link.Just as you are not convinced of many things,I am not convinced the remains you referenced before are transitional human remains either.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> I would like a response on this.
> 
> Do you consider the transitional fossils between cows and buffaloes to be evidence for microevolution or macroevolution?



Micro. I still haven't seen where a t-rex became a turkey. That is Macro evolution. Complete change. People from apes and etc. All they quote is Characteristics. 

Foot- trust me when I say this. I am not the one you want to argue this with. Go find Big10pt or Fivesolas. You will have much more fun in your little game.

You have little respect for people's thoughts and only a few of your own. It's the blessing of your age and experience.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

jawja_peach said:


> Hmm, kinda like the POT calling the kettle black there sis'ta....  I can't count the number of times I've seen your lil' hands stir'n the soup made of Dung Beatles.



Actually, no, this isn't the pot calling the kettle black... I've never come on here and complained about the threads that were being posted on.  If I don't want to read or reply to something, I don't... I just move on.




> Like I said at the beginning of my message, I thought I was going to find something else, something worth reading, and yes, that was my opinion..I'm sure there are others that find it appealing. I was told to go on and check this out again, as there were comments made to me...so I did. I don't go on here much, I stay on the Spiritual support now.Yes, I did know footjunior is in class, as he told us all back when he announced we were a project of his.
> I have honestly given up on this forum, as it's not as positive as the 'other side'...the prayer requests and devotions are more important to me than the debate of beliefs of the Word. I'm not like others that can sit still and read things penned down by people who have NO IDEA what the Love of God is. I guess you can say I'm like Peter, and although the Lord told him not to, Peter had already cut off the soldiers ear off. I'm better not to even be around it, knowing it's my weakness. My hubby is very smart and studied and can 'debate' in love. I can NOT, therefor I have 'excused' myself, like a Proper Southern Lady would, as to not bring any reproach on my Lord and Saviour. The Word teaches us to love one another, and for me to love you, footjunior, and all the others, it's just best for me to remain in prayer on the flip-side... I have gotten several PM's of several different people who know that my past entries were in love, and had actually gotten something out of it.
> 
> So, to all, love and blessings... and watch those 'pots' out there, because when you point fingers there are always 3 pointing back...



So knowing that footjunior doesn't get on here every night, you still found it necessary to accuse him of stirring the pot by bringing up a thread that he hadn't been able to reply to since the last time he visited days ago.

So is that how a "Proper Southern Lady" behaves?  Come and sling some dirt before you make your grand exit?  Forgive me for not being a "Proper Southern Lady" then... I wasn't raised that way.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

matthewsman said:


> No wonder you are pounding on it...Cows and Buffalo can crossbreed,hence "Beefalo"Not that different to me...You could just as easy call the bones of a "Labrdoodle" transitional fossils between a lab and a poodle,when in reality it's the offspring of the two.
> 
> In both cases they are close enough geneticly to crossbreed.
> 
> 
> You know the TF(Transitional fossils) he is speaking of.
> 
> The human missing link.Just as you are not convinced of many things,I am not convinced the remains you referenced before are transitional human remains either.



  Are there any known studies where they have done 'crossbreeding' of humans and apes?  I would bet that they have, even if they aren't published or public.  

And what do you think of the fact that pig organs are often transplanted into humans because they are so genetically similar?  Where would that come from?  

I honestly don't know, so that's why I'm asking.  I'm not for or against evolution, I don't know enough about it to have an opinion.


----------



## celticfisherman

Dixie Dawg said:


> Are there any known studies where they have done 'crossbreeding' of humans and apes?  I would bet that they have, even if they aren't published or public.
> 
> And what do you think of the fact that pig organs are often transplanted into humans because they are so genetically similar?  Where would that come from?
> 
> I honestly don't know, so that's why I'm asking.  I'm not for or against evolution, I don't know enough about it to have an opinion.



You can't cross breed successfully when the chromosomes don't match up (and they don't between humans and apes). Now genetically altered human/animal hybrids are being experimented with. Scary ain't it. Just think Incredible hulk or Wolverine or spiderman.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Micro. I still haven't seen where a t-rex became a turkey. That is Macro evolution. Complete change. People from apes and etc. All they quote is Characteristics.



-------------------------------------------------------

Hyracotherium







-------------------------------------------------------

Orohippus






-------------------------------------------------------

Mesohippus






-------------------------------------------------------

Miohippus






-------------------------------------------------------

Parahippus






-------------------------------------------------------

Merychippus






-------------------------------------------------------

Pliohippus






-------------------------------------------------------

Dinohippus






-------------------------------------------------------

Equus






^^ The modern horse belongs to this genus.

Macro or micro? Remember these are genera, not species.

I would love to hear your thoughts on this, since I believe I remember you saying you were not a young-earth creationist.



> Foot- trust me when I say this. I am not the one you want to argue this with. Go find Big10pt or Fivesolas. You will have much more fun in your little game.



I'm going to post whenever I feel like it to whomever I want to post to. If you don't want to respond, then don't. Your diction and attitude has become rather condescending lately: "little game".



> You have little respect for people's thoughts and only a few of your own. It's the blessing of your age and experience.



Yet again you assume to know me better than I know myself. Please provide evidence that I have little respect for people's thoughts. You cannot. That is why you never quote me. The quotes simply aren't there and you know it.


----------



## celticfisherman

Foot- I get tired of the tone you take with everyone. Antagonism wears on me. You are not searching you are arguing. 

No I am not a young earth person and I have no problem with the horse. But find a human ape time line. There's a huge gap...


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Foot- I get tired of the tone you take with everyone. Antagonism wears on me. You are not searching you are arguing.



I get tired of the tone you take with me, but I don't revert to blaming it on your education or age like you do to me. Talking as if Georgia Tech has so corrupted my mind that I am unable to think objectively. And assuming that just because I am young, that I am arrogant. Why do you insist on using these stereotypes yet refuse to quote me when you claim to know so much about me?



> No I am not a young earth person and I have no problem with the horse. But find a human ape time line. There's a huge gap...



Could you elaborate on you mean by "I have no problem with the horse"? Are you saying that macroevolution happens to other species (like the horse), but just not humans? I don't think you are saying that, but I want to make sure.

Could you answer the question of whether or not the horse example I gave above is evidence of microevolution or macroevolution?


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> I get tired of the tone you take with me, but I don't revert to blaming it on your education or age like you do to me. Talking as if Georgia Tech has so corrupted my mind that I am unable to think objectively. And assuming that just because I am young, that I am arrogant. Why do you insist on using these stereotypes yet refuse to quote me when you claim to know so much about me?
> 
> 
> 
> Could you elaborate on you mean by "I have no problem with the horse"? Are you saying that macroevolution happens to other species (like the horse), but just not humans? I don't think you are saying that, but I want to make sure.
> 
> Could you answer the question of whether or not the horse example I gave above is evidence of microevolution or macroevolution?



A horse is a horse of course of course... Go find the t-rex and we can talk.

Yes I am making fun of your attitude. You are in college and convinced you have it all figured out. That's what the joke is. And yes foot I am really tired of your know it all assumptions. You are taking what some professor tells you whole cloth but when someone here has a different opinion you can't accept it. I didn't come onto the campus and throw bibles at you. You came into a spiritual forum with no idea of the spiritual.

And BTW I will be on campus tomorrow at 1 at the softball field feel free to come by at 2 to discuss any of this in person. Or if you have the nerve to sit down with two presbyterians from the country you can have lunch at the V with me and one of my guys. I'll pick up the check. But the first time you quote Darwin or Dawkins you have to buy. Those are light weights. Find someone good.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> A horse is a horse of course of course... Go find the t-rex and we can talk.



