Bad Relationship, Partner Trust & Cheating Cheating on your mates?

[msdeeva 0]

Josh,

Here's a link to the Discovery Channel's "The Real Eve," if you choose to gain some knowledge about where the first humans on Earth came from, you can start there.

Discovery Channel "The Real Eve"

I suspect that you won't click the link, because you're scared to learn the truth.

[msdeeva 0]

Josh,Just a few questions:1.) How many years ago did this Dinosaur/Human cohabitation thing occur (according to the Bible)?2.) How many years ago were Humans created?Just curious.

[Joshua 0]

I'm pretty much done with you.  You haven't addressed the latex issue at all. you haven't given any proof that shows that latex is permeable to STD microorganisms at all.  You just made yourself look like an *bottom* when you tried to say that HPV was permeable.  Hello? Anybody Home?  HPV causes warts that are obviously contracted by SKIN-TO-SKIN CONTACT!!!  Show me how HIV, Chlamidia, etc, can be contracted through INTACT latex.  You still haven't!

 

I told you about 20 posts ago that not only did I not know where I found the article but that since I couldn't find the proof I'd just let you have the point since it wasn't Biblically related, remember that?

 

You claim that the first people came from the middle east, yet you haven't even done any research.  I've taken many classes from UCLA, from white professors that would beg to differ, yet here you are trying to argue with PhD's.  The origin of the human race was in the heart of the Continent of Africa, spreading from West to East, then to Southern and Northern regions.  I don't care if you don't want to look it up, because it just shows that you would prefer to remain ignorant.  I mean, even the Discovery Channel had a program called "The Real Eve," explaining how the first woman (as described in the Bible), came from Africa.  Yet here you come to spread your so-called knowledge.  You know everything don't you?  These people are all wrong, huh?  Only you know the truth. 

While it isn't disputed that the first civilizations were Mesopotamian, apparently this idea of African descent comes from the "Genetic Eve" your site talked about. It didn't have much at all to say either from what I could find, and the basic ideas are pointed out to have multiple potential flaws by PBS:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html

 

BTW You still haven't shown me any scriptures describing other planets and galaxies.

I thought it described them pretty well, how they were created, what their purpose was, some of their characteristics...

 

You continue to throw out scriptures, to supposedly "prove" your point, but in effect, you keep contradicting yourself.  What about the whole divorce issue?  You never answered my question:  When you see on the news that a man killed his wife, what are you thinking?  Are you thinking "At least she didn't leave and divorce him. She lived the righteous path of God"?

 

Give me a break.

 

I'm done with you.

I did answer your question, read again... And I'm getting tired of having to requote myself, please pay attention:

 

Huh? I never said anything about staying with them, obviously the law should take its course in separating a man who is physically abusive, I just said there should be no divorce. And God has written His Word in my heart, and I know it to be the only truth I need to live my life by and will never give it up. The Bible is completely and utterly rational.

I surely hope you are indeed "done" with me, because it's highly taxing for me to continue trying to talk to someone who's so offensive and relies so heavily on charachter assassination to win their debates.

 

As an endnote, I would like to leave you with something from the Bible.  Maybe you can figure out what it meant:

Genesis 1:26.

 

So what does God mean when he says "us" and "our"?  Don't tell me this is a typo, because as you basically stated that the Bible is perfect and hasn't been messed with.

Who else was being spoken of but the Trinity? But of course if you don't believe the Bible is true you wouldn't believe in the Trinity either, now would you...

176336[/snapback]

Josh,

 

Just a few questions:

 

1.) How many years ago did this Dinosaur/Human cohabitation thing occur (according to the Bible)?

 

2.) How many years ago were Humans created?

 

Just curious.

Since God made all the animals and man in a literal 6 day period, I'd assume the popular date of 6000-8000 years would be about correct.

[msdeeva 0]

I told you about 20 posts ago that not only did I not know where I found the article but that since I couldn't find the proof I'd just let you have the point since it wasn't Biblically related, remember that?

While it isn't disputed that the first civilizations were Mesopotamian, apparently this idea of African descent comes from the "Genetic Eve" your site talked about.  It didn't have much at all to say either from what I could find, and the basic ideas are pointed out to have multiple potential flaws by PBS:

 

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/neanderthals/mtdna.html

I thought it described them pretty well, how they were created, what their purpose was, some of their characteristics...

I did answer your question, read again...  And I'm getting tired of having to requote myself, please pay attention:

I surely hope you are indeed "done" with me, because it's highly taxing for me to continue trying to talk to someone who's so offensive and relies so heavily on charachter assassination to win their debates. 

Who else was being spoken of but the Trinity?  But of course if you don't believe the Bible is true you wouldn't believe in the Trinity either, now would you...

176336[/snapback]

Since God made all the animals and man in a literal 6 day period, I'd assume the popular date of 6000-8000 years would be about correct.

