Topic: The “Evolution” myth
started by: the breeze
Posted by the breeze on Jan. 17 2011,3:50 pm
The “Evolution” mythBy Frank Polacek Thursday, January 13, 2011
The “myth of evolution” is the most seditious of all attacks being made upon the foundational core principles of our Constitutional Republic.
If one accepts the belief that evolution is fact, one must - then and there - surrender and forfeit his “Americanism” which is defined as the belief that our individual rights and liberties are derived from the CREATOR, are founded in “Nature” , and as such are unalienable (absolute) being beyond the power of all Earthly governments to abrogate. Only in “America”, do the rights of the citizen supersede the laws of the state. This is what “Americanism” is!
Every one of our State Constitutions (where the common-law and “Americanism” is administered) begins by recognizing this cardinal fundamental. To wit: “We, the People of the State of (your State), thankful to God for our religious and political liberties…”
< http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/32123 >
If there is no Creator, then there can be no unalienable rights
Posted by Liberal on Jan. 17 2011,4:27 pm
Seriously, how do you account for dinosaurs? Do you believe they lived together with man like the Flintstones, or do you believe someone planted the bones there?
Posted by nedkelly on Jan. 17 2011,4:27 pm
There is a creator, who helped evolution along, or vice versa.... Most scientists will agree.... 
...ned
Posted by stardust17 on Mar. 12 2011,1:09 am
How coincidental it is that humans, so good at creating myths, story books, and republics, then ordain ONLY themselves with "unalienable" rights.Seems all these are really handy survival mechanisms.
Posted by Stone-Magnon on Mar. 12 2011,9:34 am
QUOTE
Only in “America”, do the rights of the citizen supersede the laws of the state.
Ya right, tell that to me of all people. What a stinkin' load of steaming cow manure.
Posted by the breeze on Mar. 12 2011,2:12 pm
(Liberal @ Jan. 17 2011,4:27 pm)
QUOTE
Seriously, how do you account for dinosaurs? Do you believe they lived together with man like the Flintstones, or do you believe someone planted the bones there?
Dinosaurs and Man Roamed The Earth Together
ChristiaNet.com, a large Christian portal with eight million monthly page loads, recently asked, "Did dinosaurs roam the earth at the same time as man?" President of ChristiaNet, Bill Cooper, stated, "God made the world and all its inhabitants in six days, and on the seventh day, He rested."
< http://christiannews.christianet.com/1190907747.htm >
Out of 1,400 Christians surveyed, half or 50% believed that dinosaurs and man coexisted. They believed that God created all things in six days and this included dinosaurs, "Archaeology shows that man and dinosaurs lived together." Others cited Genesis 1:21 as their reason for belief, "And God created great whales
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 12 2011,2:25 pm
QUOTE
"Archaeology shows that man and dinosaurs lived together."
Where do you come up with this stuff?
Posted by the breeze on Mar. 12 2011,2:29 pm
i dont, the archeologist's do. 
Posted by Mad Mike on Mar. 13 2011,3:18 am
Why would you care what an archaeologist says ? Wouldn't that be considered science ? Something you are against...facts, evidence and logical thinking. So I am guessing that archaeologist must have been on Fox news.
Posted by MADDOG on Mar. 13 2011,6:45 am
Perhaps there is a reason dragons are mentioned in the old testament 20 some times, 12 just between Isaiah and Jeremiah. That would be long before the first paleontologists?
Posted by canvasback on Mar. 13 2011,10:32 am
A great book that brings this all together, and one that in my opion, is a great read:"The Dragons of Eden"
...Carl Sagan
Not sure what yr. it was published.
Posted by Liberal on Mar. 13 2011,10:25 pm
(MADDOG @ Mar. 13 2011,6:45 am)
QUOTE
Perhaps there is a reason dragons are mentioned in the old testament 20 some times, 12 just between Isaiah and Jeremiah.
That would be long before the first paleontologists?
That would be long before the first paleontologists?
You can't possibly be that stupid. Do you think dinosaur fossils showed up after paleontologists.
What do you think the chimps in the old testament thought when they found fossils of dinosaurs?
Posted by stardust17 on Mar. 15 2011,10:33 pm
Show me the fossilized bones of a bipedal primate inside the fossilized rib-cage of a T-rex...and I will believe.Evolution need not be feared as a weakness.