This is the weakest evasion I have seen from you in a while.

Unlike some people, I don't like assuming that I know what other people think, so I'm simply going to ask you. Are you claiming that the modern horse has evolved from Hyracotherium but you are at the same time claiming that this is an example of microevolution?



> And yes foot I am really tired of your know it all assumptions.



...



> You are in college and convinced you have it all figured out.



...



> You are taking what some professor tells you whole cloth but when someone here has a different opinion you can't accept it.



I'm the one making assumptions? I doubt you will believe me, but I have never had a professor speak about spiritual matters. Therefore I have never been able to take what some professor tells me "whole cloth" since I never even had the opportunity.



> And BTW I will be on campus tomorrow at 1 at the softball field feel free to come by at 2 to discuss any of this in person. Or if you have the nerve to sit down with two presbyterians from the country you can have lunch at the V with me and one of my guys. I'll pick up the check. But the first time you quote Darwin or Dawkins you have to buy. Those are light weights. Find someone good.



I'll think about it. I don't think I'm going to eat at the Varsity anymore. Last few times I ate there my stomach didn't approve.

Are you talking about Rose Bowl field? Like on the corner of Ferst and Fowler?


----------



## celticfisherman

Foot- If you think something is weak then keep on. My answer is accurate whether you like it or not. Find the dinosaur to bird sample everyone claims is there. You found a mammal. Not reptile to fowl. Or again like everyone else is asking ape to man. Personally I do not have a problem with animals evolving as your horse skeleton above. However there are no examples of a bird coming from a dinosaur. The assumption of Darwinism is that it will always find the answer and that is fine but don't force us to take it as whole cloth. You have far far more holes in that belief system than even a Muslim.

Show me where mammals evolved from dinosaurs. Just because I am an Old Earth creationist doesn't mean I blindly follow this crap.

I believe the 7 days are periods of creation. Species were created and lived in order to prepare the world for man.

Now a man who won't eat at the V needs to be asked to leave GT...


----------



## christianhunter

I could have a more diverse skeletal line up of horses than that.Using the horses that are walking today.Miniature horses,shetlan ponies,mustang's,Arabian's,and clydsdales.Then there are mules,donkey's and zebras.That "gallery" proves nothing.In the 90's evolution as far as Darwin's theory was disproven.Look up the archives in the AJC,and see for yourself.There is no missing link,in apes to man forget looking for that.I don't know the age of the earth,when GOD CREATED Adam and EVE.The LORD told them to "replinish"the earth.There is a lot of speculation on that even among Christian scholars,but that's all it is ,speculation as to who or what was here,before.The behemoth in the Bible was a four legged creature that would eat as cattle,and was still able to stand on it's hind leg's.It's tail was described as the cedars of Lebanon which grew on average to 30'.That was co-existant to man.Evolution in the sense that you are using it,is nonexistant.Sorry.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Foot- If you think something is weak then keep on. My answer is accurate whether you like it or not. Find the dinosaur to bird sample everyone claims is there. You found a mammal. Not reptile to fowl. Or again like everyone else is asking ape to man. Personally I do not have a problem with animals evolving as your horse skeleton above. However there are no examples of a bird coming from a dinosaur. The assumption of Darwinism is that it will always find the answer and that is fine but don't force us to take it as whole cloth. You have far far more holes in that belief system than even a Muslim.



So is the horse evolution above an example of macro or microevolution? Why are you refusing the answer this one simple question?



> Now a man who won't eat at the V needs to be asked to leave GT...



Bah, the Varsity has been going down hill for a while now. I used to like it, but the last few times I've ate there (with GT friends) we've all came to the conclusion that it's just too greasy. I picked up a fry and grease was dripping off rapidly. To each his own.


----------



## footjunior

christianhunter said:


> I could have a more diverse skeletal line up of horses than that.Using the horses that are walking today.Miniature horses,shetlan ponies,mustang's,Arabian's,and clydsdales.Then there are mules,donkey's and zebras.That "gallery" proves nothing.



I'm not sure if I should even reply to this since you seem to lack a basic understanding of what exactly was posted above, but I'm going to anyways. The gallery above describes horse ancestors from very different time periods. There have been no Equus fossils found which date to the same era as Hyracotherium fossils, and the same goes for the other fossils. I believe you are claiming that these are all simply horses, just different varieties. This is incorrect. The skeletons above belong to different genera, that's how different they are. That is, the changes between these fossils are above the species level.

One problem with the "gallery" above is that the pictures do not show the size of the skeletons. Maybe this would help:








> In the 90's evolution as far as Darwin's theory was disproven.Look up the archives in the AJC,and see for yourself.



...


----------



## ambush80

celticfisherman said:


> Yes I am making fun of your attitude. You are in college and convinced you have it all figured out. That's what the joke is. And yes foot I am really tired of your know it all assumptions. You are taking what some professor tells you whole cloth but when someone here has a different opinion you can't accept it. I didn't come onto the campus and throw bibles at you. You came into a spiritual forum with no idea of the spiritual.
> 
> 
> 
> You don't even know how old he is.  What if he's a 50 year old grad student or an undergrad that never finished?
> 
> 
> 
> celticfisherman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Foot- If you think something is weak then keep on. My answer is accurate whether you like it or not. _Find the dinosaur to bird sample everyone claims is there. _You found a mammal. Not reptile to fowl. Or again like everyone else is asking ape to man. Personally I do not have a problem with animals evolving as your horse skeleton above. _However there are no examples of a bird coming from a dinosaur._ The assumption of Darwinism is that it will always find the answer and that is fine but don't force us to take it as whole cloth. You have far far more holes in that belief system than even a Muslim.
> 
> Show me where mammals evolved from dinosaurs. Just because I am an Old Earth creationist doesn't mean I blindly follow this crap.
Click to expand...



Archaeopteryx


----------



## christianhunter

footjunior said:


> I'm not sure if I should even reply to this since you seem to lack a basic understanding of what exactly was posted above, but I'm going to anyways. The gallery above describes horse ancestors from very different time periods. There have been no Equus fossils found which date to the same era as Hyracotherium fossils, and the same goes for the other fossils. I believe you are claiming that these are all simply horses, just different varieties. This is incorrect. The skeletons above belong to different genera, that's how different they are. That is, the changes between these fossils are above the species level.
> 
> One problem with the "gallery" above is that the pictures do not show the size of the skeletons. Maybe this would help:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Believe it or not,they taught this junk when I went to school.As I said in my previous post,we have a more diverse size structure than that now.When evolutionists can't explain something they just add another 1,000,000,000 years.Are we under a new study again?
BTW you are way off subject for this Thread,start a new one.Maybe "Case study of Christians,for my agnostic professer."


----------



## footjunior

christianhunter said:


> Believe it or not,they taught this junk when I went to school.As I said in my previous post,we have a more diverse size structure than that now.When evolutionists can't explain something they just add another 1,000,000,000 years.Are we under a new study again?
> BTW you are way off subject for this Thread,start a new one.Maybe "Case study of Christians,for my agnostic professer."



Well, I guess I shouldn't have responded the first time. Are you unable to see that these skeletons are from different genera? Do you know the difference between genus and species? These size differences are not within the same species, as they are now. Why am I even trying? If you have such a backwards, stereotyped view of science (and therefore evolution), then you will forever be close-minded to certain parts of science which go against your cherished, 4000 year old beliefs. Have a good day.