176367[/snapback]

Okay, I'm not arguing the origin of man anymore with you. There are many sources -- but you can choose to ignore them all you want. The first civilizations don't come from Mesopotamia, sorry. The Mesopotamiam region is not anywhere in the African continent. So I would tend to believe published PhD's about the origin of the human race than someone who doesn't have said experience (humans originated from Africa, not Mesopotamia - therefore it has been argued by many scholars). Just a question: do you have a PhD? Okay, then. The Discovery Channel isn't the only medium in which this fact has been published (i.e. read my previous post as to my other sources).

 

I also went to your little link at PBS, and they still do not refute that Eve came from Africa:

Perhaps the most valuable finding regarding the "most recent common ancestor" is that she probably lived in Africa -- a finding that supports the most popular theories about the worldwide spread of hominids.

Thanks for, yet another, valuable source

 

Your Trinity point makes sense (I indeed believe in the Son, the Spirit, and the Holy Ghost). Although since the "Son" part of the trinity hadn't been born yet (nor even mentioned) I still don't get it. Please explain.

 

And since God made all animals 6K years ago, how do you explain the carbon dating of dinosaur bones to be approximately 225 million years ago?

(If you can explain this fact, then I could see your dinosaur point better, as I have done some internet searches on various sources which I will be following up with when I have more time).

 

In addition, regarding the Galaxies and Planets, your quoted scriptures do not explain different planets and galaxies, or even the phenomenon of black holes -- it only described what you can already see with the naked eye (the sun, the stars, the black sky at night, etc)... Which brings me back to my point: "Just because it wasn't included in the Bible, doesn't mean that God didn't create it."

 

BTW, I do remember your post on the "missing Latex article," but you never conceded in that post, like you just claimed to have (i.e., "I let you have the point" -- Um, no you didn't).

[msdeeva 0]

Unlike your article on the origin of man which responded to a study completed in 1987,

I found something more recent (2001). This is just a drop in the bucket. There are more studies which you can research yourself.

The researchers screened 12,127 genetic samples from men in 163 populations from different regions in Asia - in such places as Iran, China, New Guinea and Siberia - for three specific Y chromosome mutations that are derived from a single earlier mutation seen in African populations.
All of them carried one of the three mutations, suggesting that archaic humans did not contribute to the origin of modern man. "All these people trace their roots back to a common ancestor who lived in Africa maybe 100,000 years ago," Underhill said.

The Japan Times article

When it states that "archaic humans did not contribute to the origin of modern man," I take that to mean that modern mankind, (i.e., you and me), cannot trace our roots back to archaic humans (i.e. Neanderthals according to the opposing theory). Also, the article you pointed me to, states that mitochondrial DNA could have stopped when there were only males that were born, but the above article found and tested the Y-chromosome (which is only found in males) against their research.

"The genetic evidence implies a recent common origin of our species. The Y chromosome really makes that argument bulletproof," Stanford University molecular biologist Peter Underhill, a study coauthor, said in an interview.

Seems like you chose to pick an out of date source. Try picking something more recent next time.

[goldinero 0]

The very term "cheating" means that someone is trying to deceive someone else. Regardless of whether the other person knows or not, the person doing the cheating is further depraving himself and destroying his own conscience.If someone has an open relationship with another in which they both agree to mess around with other people, at least the relationship is honest. But it still may not be healthy.

[Joshua 0]

Okay, I'm not arguing the origin of man anymore with you.  There are many sources -- but you can choose to ignore them all you want.  The first civilizations don't come from Mesopotamia, sorry.  The Mesopotamiam region is not anywhere in the African continent.  So I would tend to believe published PhD's about the origin of the human race than someone who doesn't have said experience (humans originated from Africa, not Mesopotamia - therefore it has been argued by many scholars). Just a question:  do you have a PhD?  Okay, then.  The Discovery Channel isn't the only medium in which this fact has been published (i.e. read my previous post as to my other sources).

 

I also went to your little link at PBS, and they still do not refute that Eve came from Africa:

 

Thanks for, yet another, valuable source

 

As for the PBS link, they also point out:

 

Not surprisingly, there is currently a heated debate over the value of "mitochondrial Eve" -- especially between history-hunting geneticists and some fossil-finding paleoanthropologists. According to these anthropologists, even if we could accurately gauge the age of the ancestor, that knowledge is meaningless because all she really is is the woman whose mtDNA did not die out due to random lineage extinctions. Furthermore, her status as the most recent common ancestor doesn't mean that she and her contemporaries were any different from their ancestors. (Remember, she and all of her contemporaries had their own mitochondrial Eve.)

Your Trinity point makes sense (I indeed believe in the Son, the Spirit, and the Holy Ghost). Although since the "Son" part of the trinity hadn't been born yet (nor even mentioned) I still don't get it.  Please explain.