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 15 2011,10:43 pm
(nedkelly @ Jan. 17 2011,4:27 pm)
QUOTE
There is a creator, who helped evolution along, or vice versa... Most scientists will agree... ...ned
...nedThat is what I have always loved about Science...
It is NOT black or white...it is very gray!
What one scientist theororizes another can dispute
That is the beauty of science
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 15 2011,10:47 pm
(Mad Mike @ Mar. 13 2011,3:18 am)
QUOTE
Why would you care what an archaeologist says ? Wouldn't that be considered science ? Something you are against...facts, evidence and logical thinking. So I am guessing that archaeologist must have been on Fox news.
Actually, YOU are against facts, hard evidence, and most of all logical thinking
But that is what happens to the weaker among us...
When you fall prey to what is currently socially popular and acceptable, you lose all touch with reality and the logical...
Posted by Santorini on Mar. 15 2011,11:02 pm
(stardust17 @ Mar. 12 2011,1:09 am)
QUOTE
How coincidental it is that humans, so good at creating myths, story books, and republics, then ordain ONLY themselves with "unalienable" rights.
Seems all these are really handy survival mechanisms.
Seems all these are really handy survival mechanisms.
How can you dispute The Book that was written thousands of years ago over a period of 1400-1800 years with over 40 different authors
Do you really think the likes of Palin and Beck just sat down and wrote this volumous book one day to be contrary?
Actually...it is the scientists that cannot agree on their theories
But The Book has held steadfast
Posted by irisheyes on Mar. 16 2011,6:36 am
(Santorini @ Mar. 15 2011,11:02 pm)
QUOTE
How can you dispute The Book that was written thousands of years ago over a period of 1400-1800 years with over 40 different authors
I don't recall anyone disputing the book of fairy tales that you reference. But it wasn't written by God, Jesus, or anyone else that proves that there is a creator. Nor did Dr. Seuss prove that there was a cat in a hat simply by writing about it.
QUOTE
Actually...it is the scientists that cannot agree on their theories
Scientists agree on plenty. The world is not flat, the earth goes around the sun, water freezes at 32 degrees and boils at 212. Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, and the smartest people in the world believe in evolution and everything else I've previously mentioned.
Posted by Mad Mike on Apr. 03 2011,10:33 pm
It has been rewritten over and over to hide those crazy,violent stories that we may think is bull***t. So why should we take it seriously? Have u read the old testament ? That is a real comfort. Most have been brainwashed into thinking we need to be god fearing. But why ?? Society and science has come a long way. I can see why people believed back then...man was simple and didn't know any better. We now know about evolution so why cling to these outdated preachings? Are people to afraid to admit that after we die that is probably the end. Or is it the respectable thing to do...to believe that is. I know many people who do this every Sunday but don't believe. i know people who go just to please their boss, neighbor or friends. I have a friend who goes to church just so he recieves his inheritance from his mother who otherwise would cut him out the will. It is pathetic on both of thier ends. One would go against his principles for money and one who hold religion over his head to give it.Even in this country religion has a scummy element to it.
Posted by Navy_Gary on Apr. 03 2011,11:45 pm
QUOTE
That is what I have always loved about Science...
It is NOT black or white...it is very gray!
What one scientist theororizes another can dispute
That is the beauty of science
It is NOT black or white...it is very gray!
What one scientist theororizes another can dispute
That is the beauty of science
I believe you're misunderstanding what a scientific theory is... It's not some wild guess a guy just throws out there. A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses. When a theory is established it is fact until proven otherwise. Other notable theories you may have heard of are: quantum theory, Einstein's theory of relativity in physics, and cell theory.
By saying you don't believe in evolution because it's "just a theory" is equivalent to you saying that you don't believe your body has any cells because that also is just a "theory".
Many scientists have no problem believing in God and evolution, but you'd be hard pressed to find any legitimate ones that flat-out deny it.
Posted by Stone-Magnon on Apr. 04 2011,12:36 am
Posted by Stone-Magnon on Apr. 04 2011,12:36 am
Posted by Stone-Magnon on Apr. 04 2011,12:37 am
Posted by Stone-Magnon on Apr. 04 2011,12:58 am
Imagine santorini is so mixed up that he/she's still fighting the fight that Darwin's theory's are wrong. 