----------



## matthewsman

*come on Mr Foot..*

As astute an observationist as you are,surely you can see the resemblance in different species of todays mammals represented by the remains you've listed...

I'll play the game with you even though I am a YEC.

Equus....horse,good enough.

Pliohippus ......donkey or zebra

Merychipus......Burro or donkey

Micro evolution due to geographic anomalies may have contributed to differences in pigmentation or size factors.I see no reason from what you've posted to believe yet in the theory of macro evolution as you think evidenced by your pictures.Looks to be different species to me.

Now,back to the time periods..and to the YEC....Due to the differences in climate extremes,sedimentation,and pressures involved,and disparities in the amount of time things fosslize under different conditions,I think that the aging processes utilized, including carbon dating,are not nearly as accurate as modern science would lead us to believe.

As mentioned in ther posts,scientists are often times very unobjective in their research as evidenced by the famous "pig tooth"debacle.  





footjunior said:


> I'm not sure if I should even reply to this since you seem to lack a basic understanding of what exactly was posted above, but I'm going to anyways. The gallery above describes horse ancestors from very different time periods. There have been no Equus fossils found which date to the same era as Hyracotherium fossils, and the same goes for the other fossils. I believe you are claiming that these are all simply horses, just different varieties. This is incorrect. The skeletons above belong to different genera, that's how different they are. That is, the changes between these fossils are above the species level.
> 
> One problem with the "gallery" above is that the pictures do not show the size of the skeletons. Maybe this would help:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## matthewsman

*a side note Mr. Foot..*

Welcome back from your busy semester.

If you are still on your search to prove Mr Dawkins wrong and that fundamentalists can be converted,I would suggest a better avenue for you to pursue than trying to rescue us from a lifetime of being brainwashed into believing in creation.

You admit that there is enough historical evidence to prove that a pretty incredible man,Jesus Christ,was a part of the Earth's population at one time.Therefore you believe in Him as we do.

If you could get some of your scientifically minded, evolutionist, excavationists to unearth one particular set of bones,you would go much further in attempting to dissuade us of Christ's sovereignty.

Then you could return victorious in your pursuit of the one piece of information it would take to convince the unreachable fundementalists


----------



## pnome

matthewsman said:


> Welcome back from your busy semester.
> 
> If you are still on your search to prove Mr Dawkins wrong and that fundamentalists can be converted,I would suggest a better avenue for you to pursue than trying to rescue us from a lifetime of being brainwashed into believing in creation.
> 
> You admit that there is enough historical evidence to prove that a pretty incredible man,Jesus Christ,was a part of the Earth's population at one time.Therefore you believe in Him as we do.
> 
> If you could get some of your scientifically minded, evolutionist, excavationists to unearth one particular set of bones,you would go much further in attempting to dissuade us of Christ's sovereignty.
> 
> Then you could return victorious in your pursuit of the one piece of information it would take to convince the unreachable fundementalists




You're shifting the burden of proof.  It is up to you, believer, to prove that Jesus was the son of the almighty creator of heaven and Earth.  Good luck with that.  

P.S. I believe he existed as a human, it's up to you to prove the rest.


----------



## footjunior

matthewsman said:


> As astute an observationist as you are,surely you can see the resemblance in different species of todays mammals represented by the remains you've listed...
> 
> I'll play the game with you even though I am a YEC.
> 
> Equus....horse,good enough.
> 
> Pliohippus ......donkey or zebra
> 
> Merychipus......Burro or donkey
> 
> Micro evolution due to geographic anomalies may have contributed to differences in pigmentation or size factors.I see no reason from what you've posted to believe yet in the theory of macro evolution as you think evidenced by your pictures.Looks to be different species to me.



Care to take a shot at Hyracotherium?

And the skeletal differences are micro as well I assume?

These are different genera. I'm sorry. If you would like to argue with all the taxonomists in the world, go ahead. The bottom line is that if one genera evolves into another, it is macroevolution.

Can you find any literature that suggests that these are in fact different species and not genera? Or are you just going to say, "Well that looks like donkey/burrow/etc., so these are just different species, not genera." You're honestly satisfied with that little reasoning?



> Now,back to the time periods..and to the YEC....Due to the differences in climate extremes,sedimentation,and pressures involved,and disparities in the amount of time things fosslize under different conditions,I think that the aging processes utilized, including carbon dating,are not nearly as accurate as modern science would lead us to believe.



Do you have any actual empirical evidence to support your argument that carbon-dating is not nearly as accurate as modern science says it is? Any peer-reviewed studies? Anything?


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Well, I guess I shouldn't have responded the first time. Are you unable to see that these skeletons are from different genera? Do you know the difference between genus and species? These size differences are not within the same species, as they are now. Why am I even trying? If you have such a backwards, stereotyped view of science (and therefore evolution), then you will forever be close-minded to certain parts of science which go against your cherished, 4000 year old beliefs. Have a good day.



And you wonder why some of us chose to make fun of you...


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> You're shifting the burden of proof.  It is up to you, believer, to prove that Jesus was the son of the almighty creator of heaven and Earth.  Good luck with that.
> 
> P.S. I believe he existed as a human, it's up to you to prove the rest.



Sorry pnome... I have come to really enjoy mine and yours conversation. Neither is going to convince the other of anything but we have a good time I think having the discussion. At least I do and you have a great way with your questions.

What he said there is exactly wht you are demanding. You are demanding physical scientific proof. He only asked you provide the same. If it really existed then I am sure someone would have provided it to get rid of us a long time ago.

And a note about Him as a human. He never demanded that. You have three choices. Liar, Lord or Lunatic. Not just nice guy...


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Care to take a shot at Hyracotherium?
> 
> And the skeletal differences are micro as well I assume?
> 
> These are different genera. I'm sorry. If you would like to argue with all the taxonomists in the world, go ahead. The bottom line is that if one genera evolves into another, it is macroevolution.
> 
> Can you find any literature that suggests that these are in fact different species and not genera? Or are you just going to say, "Well that looks like donkey/burrow/etc., so these are just different species, not genera." You're honestly satisfied with that little reasoning?
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any actual empirical evidence to support your argument that carbon-dating is not nearly as accurate as modern science says it is? Any peer-reviewed studies? Anything?




Boy they are still teaching carbon dating??? Come on even modern science is saying that is flawed. Anything can throw it off. Pollen on samples, burning, compression, Oxygen exposure. All play a detrimental role in it. 

There are other dating methods that are FAR more accurate.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> And you wonder why some of us chose to make fun of you...



I'm 21,  you're ____, and you're choosing to make fun of someone. Ad hominem attacks are for the easily amused. I consider them boring, and people seem to only use them when they don't want to or are incapable of responding intelligently to a person's arguments.

Why don't you answer my question I posted above? I've asked it no less than 3 times, and you have not responded with a definite answer. Why is that so?



> So is the horse evolution above an example of macro or microevolution?


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> There are other dating methods that are FAR more accurate.



Such as?


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Such as?



Radiometric and Isotropic


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Radiometric and Isotropic



Radiocarbon is a form of radiometric dating...

...

...

...


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> I'm 21,  you're ____, and you're choosing to make fun of someone. Ad hominem attacks are for the easily amused. I consider them boring, and people seem to only use them when they don't want to or are incapable of responding intelligently to a person's arguments.
> 
> Why don't you answer my question I posted above? I've asked it no less than 3 times, and you have not responded with a definite answer. Why is that so?