 

Gladly, the Son always existed, He said He existed before Abraham (John 8:58) and that He had glory with the Father "before the world was." (John 17:5) David knew of Him and said "Blessed are all they that put their trust in him." (Psalms 2:12) In Revelation 1:8 He speaks of Himself as the "Alpha and Omega, the first and the last" as well as "the Almighty." Proverbs 8 gives us more insight into His nature, that He was not "born" in the sense we think of for as Hebrews 7:3 says He is "Without father, without mother, without descent, having neither beginning of days, nor end of life." Proverbs 8:22 points out that He was possessed by God, not created. And in Hebrews 1 the final key to the puzzle is revealed:

 

Hebrews 1:1 God, who at sundry times and in divers manners spake in time past unto the fathers by the prophets,

2 Hath in these last days spoken unto us by his Son, whom he hath appointed heir of all things, by whom also he made the worlds;

3 Who being the brightness of his glory, and the express image of his person, and upholding all things by the word of his power, when he had by himself purged our sins, sat down on the right hand of the Majesty on high;

4 Being made so much better than the angels, as he hath by inheritance obtained a more excellent name than they.

5 For unto which of the angels said he at any time, Thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee? And again, I will be to him a Father, and he shall be to me a Son?

6 And again, when he bringeth in the firstbegotten into the world, he saith, And let all the angels of God worship him.

7 And of the angels he saith, Who maketh his angels spirits, and his ministers a flame of fire.

8 But unto the Son he saith, Thy throne, O God, is for ever and ever: a sceptre of righteousness is the sceptre of thy kingdom.

9 Thou hast loved righteousness, and hated iniquity; therefore God, even thy God, hath anointed thee with the oil of gladness above thy fellows.

10 And, Thou, Lord, in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth; and the heavens are the works of thine hands:

11 They shall perish; but thou remainest; and they all shall wax old as doth a garment;

12 And as a vesture shalt thou fold them up, and they shall be changed: but thou art the same, and thy years shall not fail.

13 But to which of the angels said he at any time, Sit on my right hand, until I make thine enemies thy footstool?

14 Are they not all ministering spirits, sent forth to minister for them who shall be heirs of salvation?

By the way, this quotes Psalms 45:7 where it speaks of God speaking to God and God annointing God. Hard to explain that if there is no Trinity.

 

You see, Christ was never "born" in the sense we think of, for He always existed. As I understand it, He met the Father before the world began and because He was "the brightness of His glory and the express image of His person" (Hebrews 1:3) the Father said "thou art my Son, this day have I begotten thee." Concerning Mary, she was nothing but a doorway for the eternal God to step into this world. She had no part in His creation, for He always existed:

 

Micah 5:2 But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.

That Mary's body being used as that doorway gave her no special honor is abundantly clear thanks to a New Testament passage in Luke 11:27-28. Here we see a woman coming up to Christ and actually saying Mary's body is blessed for bearing Him. But as Christ points out, yes, her body is blessed in itself, but not as blessed as any Christian believer can be by "hear[ing] the Word of God, and keep[ing] it."

 

 

 

And since God made all animals 6K years ago, how do you explain the carbon dating of dinosaur bones to be approximately 225 million years ago? 

(If you can explain this fact, then I could see your dinosaur point better, as I have done some internet searches on various sources which I will be following up with when I have more time).

 

Carbon dating shows numerous recent objects to be far older then they are. Drdino.com had some very good articles on this but unfortunately have redone their website recently with the old articles not yet put back on. However, let me make this point. Carbon dating relies upon the levels of carbon being the same from year to year. Yet it does not take into account what effects the worldwide catastrophes (ice ages, meteor strikes that wiped out dinosaurs, etc...) would have on the carbon levels. In the case of the dust from the meteor that supposedly filled the atmosphere, this would block out the sunlight, and most certainly have an effect on carbon levels.

 

 

In addition, regarding the Galaxies and Planets, your quoted scriptures do not explain different planets and galaxies, or even the phenomenon of black holes -- it only described what you can already see with the naked eye (the sun, the stars, the black sky at night, etc)...  Which brings me back to my point: "Just because it wasn't included in the Bible, doesn't mean that God didn't create it."

 

BTW, I do remember your post on the "missing Latex article," but you never conceded in that post, like you just claimed to have (i.e., "I let you have the point" -- Um, no you didn't).

176374[/snapback]

True, but at the same time the Bible also narrows down some things as being impossibilities concerning that which is mutually exclusive. God cannot do be contradictory, He can't be both good and evil, and He can't make square circles. That's dealing with mutually exclusive events. For example, the light and darkness were day and night, and with the sun made on the 3rd day the 24 hour period would have had to begin at least then. Furthermore, since the grass was made the 2nd day and the sun the 3rd, if it wasn't a literal 24 hour period the grass would have died by then, right?

 

You are right about the concession, I'd been thinking I'd posted it, but I'd begun it and having to leave it got deleted in the meantime so I couldn't post it. It's why there was my last reply was a bit belated, I'd gotten a bit discouraged when the post before had just gotten deleted after so much work before I finished it. I'd meant to edit out the comment about letting you have the point and apparently missed it. *shrugs*

 

Seems like you chose to pick an out of date source. Try picking something more recent next time.

Well, it gave one source for 1999, your article was 2001, so they must have both been written around the same time... Concerning your Y Chromosome, I found one interesting explanation from:

 

http://www.crusaderwarcollege.org/archives/000203.html

 

Actually, the Bible states that, male-wise, all humans are not descended from Adam, but from Noah: The only males that were in the Ark were Noah and his sons who, being his sons, had his "Y" chromosome:

 

Gen. 8:18 18 So Noah went out, and his sons and his wife and his sons' wives with him.

 

You see, even though Cain and Seth had to marry their sisters to have kids, Noah, Ham, Shem, and Japeth didn't need to do that, having the option of marrying other women from the larger pre-flood population. Thus, there was only one "Y" chromosome shared amongst the four males, but 3 batches of mitochondiral DNA from the three females. (The numbers aren't in for "X" chromosomes, but there would be 9 "X" chromosomes, 8 from the four women, and 1 via Noah's mother.)

 

Given the wide "bench" of the women, the only female ancestor common to all 4 women who contributed post-flood mitochondrial DNA was the biblical Eve, who lived long before Noah. This fits precisely with the known facts that the common male ancestor came AFTER the common female ancestor.

 

To me, the last puzzle to resolve is the relatively large span of "genetic drift" time between Eve and Noah: The Bible chronology indicates that Noah is two to three times more distant from us than from Eve, but the difference in 90,000 genetically measured years between them indicates that Eve is almost three times as far away from us than Noah. However, if we're going to assume a real Eve, a real Noah, and a real flood that eliminated all but one "Y" chromosome line, then to be consistent, we have to factor in the biblical assertion that people lived consistenly long lives before the flood, and that a collapse in lifespans occurred after the flood. The "Young earth" Creationist thesis is that the pre-flood world was more benign than ours, leading to fewer mutations. What if that more benign world supported a higher rate of genetic variation than occurs today? The Uniformitarian principle would dictate that scientists assume that the rate of genetic variability has always been as slow as it is today. If the rate was higher in the past, then the amount of time over which it occurred, using todays rates, would be overestimated. After all, if the population really came from two divinely created individuals, then a high rate of genetic variability at the beginning could have been designed in to quickly generate a diverse and interesting population.

 

However, after the flood, high genetic variabily in a now-hostile environment would be a liability, creating a higher chance of damaged children in healthy parents. A lower rate of genetic change would be favored, in that fewer changes to the genes from healthy parents would lead to fewer errors in producing healthy children (AKA if it ain't broke, don't fix it.) The rate would be initially high, then coming down to today's rates, leading to a far shorter, but still long, estimate of how long it took to generate the genetic diversity in the current male population. (And yes, creationists DO believe that natural selection takes place. What they DON'T believe is that there are no limits to the process.)

[Joshua 0]

Also, before I forget MS, the moderators on this site don't like posting one post after another if at all possible. You can ask a moderator to confirm this if you wish but they aren't happy about multiple posts by the same person in a row from what I understand. I'd suggest being careful about that from now on before you get in trouble. Again, you can talk to a moderator to confirm this if you wish. I only make this multiple post here to let you know this.

[msdeeva 0]

Just wanted to say, that I found something on a Creationist site that states that they haven't carbon dated dinosaur bones, because carbon dating can only date something 50K years ago. I've been reading a lot of Creationist arguments that make sense that describe how inaccurate the results are, but I still haven't found their claims to be backed by anything other than Creation Science. When they state something supposedly found in the scientific community, I can't find anything that supports their claim outside of Creation Science (even in their bibliographies). If you could help me with this, I'd be really grateful (not trying to be facetious). I also found a creation science journal, I might subscribe to later. Perhaps, I can finally get some answers to all my burning questions.

[guangdian 0]

and what do you mean of cheating?,cheating for what?if they loved each other they needn't do this sort of thing,if they did not,they should part,but they did not part so there was something hard for their parting but not the love..sorry.Guangdian

[msdeeva 0]

Also, before I forget MS, the moderators on this site don't like posting one post after another if at all possible.  You can ask a moderator to confirm this if you wish but they aren't happy about multiple posts by the same person in a row from what I understand.  I'd suggest being careful about that from now on before you get in trouble.  Again, you can talk to a moderator to confirm this if you wish.  I only make this multiple post here to let you know this.