Foot this continues to amuse everyone else...

I've answered it twice. Maybe if I put it in the form of an algebraic equation you could get it...

And I am past intelligently responding to you. You babble on about things with no backing. Foot No one is forcing you to be here or forcing you to believe the way we do. But don't spout facts you don't have. Like someone above said we can show you more "evolution" in the modern horse than you did with that post. And just IMO as a hunter who has seen thousands of skeletons of many different species (but of course I am not trained as you are in ancient species identification) I have still seen more variation in hogs. Plus I don't see the links between them. I see jumps. Not small gradual progress.

And remember I am not arguing the age of the earth.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> I've answered it twice. Maybe if I put it in the form of an algebraic equation you could get it...



Or... you could just say macro or microevolution. You obviously do not want to make a choice between the two because you know exactly what the example above is. You stretch the possibilities and refuse to acknowledge the work of countless scientists just so that you can maintain your "micro, but not macro" stance.



> And I am past intelligently responding to you. You babble on about things with no backing. Foot No one is forcing you to be here or forcing you to believe the way we do. But don't spout facts you don't have.



Quote one "fact" that I said above that I don't have or does not have a "backing". Just one.



> Like someone above said we can show you more "evolution" in the modern horse than you did with that post. And just IMO as a hunter who has seen thousands of skeletons of many different species (but of course I am not trained as you are in ancient species identification) I have still seen more variation in hogs. Plus I don't see the links between them. I see jumps. Not small gradual progress.



These are different genera. Just because you glanced over a few pictures of them does not suddenly negate all of the observations that taxonomists have done on these fossils to determine that they are in fact different genera.

How do you not see the gradual process of these pictures...? I find it unbelievable that you cannot see it. I think you are joking or simply refusing to acknowledge it.


----------



## celticfisherman

Foot for once try and be intellictually honest here. Go back and really study that post of yours.

You have stated evolution as a fact. At best it is a theory.

I am not ignoring anything. I am simply not falling into another of your "traps". I am not even arguing against your "theory". You just believe I am. It's all in your head.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Foot for once try and be intellictually honest here. Go back and really study that post of yours.
> 
> You have stated evolution as a fact. At best it is a theory.



Evolution is a fact and there are theories which attempt to describe how and why it happens. Natural selection is one of those theories, and it has yet to be disproved.

Can you not give me one statement which I am unable to back up?



> I am not ignoring anything. I am simply not falling into another of your "traps". I am not even arguing against your "theory". You just believe I am. It's all in your head.



Your refusal to answer is an answer in itself. You and I both know the answer to my question. The difference is that you don't want to say it.

The horse evolution above is a clear example of macroevolution. Taxonomists have demonstrated that these different genera lived in different time periods and fossils show a gradual timeline for evolution between genera.

I can only see two possible routes for someone to think that this is an example of microevolution. You can broaden the definition of microevolution so that it fits this example (ie. define microevolution as changes within genera instead of species). Or you can attempt to say that all of these taxonomists and scientists are incorrect, and that you instead have it right: these fossils are all skeletons of animals that are within the same species.


----------



## pnome

celticfisherman said:


> What he said there is exactly wht you are demanding. You are demanding physical scientific proof. He only asked you provide the same. If it really existed then I am sure someone would have provided it to get rid of us a long time ago.
> 
> And a note about Him as a human. He never demanded that. You have three choices. Liar, Lord or Lunatic. Not just nice guy...



No, he asked us to "prove him wrong".   Which is just not logically possible.   

That is called shifting the burden of proof.  The burden rests on the positive proclamation.   The logical default is no.  

Same is true of ambush80's dog.  Until such time as ambush80 can provide proof of his dog's supernatural powers, the answer to if his dog is divine is no.  Not yes, not maybe, but no.

I'll go with Jesus was a great man who's disciples were liars.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Evolution is a fact and there are theories which attempt to describe how and why it happens. Natural selection is one of those theories, and it has yet to be disproved.
> 
> Can you not give me one statement which I am unable to back up?
> 
> 
> 
> Your refusal to answer is an answer in itself. You and I both know the answer to my question. The difference is that you don't want to say it.
> 
> The horse evolution above is a clear example of macroevolution. Taxonomists have demonstrated that these different genera lived in different time periods and fossils show a gradual timeline for evolution between genera.
> 
> I can only see two possible routes for someone to think that this is an example of microevolution. You can broaden the definition of microevolution so that it fits this example (ie. define microevolution as changes within genera instead of species). Or you can attempt to say that all of these taxonomists and scientists are incorrect, and that you instead have it right: these fossils are all skeletons of animals that are within the same species.



Where has Evolution been proven??? Come on. Dig your head out of the sand and THINK about what you are saying. Evolution is a theory... If it had been proven there would be the links we are all asking for. We are asking because YOU CAN"T SHOW THEM!

No MACRO evolution is not proven. Your pics don't show it. You barely know what you are talking about here and quite frankly arguing with a know-it-all college student fresh out of philosophy 101 is getting old... 

You have placed your "faith" in Darwin, Dawkins, and some theories you have read. Good for you. I hope it works but please don't come in here trying to "prove" it. Because you can't. 

And for goodness sakes read. Read something besides what your professor tells you too. Read Kant, Barth, Lewis, Augustine, Marx, read the Origin of Species by Darwin. Actually READ the books not just listen to what someone (even I ) say about them. But quit blindly spouting crap. We aren't able to have a discussion because you believe we are less than you. Christians can't possibly have anything to offer. Of course not. We are simpletons who don't know any better. I know I will go in there are throw words like Macroevolution, genera, around... Show off. I know what they mean. And not only that I have pointed out the flaws. Scientists have made assumptions on those very artifacts you posted. If evolution was true why are there no new species? Just take the past 5000 years of written history? What has happened? Humans have created thru selection not species but variations. Oh but that's probably not enough time... Viruses go thru millions of generations in a day or two. They don't change into anything else. Not Bacteria. Not a snail. No they adapt to their environment. MICRO evolution.

Get a grip.


----------



## pnome

footjunior said:


> Evolution is a fact and there are theories which attempt to describe how and why it happens. Natural selection is one of those theories, and it has yet to be disproved.
> 
> Can you not give me one statement which I am unable to back up?
> 
> 
> 
> Your refusal to answer is an answer in itself. You and I both know the answer to my question. The difference is that you don't want to say it.
> 
> The horse evolution above is a clear example of macroevolution. Taxonomists have demonstrated that these different genera lived in different time periods and fossils show a gradual timeline for evolution between genera.
> 
> I can only see two possible routes for someone to think that this is an example of microevolution. You can broaden the definition of microevolution so that it fits this example (ie. define microevolution as changes within genera instead of species). Or you can attempt to say that all of these taxonomists and scientists are incorrect, and that you instead have it right: these fossils are all skeletons of animals that are within the same species.



If I had a buck for every time I've had to explain the difference between a scientific theory and a hunch I'd have that S&W 629 classic by now.

Of course, if I had a buck for every time I've explained the burden of proof, I'd have two.


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> If I had a buck for every time I've had to explain the difference between a scientific theory and a hunch I'd have that S&W 629 classic by now.
> 
> Of course, if I had a buck for every time I've explained the burden of proof, I'd have two.



The difference between the two of you is that I believe you care. Foot just wants to prove he's tough and a good student. 

pnome you are also very respectful. And funny.


----------



## pnome

FJ and I have more in common then you mgiht think.  We're both this guy:


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> FJ and I have more in common then you mgiht think.  We're both this guy:





Then my wife agrees with you too... That's me... Otherwise why would I be doing this...