176387[/snapback]

That's funny. Why did you post twice, then? Anyway, I just saw your recent post after I posted the thing on the dinosaurs. Your thing on the Y chromosome comes from a Christian source, no? where did they get their evidence? Can you post?

 

Anyway, like I stated before in the 2001 article (that wasn't written around the same time as your other one), it stated that the common Y chromosome came from Africa too.

[msdeeva 0]

Hi Josh,

I just wanted to let you know that I read a bit of your Christian article and found this to be interesting:

Given the wide "bench" of the women, the only female ancestor common to all 4 women who contributed post-flood mitochondrial DNA was the biblical Eve, who lived long before Noah. This fits precisely with the known facts that the common male ancestor came AFTER the common female ancestor.

So these four women, women who survived the flood, had dna from Eve (from Africa), correct? So, according to your Christian source, the female ancestor came before the male ancestor, right? So couldn't you, by the same notion, deduce that the first known woman came from Africa, and so did her subsequent descendents?

[Joshua 0]

Just wanted to say, that I found something on a Creationist site that states that they haven't carbon dated dinosaur bones, because carbon dating can only date something 50K years ago. I've been reading a lot of Creationist arguments that make sense that describe how inaccurate the results are, but I still haven't found their claims to be backed by anything other than Creation Science.  When they state something supposedly found in the scientific community, I can't find anything that supports their claim outside of Creation Science (even in their bibliographies).  If you could help me with this, I'd be really grateful (not trying to be facetious).  I also found a creation science journal, I might subscribe to later.  Perhaps, I can finally get some answers to all my burning questions. 

 

176388[/snapback]

Well, although all the articles I usually use from the http://creationtoday.org/ site haven't been put up yet, I'm looking to see if some of their new ones might of use. Btw, the owner Kent Hovind is also the guy who owns Florida's Dinosaur Adventure Land that brought in over 17,000 visitors in 2004, so he does have some influence.

 

Perhaps he's redoing the articles, because I haven't seen this one before, but he makes a good point in it. I'm hoping these are just the barebones articles too, because he gave good sources and pictures with the articles before, and I don't see any in these recent articles.

 

Here's one on Carbon-14 dating:

 

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

Since sunlight causes the formation of C-14 in the atmosphere, and normal radioactive decay takes it out, there must be a point where the formation rate and the decay rate equalizes. This is called the point of equilibrium. Let me illustrate: If you were trying to fill a barrel with water but there were holes drilled up the side of the barrel, as you filled the barrel it would begin leaking out the holes. At some point you would be putting it in and it would be leaking out at the same rate. You will not be able to fill the barrel past this point of equilibrium. In the same way the C-14 is being formed and decaying simultaneously. A freshly created earth would require about 30,000 years for the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere to reach this point of equilibrium because it would leak out as it is being filled. Tests indicate that the earth has still not reached equilibrium. There is more C-14 in the atmosphere now than there was 40 years ago. This would prove the earth is not yet 30,000 years old! This also means that plants and animals that lived in the past had less C-14 in them than do plants and animals today. Just this one fact totally upsets data obtained by C-14 dating.

 

The carbon in the atmosphere normally combines with oxygen to make carbon dioxide (CO2). Plants breathe CO2 and make it part of their tissue. Animals eat the plants and make it part of their tissues. A very small percentage of the carbon plants take in is radioactive C-14. When a plant or animal dies it stops taking in air and food so it should not be able to get any new C-14. The C-14 in the plant or animal will begin to decay back to normal nitrogen. The older an object is, the less carbon-14 it contains. One gram of carbon from living plant material causes a Geiger counter to click 16 times per minute as the C-14 decays. A sample that causes 8 clicks per minute would be 5,730 years old (the sample has gone through one half life), and so on. (See chart on page 46 about C-14). Although this technique looks good at first, carbon-14 dating rests on two simple assumptions. They are, obviously, assuming the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere has always been constant, and its rate of decay has always been constant. Neither of these assumptions is provable or reasonable.

 

An illustration may help: Imagine you found a candle burning in a room, and you wanted to determine how long it was burning before you found it. You could measure the present height of the candle (say, seven inches) and the rate of burn (say, an inch per hour). In order to find the length of time since the candle was lit we would be forced to make some assumptions. We would, obviously, have to assume that the candle has always burned at the same rate, and assumes an initial height of the candle.

The answer changes based on the assumptions. Similarly, scientists do not know that the carbon-14 decay rate has been constant. They do not know that the amount of carbon-14 in the atmosphere is constant. Present testing shows the amount of C-14 in the atmosphere has been increasing since it was first measured in the 1950's. This may be tied in to the declining strength of the magnetic field.

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

The vast majority of books on dinosaurs are written from an evolutionary perspective which assumes that the dinosaurs died out 65 million years ago. The leading model for the demise of the dinosaur involves a large asteroid hitting the earth. Yet the most obvious alternative explanation is almost always ignored. Almost all fossils are the remains of creatures buried by water-borne sediment which has subsequently turned to rock. If this is due to the flood of worldwide extent, as the water flowed over all the land surfaces, animals would have been drowned and been buried by massive amounts of rapidly accumulating sediment. It is not all surprising to find a general lack of burial mixing between these very different kinds of animals due to local or ecological grouping.

 

Genesis 7:2 states that Noah saved two of every representative "kind" of land animal on the ark. Noah would have taken young specimens, not huge, older creatures. Dinosaurs would have emerged from the ark to inhabit an entirely different world. Instead of a warm, mild climate worldwide, they would have found a harsh climate which soon settled into an ice age. If climatic hardships did not cause the dinosaur's extinction, man's tendency to destroy probably did.

 

In the early 1900's on the Doheny expedition into the Grand Canyon, Indian cave drawings were found which closely resembled a duck-billed dinosaur. Legends from ancient China to ancient England have recorded descriptions of dinosaur-like creatures. The Kuku Yalanji aboriginal people have paintings which look exactly like plesiosaurs. These and other intriguing evidences seem to indicate that perhaps that age of the dinosaurs ended more recently than is commonly taught. Christians do not need to feel foolish about standing on Scripture in their understanding of the world around us. There is ample evidence to support the Biblical record. Evolution serves as the foundation basis for the religions of humanism and atheism. These world views are popular because man, instead of God, decides on rules and moral standards. Creation serves as the foundational basis for Christianity which acknowledges that all things were created by God, that we live in a fallen universe, and that it will be restored to perfection in the future.

from: http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

From magazines to newspapers...from museums to textbooks...the concept that dinosaurs turned into birds is presented as a fact. Yet this concept, like all of the other supposed "facts" of evolution, is wrought with problems which are seldom exposed. Whenever dinosaurs with a bone structure remotely similar to birds are found, the link between dinosaurs and birds is assumed to exist. Bird fossils such as Archaeopteryx (right) are presented as proof of evolution because the bones have some characteristics reminiscent of reptiles. Yet this whole idea of dinosaurs turning into birds is based more on faith than scientific fact. Here are a few observations which are seldom reported:

 

1.Birds have a totally different respiratory system than reptiles. For a reptilian respiratory system to change into an avian respiratory system would be analogous to a steam engine changing into an electric motor by randomly removing or modifying one component at a time, without disrupting the motor operation. It is simply an impossibility.

2.The hollow bones, muscle design, keen eyesight, neurological commands, instincts, feathers, and a hundred other unique bird features are completely different from reptiles. In particular a bird's lungs and feathers display brilliant design. Either would be totally useless to perform their designed function unless complete. A step by step transformation from scale to feather makes a nice story but "the devil is in the details". And the details simply do not add up to a workable intermediate creature. The building blocks of scales and feathers aren't even the same-they are made from different types of protein!

3.Many recent dinosaur to bird "links" are "dated" between 120-140 million years. Yet archaeopteryx (which exhibits all the characteristics of a fully formed bird) is "dated" at 150 million years. Alan Feduccia, a world authority on birds (and evolutionist) states, "Paleontologist have tried to turn Archaeopteryx into an earth-bound, feathered dinosaur. But it's not. It is a bird, a perching bird. And no amount of 'paleobabble' is going to change that."

http://forums.xisto.com/no_longer_exists/

 

Evolution assumes that man dropped out of the trees 1 to 5 million years ago and became fully human approximately 100,000 years ago. Yet archeological records show civilization arising only about 5,000 years ago (based on evolutionary thinking). In other words, by evolutionary reasoning, it took mankind 95,000 years after becoming fully human to figure out that food could be produced by dropping a seed into the ground!

 

This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth. It has been estimated by evolutionary anthropologists that the earth could have easily supported 10 million hunter/gatherer type humans. To maintain an average of 10 million people, spread over the entire plane, with an average life span of 25 years, for the last 100,000 years . . . .would mean that 40 billion people had lived and died. Archeological evidence clearly shows that these "stone age" people buried their dead. Forty billion graves should be easy to find. Yet only a few thousand exist. The obvious implication is that people have been around for far less time.

 

Another indication of both a young earth and a confirmation of the worldwide flood is the scarcity of meteors in sedimentary rock layers. Although some meteors have been found in sedimentary layers, they are relatively rare. Meteors are easily identifiable, and many thousands have been identified and recovered from recent impacts on the planets surface. If most of the rock layers were laid down rapidly during the one year period of a worldwide flood, you would not expect to find many meteorites buried in only one year. However, if the sediment was laid down over billions of years, there should be multiple billions of meteorites buried within this sediment. The fact that we find so few is another possible evidence for the rapid accumulation of the sedimentary layers and a young earth.