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> No, he asked us to "prove him wrong".   Which is just not logically possible.
> 
> That is called shifting the burden of proof.  The burden rests on the positive proclamation.   The logical default is no.
> 
> Same is true of ambush80's dog.  Until such time as ambush80 can provide proof of his dog's supernatural powers, the answer to if his dog is divine is no.  Not yes, not maybe, but no.
> 
> I'll go with Jesus was a great man who's disciples were liars.



Wasn't the question... Why would someone die for a lie? Where's the body? 

The burden of proof rests only with you in this case. You have made an assumption counter to MY experience. I know.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Evolution is a fact and there are theories which attempt to describe how and why it happens. Natural selection is one of those theories, and it has yet to be disproved.
> 
> Can you not give me one statement which I am unable to back up?
> 
> 
> 
> Your refusal to answer is an answer in itself. You and I both know the answer to my question. The difference is that you don't want to say it.
> 
> The horse evolution above is a clear example of macroevolution. Taxonomists have demonstrated that these different genera lived in different time periods and fossils show a gradual timeline for evolution between genera.
> 
> I can only see two possible routes for someone to think that this is an example of microevolution. You can broaden the definition of microevolution so that it fits this example (ie. define microevolution as changes within genera instead of species). Or you can attempt to say that all of these taxonomists and scientists are incorrect, and that you instead have it right: these fossils are all skeletons of animals that are within the same species.




And in case my answer isn't clear enough:

It is the common life science definition for evolution that must be questioned—the hypothesis that all the changes that take place in lifeforms, both in the present and the past, are by strictly natural processes. For the lifeforms of the present era, I would agree. We do see natural selection and mutational advance at work within some species. But, as biologists Paul and Anne Ehrlich report, "The production of a new animal species in nature has yet to be documented. In the vast majority of cases, the rate of change is so slow that it has not even been possible to detect an increase in the amount of differentiation."

At the same time, as the Ehrlichs also point out, we are witnessing an extinction rate of about one species per hour. Even if the human activity factors are removed, one is still left with an extinction rate of at least one species every year. Yet, the fossil record reveals millennia of both a high extinction rate and a high speciation rate. The Bible offers a solution to the enigma. We are now in God's seventh day of rest; He has ceased from making new creatures. For six days (as seen in the fossil record), God created. On the seventh day (the present era), He rested.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Where has Evolution been proven??? Come on. Dig your head out of the sand and THINK about what you are saying. Evolution is a theory... If it had been proven there would be the links we are all asking for. We are asking because YOU CAN"T SHOW THEM!



I have shown a small collection above yet you refuse to recognize them as transitional fossils.



> No MACRO evolution is not proven. Your pics don't show it. You barely know what you are talking about here and quite frankly arguing with a know-it-all college student fresh out of philosophy 101 is getting old...



You're the one who said radio-carbon dating was inaccurate and then went on to say that radiometric dating was much more accurate.  Which one of us doesn't know what they're talking about again?

The horse example above is a clear example of macroevolution. Your refusal to acknowledge it does not make it any less true.



> But quit blindly spouting crap. We aren't able to have a discussion because you believe we are less than you. Christians can't possibly have anything to offer. Of course not. We are simpletons who don't know any better. I know I will go in there are throw words like Macroevolution, genera, around... Show off.



Macroevolution and genera are "show off" words...? Wow. I don't know about you but I learned this stuff in high school biology just like everyone else.



> I know what they mean. And not only that I have pointed out the flaws.



Such as?



> If evolution was true why are there no new species? Just take the past 5000 years of written history? What has happened? Humans have created thru selection not species but variations.



Humans have actually created new species via artificial selection. One example is the domestic sheep. They are descended from Mouflons but are unable to reproduce with them. Would you like me to find other examples?



> Oh but that's probably not enough time... Viruses go thru millions of generations in a day or two. They don't change into anything else. Not Bacteria. Not a snail. No they adapt to their environment. MICRO evolution.
> 
> Get a grip.



More ad hominem... /yawn

Macroevolution is also about adapting to one's environment. 

http://www.highbeam.com/doc/1G1-169470755.html


----------



## celticfisherman

Look above your smart alleck post and read. You never answered why carbon dating is more accurate. And no I do not recognize them as macro fossils. What part of NO don't you understand. You ain't helping on the educational outlook of GT.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Look above your smart alleck post and read. You never answered why carbon dating is more accurate.



More accurate than what? Radiometric dating? Which type?

Do you not understand that radiocarbon dating is a type of radiometric dating? I mentioned this in an earlier post.

For me to answer your question, you must give me the specific type of radiometric dating.


----------



## ambush80

pnome said:


> No, he asked us to "prove him wrong".   Which is just not logically possible.
> 
> That is called shifting the burden of proof.  The burden rests on the positive proclamation.   The logical default is no.
> 
> _Same is true of ambush80's dog.  Until such time as ambush80 can provide proof of his dog's supernatural powers, the answer to if his dog is divine is no.  Not yes, not maybe, but no._
> 
> I'll go with Jesus was a great man who's disciples were liars.



Oh Ye of little faith.   Shes gonna smite you and send you to "The Pound".


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> More accurate than what? Radiometric dating? Which type?
> 
> Do you not understand that radiocarbon dating is a type of radiometric dating? I mentioned this in an earlier post.
> 
> For me to answer your question, you must give me the specific type of radiometric dating.



Radiometric dating measures the half lives of certain particles. Different types are based on radioactivity of isotopes.

You are burning on type to determine the age of the carbon which can be altered very easily. Not the most accurate form of dating...


----------



## celticfisherman

*Skeletal expolsions*

The Explosive Appearance of Skeletal Designs

By Fuz Rana, Ph.D.

A team of scientists from Franklin & Marshall College (in Pennsylvania), the University of Chicago, and the American Museum of Natural History in New York City has recently reported a new measure of the dramatic biological innovations that took place during the Cambrian Explosion.1

Based on fossils found in southern China and in the Burgess Shale deposits of the Canadian Rockies, biologists know that nearly all the animal phyla (more than 70) known to exist throughout the earth’s history appeared essentially at once about 540 million years ago.2  (Phyla are the categories in the biological classification hierarchy that refer to an organism’s body plan, or architectural make-up.) 

This event, known as the Cambrian “Explosion”, occurred over an extremely narrow window of geological time (~5-10 million years based on western scientific literature and less than 3 million years based on Chinese scientific literature).3 Since then, arguably no new animal phyla have appeared. In fact, about 40 animal phyla have disappeared since that time.

Along with the “sudden” appearance of animal phyla, the Cambrian period was the first time that animals with skeletons showed up in the earth’s history.4 A range of features define a skeleton.5 A skeleton may be 1) internal or external; 2) rigid or flexible; 3) formed with one, two or multiple elements; 4) comprised of rods, plates and solid three-dimensional parts; 5) grown by accretion, molting, or remodeling; and 6) composed of different chemical materials such as silica, calcium carbonate, calcium phosphate and chitin.

Based on these and other characteristics, the above team of researchers constructed a “skeletal space,” a mathematical space that defines all possible skeletal designs. From this skeletal space, 182 possible skeletal designs were identified. Interestingly, of these 182 possibilities, 146 appeared during the Cambrian Explosion (based on analyses of 104 fossil genre recovered from the Burgess Shale Cambrian site). That is, over 80% of all the possible skeletal designs appear suddenly in the fossil record—during a period of less than 15 million years. Land animals and vertebrates, which fill the remaining skeletal space, are underrepresented in the Burgess Shale fauna. Thus, researchers consider the skeletal designs that do show up during the Cambrian Explosion essentially maximal in number.

The Cambrian Explosion has long been an enigma for biology.6 The more we learn about the introduction of complex animals on earth, the more puzzling the Cambrian event becomes for evolutionary biologists. The explosive appearance of the nearly all possible skeletal designs in the Cambrian fauna defies a natural process explanation.  Yet, this is exactly what one would expect to see in the fossil record if the God of the Bible were responsible for the creation of animal life on earth.


----------



## celticfisherman

*Still waiting on the dino to bird link...*

New Challenge to the Bird-Dinosaur Link

By Fuz Rana

In the Liaoning Province of The People’s Republic of China, researchers are combing an extremely rich fossil site, the Yixian Formation. It contains remarkably well-preserved remains of plants, insects, invertebrates, fish, amphibians, reptiles, birds, mammals, and dinosaurs.1 Arguably, the most interesting fossils from the site are theropod dinosaurs–-some of which have been interpreted as bearing feathers.2,3 These specimens have been touted by evolutionary biologists as key transitional intermediates linking birds to dinosaurs.

The initial dating of the The Yixian Formation seemed to support that possibility. Using the method called biostratigraphic correlation, scientists identified the fossils as late Jurassic (more than 135 million years old), making the “feathered” theropod dinosaurs contemporary with and thus a possible progenitor of archeopteryx, the oldest true bird. (This dating technique uses index fossils to estimate the age of one formation by comparing it with a formation of known age that contains the same index fossils.4)

Because of its importance, several research teams have focused with more robust and demanding methodologies on the dating of the Yixian Formation. Two recent studies used a radiometric dating technique, 40Ar-39Ar. Each study measured the age of the Yixian Formation to be between 121 and 125 million years old.5,6

These new dates place the Yixian Formation within the early Cretaceous period, making archeopteryx at least 20 million years older than the so-called “intermediates” leading up to it. The theropods from the Yixian Formation, like all theropods, now fall within the “temporal paradox.” That is, all theropods, despite their declared status as progenitors of birds, show up in the fossil record well after the first appearance of birds.7

Order of appearance in the fossil record remains important in establishing the validity of the evolutionary paradigm. Thus, the re-dating of the Yixian Formation has profound implications. It significantly weakens the theropod dinosaur-to-bird connection and renders the origin of birds unaccounted for by the evolutionary model.


----------



## celticfisherman

*Carl Sagan Trained Astronomer...*

Extinction Risks For Birds

By Hugh Ross

One of the complex challenges facing evolutionists can be described in simple terms. It is the problem of time. For naturalistic evolution to work, the rate of speciation (introduction of new species) must, by nature alone, exceed the rate of extinction. Observed reality says it does not. In fact, extinction is accelerating (for some obvious reasons) while speciation has virtually stalled.

The implications point to supernatural involvement in speciation, and a number of recently published findings support such a conclusion.1-4 Field studies on birds have been especially fruitful. One study shows that for birds encountering human and other new predators, the greater its body size and the longer its generation time, the more rapid the bird’s movement toward extinction.5 Apparently, larger body size makes a bird more desirable to predators and more troublesome to human economic activity, such as agriculture. Longer generation time, of course, means slower response to environmental threats.

The same study shows that when the size of a bird’s habitat shrinks, the rate of extinction increases according to the specialization of that species’ food and other needs. In this situation, smaller body size hinders survival. Small birds have more difficulty surviving the move from one ruined or overcrowded habitat to another. In other words, both small body size and large body size mean trouble for survival.

Roughly half the bird species alive on Earth when humans appeared no longer exist, and more than a tenth of those that remain face imminent extinction.6 While evolutionary theory offers no explanation for this change from proliferation of bird species to diminution, the Bible does. Genesis says that in the era before God created humans, He introduced (and reintroduced) various creatures, including birds. With the creation of humans, however, God ceased creating new species.7

God’s plan for humans, a plan for redemption, has moved into its next phase. God still creates new life—spiritual life, in physically-alive but spiritually-dead humans. Observations affirm this on-going creative activity.


----------



## footjunior

When all else fails just randomly select some creationist articles and post away I guess.

Maybe I should just start randomly posting 100 page long articles.

Do you have an original thought about any of this, celticfisherman?


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> When all else fails just randomly select some creationist articles and post away I guess.
> 
> Maybe I should just start randomly posting 100 page long articles.
> 
> Do you have an original thought about any of this, celticfisherman?



Oh... So Carl Sagan's classroom is a creationist haven. At least your ideology is consistently as thin as your reasoning.

You have been posting stuff. These are scientists. Real ones. Published peer reviewed articles and real doctorates in things such as Microbiology, Astronomy, Nuclear Physics. Real science. Not junk not creationism. But don't worry I'm SURE your ignorance is justified. You wanted opinions about your fossil record I gave them and backed them up with references. You babble on endlessly.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Oh... So Carl Sagan's classroom is a creationist haven. At least your ideology is consistently as thin as your reasoning.



Students always have the exact same views as their teachers? Ideology? Your reasoning is being called into question... by the scientific community.



> You have been posting stuff. These are scientists. Real ones. Published peer reviewed articles and real doctorates in things such as Microbiology, Astronomy, Nuclear Physics. Real science. Not junk not creationism. But don't worry I'm SURE your ignorance is justified. You wanted opinions about your fossil record I gave them and backed them up with references. You babble on endlessly.



Just because someone someone publishes an article in the past in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't automatically mean that everything they say in the future is correct.

Let me ask you this. If Hugh Ross is correct about his views on creationism, why aren't any of his creationist articles published in peer-reviewed journals?


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> Students always have the exact same views as their teachers? Ideology? Your reasoning is being called into question... by the scientific community.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because someone someone publishes an article in the past in a peer-reviewed journal doesn't automatically mean that everything they say in the future is correct.
> 
> Let me ask you this. If Hugh Ross is correct about his views on creationism, why aren't any of his creationist articles published in peer-reviewed journals?



They are quite regularly. Astronomical publications and several others. Spend the time to do some research Foot and learn something. He is very very well respected in and  outside his field. Mainly because of his education and experience and his discoveries.

As for teachers- You need to make up your mind foot. This has become a circular argument. Everything you put forth is in dispute. Not by just one or two scientists but thousands. Reason demands it. Whether I am right or wrong doesn't even matter to the scientific method. But in order for it to work you must first have an open mind and you are far from it.

Your reasoning is not even in question. It's MIA.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> They are quite regularly.



Provide a link for one. Only one. Shouldn't be too hard if they are published "regularly".


----------



## Dixie Dawg

pnome said:


> FJ and I have more in common then you mgiht think.  We're both this guy:





    

I think that describes MANY of us on this forum!!!


----------



## Dixie Dawg

celticfisherman said:


> Wasn't the question... Why would someone die for a lie? Where's the body?



Where's the body of any of the apostles?  Mary?  Joseph?  Which of the tombs are the one Jesus was buried in? 

As far as dying for a lie... it isn't a lie if you believe in it, is it?  I mean, I've never heard of anyone saying they have actually met Jesus face to face, standing in front of them in person, yet most christians would say they would die for their faith, and hundreds of thousands have died for it.

What I mean by that is, most Christians believe Muslims believe in a lie (I refrain from saying ALL christians because I don't want to include anyone who feels otherwise, although I'm not sure how that works with their faith, but anyway... ) but Muslims obviously die for what they believe, even though someone else thinks it's a lie.  It's not a lie to them.