Well, that's 4 of his new articles, hopefully he can get some more of them back up on the site. Maybe something there will prove interesting to you. *shrugs*

[msdeeva 0]

I read through some of it, and like I stated before, some of these points are interesting, and I'll be following up on them later. (BTW, I think that the whole notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs is really dumb. No need for that article, thanks).

 

As far as the whole human origin thing goes: I know we probably can't convince each other of anything. I believe that people came from Africa, you don't. There is no way to prove where the Garden of Eden was. Some people believe it was in Africa (somewhere around Cush/Ethiopia - KJV), some people think it was in the Middle East. Both sides of the argument have good points, but since we didn't exist back then, neither of us can prove whether or not, locations were renamed, land masses/bodies of water changed (i.e. due to the Great Flood, topographical changes), etc. I choose to combine my beliefs with the Bible (Cush being in Ethiopia), my theories of the two rivers mentioned in Genesis which still exist today (they were either renamed in a different geographical location, or moved due to the Flood), and my scientific knowledge of the oldest discovered human remains.

 

So as far as that issue goes, it's an open and shut case: Let's just agree to disagree, and move on.

 

As far as the Bible not being contradictory, I've read the Book of Job about 8 years ago (very enlightening), and I cannot for the life of me, understand why, according to your sentiments, that God cannot be both a vengeful and a merciful/loving God. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord." I thought vengeful and loving were two opposite and conflicting sides of the coin.

 

The definition of to contradict (according to the dictionary) is: To assert or express the opposite of (a statement).

 

Yet, God is often referred in the Bible to be both vengeful and loving, which are two contradictory descriptions.

 

Just a question: what are your feelings on the "eye for an eye" vs. "turn the other cheek" debate? (Obviously two contradictory sentiments. The problem lies wherein, you have to choose which one applies. If you choose the New Testament, then how do we know anything in the Old Testament still applies?).

 

I'm still confused on your thoughts of divorce, as you stated that the woman can leave a marriage if the man is threatening her life, but she cannot divorce him. So, does this mean (according to you), she cannot move on and marry another man, nor have children, without being labeled as adulterous and unrighteous?

 

And in closing with the whole Judgement issue: I just want to say that I take the verse in Corinthians like this: I have the right to judge someone's actions, as far as claiming for myself whether the behavior is right or wrong (unless they are in the Church. If so, they should be expelled from the Church, as stated in the Bible.). But, I do not feel that I have the right to persecute someone. That is for God to do.

[Joshua 0]

I read through some of it, and like I stated before, some of these points are interesting, and I'll be following up on them later. (BTW, I think that the whole notion that birds evolved from dinosaurs is really dumb. No need for that article, thanks).

 

As far as the whole human origin thing goes:  I know we probably can't convince each other of anything.  I believe that people came from Africa, you don't.  There is no way to prove where the Garden of Eden was.  Some people believe it was in Africa (somewhere around Cush/Ethiopia - KJV), some people think it was in the Middle East.  Both sides of the argument have good points, but since we didn't exist back then, neither of us can prove whether or not, locations were renamed, land masses/bodies of water changed (i.e. due to the Great Flood, topographical changes), etc.  I choose to combine my beliefs with the Bible (Cush being in Ethiopia), my theories of the two rivers mentioned in Genesis which still exist today (they were either renamed in a different geographical location, or moved due to the Flood), and my scientific knowledge of the oldest discovered human remains.

 

So as far as that issue goes, it's an open and shut case: Let's just agree to disagree, and move on.

Alright.

 

As far as the Bible not being contradictory, I've read the Book of Job about 8 years ago (very enlightening), and I cannot for the life of me, understand why, according to your sentiments, that God cannot be both a vengeful and a merciful/loving God. "Vengeance is mine, saith the Lord."  I thought vengeful and loving were two opposite and conflicting sides of the coin.

 

The definition of to contradict (according to the dictionary) is:  To assert or express the opposite of (a statement).

 

Yet, God is often referred in the Bible to be both vengeful and loving, which are two contradictory descriptions.

 

Just a question:  what are your feelings on the "eye for an eye" vs. "turn the other cheek" debate?  (Obviously two contradictory sentiments.  The problem lies wherein, you have to choose which one applies.  If you choose the New Testament, then how do we know anything in the Old Testament still applies?).

Well, I look at a real case that happened in California several years ago as a good idea of how this works. A judge found a girl guilty, down came the gavel, and he made her pay a fine, for he was a just judge. But then a strange thing happened, the judge came down, took off his robe, and pulling out his wallet paid the fine for her. He was her father and he loved her. I look at it as this is what God has done. He is a perfectly just God and His nature cannot excuse sin. You could say He has a job to be just, all justice and righteousness in the universe depends solely on Him. For righteousness to exist there must be an ultimate separation of evil from it else the evil will destroy or pollute the righteousness.

 

God has to pronounce a sentence on evil or He can't satisfy righteousness, and thus it will cease to exist. But being loving He did what He could to pay the sentence Himself, we need only to trust in Him alone for our righteousness, and not in anything we or anyone else can do. God can be both just and loving. As just He must pronounce a sentence to satisfy that justice aspect of His nature. As loving He did what He could to give us a chance to have that sentence fall on Him instead of us.

 

Ravi Zecharias likes to ask people who Jesus Christ died for, and often they'll say "for me", "for everyone", or "for sin." And Ravi will agree but ask them who else He died for. You see, He also died for the Father, to meet that justice requirement the Father demands, or else the requirement would have to fall on us. God doesn't overlook sin, someone has to pay for it. However, He did die for us so that payment could be made by Him, on our behalf.

 

And finally, Christ came to separate the good from the irredeemably evil. How can there ever be any hope of righteousness and love from those who've rejected the ultimate good and righteousness of the world, Jesus Christ? This is God's Son, who He loves and cherishes and has proclaimed the "light of the world," if we reject Him we've rejected everything good the Father had to show us. This I believe is why there's no hope for Satan to be saved, he knew what He was giving up and who He was rebelling against, de'd tasted of all the goodness and righteousness of God and Heaven and even knowing all this he willingly rebelled against everything he knew to be good and perfect in the universe. I believe that once you do that there is no turning back, you've utterly rejected perfect good and there's no hope for you.

 

Christ said He didn't come to send peace but a sword, not to join but to separate. (Matthew 10:34) He came to separate the wheat from the chaff, the lambs from the goats, the evil from the good.

 

In the first poem I ever wrote, the first line says "Earth is a testing ground between two planes" and I still believe that. Earth is God's testing ground to determine once and for all who is worthy of His coming kingdom and who there is no hope for.

 

Christ's coming served another purpose. It was God showing us the ultimate good and the ultimate righteousness about Heaven, everything the Father loved is embodied in Jesus Christ, and if we refuse Him... how He must be angered. We've refused everything good He had to show us, "How shall we escape if we neglect so great salvation?" (Hebrews 2:3) Christ is essentially the Father's dividing line, the ultimate good to see who will thankfully embrace it and who will scornfully reject His incredible gift. By this will He decide who will enter His kingdom, by who received His beloved Son and His precious gift bought with God's own blood.

 

I'm still confused on your thoughts of divorce, as you stated that the woman can leave a marriage if the man is threatening her life, but she cannot divorce him.  So, does this mean (according to you), she cannot move on and marry another man, nor have children, without being labeled as adulterous and unrighteous?

 

I personally do believe that remarriage is wrong, but that reporting his endangerment of her or his family to the law whose job it is to stop such things is a good action. Again however, it's not my job to worry about how bad a non-Christian is, since the ultimate thing that sends them to Hell is not finding mercy in Jesus Christ. For a Christian however, I do believe it is wrong and that if the woman is submitted to Christ she will realize this. If not then, then hopefully eventually, and then repent and find forgiveness for it. I'm simply telling you how I believe it works. *shrugs* Frankly, I don't normally discuss these things with someone, my one worry is for whether or not their heart is right with God through Jesus Christ. And if a Christian was in such a situation I would explain to them what I saw the Scriptures as saying humbly, as I would to a beloved sibling, as the Bible says. (2 Thessalonians 3:15)

 

And in closing with the whole Judgement issue:  I just want to say that I take the verse in Corinthians like this:  I have the right to judge someone's actions, as far as claiming for myself whether the behavior is right or wrong (unless they are in the Church.  If so, they should be expelled from the Church, as stated in the Bible.).  But, I do not feel that I have the right to persecute someone.  That is for God to do.

176467[/snapback]

Agreed, that's why I would speak to a fellow Christian concerning such a matter as I would to a brother or a sister, and why I wouldn't even speak to a non-Christian about it at all. I do not however feel that simply stating what you believe about something is persecution. If they ask you for example whether you believe something is or isn't Biblical, is simply answering them persecution?

 

A judge sentences, gives a persecuting punishment, but simply saying something is what the Bible teaches needn't be done to condemn anyone or punish them. In fact, it may be what they need, for how can one know they're wrong, and thus repent and turn to God, if they don't know what the Bible says on something and thus what they've done wrong?

 

The key is to do it humbly with kindness and empathy, not trying to put them down but to help them see what God says about it. That is also why I emphasize that all sin is worthy of death and that I myself don't stand in this grace by my own merits, but by God's mercy alone. The point isn't to put anyone down, it's to either get right with God, or to grow in our relationship with Him and with others.