I don't know if that makes sense or not, sorry... I'm trying to explain what my thought is in my head but I'm not sure it's coming out correctly    I think religion is responsible for more murder and death than anything else in the entire history of this earth.


----------



## celticfisherman

Dixie Dawg said:


> Where's the body of any of the apostles?  Mary?  Joseph?  Which of the tombs are the one Jesus was buried in?
> 
> As far as dying for a lie... it isn't a lie if you believe in it, is it?  I mean, I've never heard of anyone saying they have actually met Jesus face to face, standing in front of them in person, yet most christians would say they would die for their faith, and hundreds of thousands have died for it.
> 
> What I mean by that is, most Christians believe Muslims believe in a lie (I refrain from saying ALL christians because I don't want to include anyone who feels otherwise, although I'm not sure how that works with their faith, but anyway... ) but Muslims obviously die for what they believe, even though someone else thinks it's a lie.  It's not a lie to them.
> 
> I don't know if that makes sense or not, sorry... I'm trying to explain what my thought is in my head but I'm not sure it's coming out correctly    I think religion is responsible for more murder and death than anything else in the entire history of this earth.



St. Peter's is supposedly in the tombs at the Basilica in Rome.

But here comes a good question... Do we know Plato existed? What about Alexander?


----------



## Dixie Dawg

celticfisherman said:


> St. Peter's is supposedly in the tombs at the Basilica in Rome.
> 
> But here comes a good question... Do we know Plato existed? What about Alexander?



Never said the apostles, Mary, etc.  didn't exist.
I'm sure they did.  What I'm not sure is that all of the accounts in the NT are accurate.


----------



## pnome

celticfisherman said:


> Wasn't the question... Why would someone die for a lie? Where's the body?
> 
> The burden of proof rests only with you in this case. You have made an assumption counter to MY experience. I know.



You're not offering evidence here.  You asking questions.

Why would someone die for a lie?  I don't know.  Maybe they wanted it to be true bad enough to actually believe it themselves.   There could be several explanations that are a whole lot less extraordinary than: Jesus was truly the son of the almighty creator of heaven and Earth who was resurrected from the dead on the 3rd day and who ascended into heaven. 

Where's the body?  Good question.  Where is it?  Until you produce it, I'll just have to assume he never existed at all.  

Where is the body of the Spartan King Leonidas?  Can we assume he to is divine just because we can't find his body?  

Your qualifications for divinity set a fairly low bar:  Close friends must have died for him and body must be missing.   You've got a lot of folks to start worshiping there my friend.


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> You're not offering evidence here.  You asking questions.
> 
> Why would someone die for a lie?  I don't know.  Maybe they wanted it to be true bad enough to actually believe it themselves.   There could be several explanations that are a whole lot less extraordinary than: Jesus was truly the son of the almighty creator of heaven and Earth who was resurrected from the dead on the 3rd day and who ascended into heaven.
> 
> Where's the body?  Good question.  Where is it?  Until you produce it, I'll just have to assume he never existed at all.
> 
> Where is the body of the Spartan King Leonidas?  Can we assume he to is divine just because we can't find his body?
> 
> Your qualifications for divinity set a fairly low bar:  Close friends must have died for him and body must be missing.   You've got a lot of folks to start worshiping there my friend.



That's not my qualifications for divine nature. My point was and is that don't you think they would have proven this wrong if they could have?


----------



## pnome

celticfisherman said:


> proven this wrong if they could have?




It is not possible to prove a negative.


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> It is not possible to prove a negative.   Y



Yes it is. The romans and the Jews would have been far better off to trot out his body and say HERE IT IS!!! When this all started. The Romans and Jews offered rewards for it. 

They did just this for many other people that "rose" from the dead. Several Jewish Messiahs after Christ were trotted around.


----------



## pnome

celticfisherman said:


> Yes it is. The romans and the Jews would have been far better off to trot out his body and say HERE IT IS!!! When this all started. The Romans and Jews offered rewards for it.
> 
> They did just this for many other people that "rose" from the dead. Several Jewish Messiahs after Christ were trotted around.



Take some time to read this.  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> Take some time to read this.  http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/mathew/logic.html



Seems like this supports both of us... Can that be logical?

What logic isn't

It's worth mentioning a couple of things which logic is not.

First, logical reasoning is not an absolute law which governs the universe. Many times in the past, people have concluded that because something is logically impossible (given the science of the day), it must be impossible, period. It was also believed at one time that Euclidean geometry was a universal law; it is, after all, logically consistent. Again, we now know that the rules of Euclidean geometry are not universal.

Second, logic is not a set of rules which govern human behavior. Humans may have logically conflicting goals. For example:

John wishes to speak to whomever is in charge.
The person in charge is Steve.
Therefore John wishes to speak to Steve.
Unfortunately, John may have a conflicting goal of avoiding Steve, meaning that the reasoned answer may be inapplicable to real life.

This document only explains how to use logic; you must decide whether logic is the right tool for the job. There are other ways to communicate, discuss and debate.


----------



## pnome

LOL.  Pay attention to the section entitled "Argumentum ad ignorantiam"



> Argumentum ad ignorantiam means "argument from ignorance." The fallacy occurs when it's argued that something must be true, simply because it hasn't been proved false. Or, equivalently, when it is argued that something must be false because it hasn't been proved true.
> 
> (Note that this isn't the same as assuming something is false until it has been proved true. In law, for example, you're generally assumed innocent until proven guilty.)
> 
> Here are a couple of examples:
> 
> "Of course the Bible is true. Nobody can prove otherwise."
> 
> "Of course telepathy and other psychic phenomena do not exist. Nobody has shown any proof that they are real."
> 
> In scientific investigation, if it is known that an event would produce certain evidence of its having occurred, the absence of such evidence can validly be used to infer that the event didn't occur. It does not prove it with certainty, however.
> 
> For example:
> 
> "A flood as described in the Bible would require an enormous volume of water to be present on the earth. The earth doesn't have a tenth as much water, even if we count that which is frozen into ice at the poles. Therefore no such flood occurred."
> 
> It is, of course, possible that some unknown process occurred to remove the water. Good science would then demand a plausible testable theory to explain how it vanished.
> 
> Of course, the history of science is full of logically valid bad predictions. In 1893, the Royal Academy of Science were convinced by Sir Robert Ball that communication with the planet Mars was a physical impossibility, because it would require a flag as large as Ireland, which it would be impossible to wave. [Fortean Times Number 82.]
> 
> See also Shifting the Burden of Proof.



And Shifting the Burden of Proof:



> The burden of proof is always on the person asserting something. Shifting the burden of proof, a special case of Argumentum ad Ignorantiam, is the fallacy of putting the burden of proof on the person who denies or questions the assertion. The source of the fallacy is the assumption that something is true unless proven otherwise.
> 
> For further discussion of this idea, see the "Introduction to Atheism" document.
> 
> "OK, so if you don't think the grey aliens have gained control of the US government, can you prove it?"


----------



## celticfisherman

pnome said:


> LOL.  Pay attention to the section entitled "Argumentum ad ignorantiam"
> 
> 
> 
> And Shifting the Burden of Proof:



Yeah I took debate in HS. And I read it this time. Good article by the way.

The problem we have is the proof we both require. You do not for instance offer proof enough for me to change my position because of my experiences. And I cannot apparently offer you proof enough for you to change yours. Why? You believe there is no proof of God and I have personal experience to show me there is. 

It is not a burden of proof and it is not evasive for either of us. I am not only content with what I know but am sure of it. You are too apparently. There is not an argument that can be made for either of us to move at this time.

You ask for physical proof of a supernatural being. It may actually come down to where we put our faith.


----------



## ambush80

celticfisherman said:


> You ask for physical proof of a supernatural being. It may actually come down to where we put our faith.



This is where  it always ends.  How anti-climatic.


----------



## celticfisherman

ambush80 said:


> This is where  it always ends.  How anti-climatic.



Nope. It's not really. It just comes down to putting your faith somewhere. You put yours in the world.


----------



## ambush80

celticfisherman said:


> Nope. It's not really. It just comes down to putting your faith somewhere. You put yours in the world.




That's where I live.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

Why do you care, Chris?  Seems like regardless of our respective motivations, you would plod along undeterred in your steadfast faith.  

My reasons for questions (like the Noah's ark thread) are rooted in trying to understand if people really believe such a tale or they conveniently overlook that section.  I left that thread on its own after a while totally convinced that most of the folks here would believe in Santa Claus (faith) if the Bible said he existed and pulled off his yearly miracle.  It was quite the eye opener.  

My thread about callings in life was sheer curiosity.  I left that thread convinced that all I have to do is say "what up" and the multitudes of *tolerant* Christians would be angered with me.  

What else would you like to know?


----------



## Six million dollar ham

Dixie Dawg said:


> Yep.... let that be a lesson to you... when someone comes to you with questions or doubts about their beliefs, before you give them the ol'e... "you just need more faith" line... think about what I've said and where you could lead them to.
> 
> Glad the meds are working for you... I couldn't take them.  There but for the grace of God... well, you know...



Despair not, Dixie Dawg.  When Rangerdave says he is done with you, that means about a month tops.


----------



## Six million dollar ham

ambush80 said:


> This is where  it always ends.  How anti-climatic.


----------



## celticfisherman

ambush80 said:


> That's where I live.



For but a short and fleeting time. Our lives pass in the wink of an eye. 

And you well know what I mean by world.


----------



## celticfisherman

Six million dollar ham said:


> Why do you care, Chris?  Seems like regardless of our respective motivations, you would plod along undeterred in your steadfast faith.
> 
> My reasons for questions (like the Noah's ark thread) are rooted in trying to understand if people really believe such a tale or they conveniently overlook that section.  I left that thread on its own after a while totally convinced that most of the folks here would believe in Santa Claus (faith) if the Bible said he existed and pulled off his yearly miracle.  It was quite the eye opener.
> 
> My thread about callings in life was sheer curiosity.  I left that thread convinced that all I have to do is say "what up" and the multitudes of *tolerant* Christians would be angered with me.
> 
> What else would you like to know?




The question would then be why are you still posting if you know our answers???


----------



## ambush80

celticfisherman said:


> For but a short and fleeting time. Our lives pass in the wink of an eye.
> 
> And you well know what I mean by world.



I'll take my chances.


----------



## footjunior

I'm still waiting for that article celticfisherman.


----------



## luvtohunt

looks to me like DD is just banging her head against the wall. stirring strife, sure wouldn't want to be in her shoes come judgement day.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> I'm still waiting for that article celticfisherman.



What article???

Not sure why you are waiting on something?


----------



## Dixie Dawg

Six million dollar ham said:


> Despair not, Dixie Dawg.  When Rangerdave says he is done with you, that means about a month tops.



 A month? I should be so lucky.....   



luvtohunt said:


> looks to me like DD is just banging her head against the wall. stirring strife, sure wouldn't want to be in her shoes come judgement day.



   No banging my head against the wall, except for when talking to closed-minded individuals who don't get the concept of removing the log from their own eye before trying to point out the stick in someone else's.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> What article???
> 
> Not sure why you are waiting on something?



...



			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> If Hugh Ross is correct about his views on creationism, why aren't any of his creationist articles published in peer-reviewed journals?





			
				celticfisherman said:
			
		

> They are quite regularly.





			
				footjunior said:
			
		

> Could you provide a link to one? Shouldn't be too hard if they are published "regularly".



A creationist article by Hugh Ross published in a peer-reviewed journal.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A creationist article by Hugh Ross published in a peer-reviewed journal.



Go look him up. You've got internet apparently and way more time on your hands than the rest of us. 

Maybe go look in a science magazine... Maybe field and stream... I've listened to the speeches and heard the articles reviewed in debates and lectures (both pro and against). So foot for once in your life. Do something on your own and go look him up and try and refute what he's saying. 

But we all know you have it figured out. Right??? You are so intelligent that no one can add anything to the mix. You KNOW there is no God. Not only do you KNOW that you can't stand the thought of their being a God. Why because it is pride. SBG is right. You are so full of yourself that you have replaced the need for something greater in your life with your own Ego.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> Go look him up. You've got internet apparently and way more time on your hands than the rest of us.



So you talk about his articles and say they're published regularly, yet you cannot find one? Me thinks they're not there.


----------



## celticfisherman

footjunior said:


> So you talk about his articles and say they're published regularly, yet you cannot find one? Me thinks they're not there.



There are plenty google him. I'm not doing your homework for you. It just shows your true interest level. You aren't serious.


----------



## footjunior

celticfisherman said:


> There are plenty google him. I'm not doing your homework for you. It just shows your true interest level. You aren't serious.



I've looked. There aren't any. The only creationists articles from him are on creationist websites, not peer-reviewed journals. This is why I'm asking you to provide one. You say they're published regularly, but I can't find any.

I did a search on JSTOR and EBSCO, and it pulled up the articles from Hugh Ross. The problem is that all articles are published in "Facts for Faith", which is not a peer-reviewed journal.


----------



## 5 o'clock somewhere

mtnwoman said:


> In the Parable of the Mustard Seed, Jesus compares the Kingdom of Heaven to a mustard seed. Although having some of the smallest seeds, the mustard plant grows to a large size, providing shelter for birds: Mark 4:31-32.
> 
> In other words if you just have faith the size of a mustard seed it can grow bigger and bigger. That's the point from where I sit.



Amen!!!!!!!!!


----------



## crackerdave

footjunior said:


> Why do you insist on bringing up the college thing over and over? I never mention it yet you continuously bring it up.
> 
> TF = Transitional Fossils



That is just plumb absurd to think everybody knows what you meant by "TF."


----------



## crackerdave

Six million dollar ham said:


> Despair not, Dixie Dawg.  When Rangerdave says he is done with you, that means about a month tops.



Hey,ham - I see you're only friend here is Dixie.Misery loves company.

I can't figure out why all you atheists and various other non-believers  - whatever you call yourselves - don't just slink off to a forum that agrees with your beliefs,such as they are.  Do you have any idea how badly outnumbered you are here?

I guess Satan has to have a place to play,too.


----------



## Dixie Dawg

rangerdave said:


> I can't figure out why all you atheists and various other non-believers  - whatever you call yourselves - don't just slink off to a forum that agrees with your beliefs,such as they are.  Do you have any idea how badly outnumbered you are here?



My goodness... I wonder if the Jews ever said anything like that to Jesus?  If so, and if Jesus had followed their advice, I wonder what religion you would be today instead of Christian?

If it is your idea that you should 'slink off' somewhere else if someone doesn't agree with you, then I guess you certainly don't consider yourself to be an evangelist, or witness often, do you.

As far as being outnumbered, well... I always tend to go with quality over quantity.....


----------