Her great intellect is against Darwin's.
I mean because let's see, Darwin-brilliant thinker, scientist and philosopher verses the great Santorni who posts on Albert Lea dot com.
Imagine the arrogance of talking on an argument where your arguing with Darwin.
You know, I always said that some people are so stupid that they don't know how stupid they are and we must have some of those people.
Ya, next I'm going to go argue the theory of relativity with Einstein.
Posted by the breeze on Apr. 07 2011,5:05 pm
ESSAYS ON ORIGINS:< http://www.jesus-is-lord.com/evolmons.txt >
The Hopeful Monsters of Evolution
by Dr. David N. Menton, Ph.D.
This version copyright © 1994 by:
Missouri Association for Creation
__
Since the time of Darwin, evolutionists have looked to the fossil
record for historical evidence of evolution. Most evolutionists now
concede, however, that the fossil record fails to show the progressive
transformation of any living organism into a distinctly different kind
of organism. This has presented some nasty difficulties for
evolutionists -- but they have made it clear that they will not be
dissuaded by the mere lack of evidence, nor will they turn to a Creator
to explain this enigma. Rather, evolutionists hope that _monsters_ may
come to their rescue!
All animals and plants appear suddenly in the fossil record and are
not preceded by continuous transitional stages. While some of these
fossilized organisms have become extinct, many have persisted right up
to the present time in what appears to be essentially their original
form, showing only a limited range of variation. Bats, for example,
appear suddenly in the fossil record with no evidence of "pre-bat"
ancestors. Fossil bats have all the same distinctive features we see in
bats today, including extraordinarily long webbed fingers on their fore
limbs and "backward" facing hind limbs. (Bat knees and toes face to the
rear!) Even the distinctive shape
Posted by Santorini on Apr. 07 2011,5:16 pm
(irisheyes @ Mar. 16 2011,6:36 am)
QUOTE
(Santorini @ Mar. 15 2011,11:02 pm)
QUOTE
How can you dispute The Book that was written thousands of years ago over a period of 1400-1800 years with over 40 different authors
I don't recall anyone disputing the book of fairy tales that you reference. But it wasn't written by God, Jesus, or anyone else that proves that there is a creator. Nor did Dr. Seuss prove that there was a cat in a hat simply by writing about it.
QUOTE
Actually...it is the scientists that cannot agree on their theories
Scientists agree on plenty. The world is not flat, the earth goes around the sun, water freezes at 32 degrees and boils at 212. Dinosaurs existed millions of years ago, and the smartest people in the world believe in evolution and everything else I've previously mentioned.
Irisheyes is it? Just taking a wild guess here that if you are Irish...then you were probably brought up Catholic.
And if my theory is correct...then you of ALL people should know WHO wrote the Bible
Why you have become the resistance is what I do not understand
Posted by Santorini on Apr. 07 2011,5:34 pm
(Stone-Magnon @ Apr. 04 2011,12:58 am)
QUOTE
Imagine santorini is so mixed up that he/she's still fighting the fight that Darwin's theory's are wrong.
Her great intellect is against Darwin's.
I mean because let's see, Darwin-brilliant thinker, scientist and philosopher verses the great Santorni who posts on Albert Lea dot com.
Imagine the arrogance of talking on an argument where your arguing with Darwin.
You know, I always said that some people are so stupid that they don't know how stupid they are and we must have some of those people.
Ya, next I'm going to go argue the theory of relativity with Einstein.
Her great intellect is against Darwin's.
I mean because let's see, Darwin-brilliant thinker, scientist and philosopher verses the great Santorni who posts on Albert Lea dot com.
Imagine the arrogance of talking on an argument where your arguing with Darwin.
You know, I always said that some people are so stupid that they don't know how stupid they are and we must have some of those people.
Ya, next I'm going to go argue the theory of relativity with Einstein.
Someone once said:
[..no doubt we have produced some pretty good science, but many truths are simply beyond the reach of our tools. That is the nature of science
Posted by the breeze on Apr. 07 2011,5:35 pm
Did The Catholic Church Give Us The Bible? Catholics contend that the whole world is indebted to the Roman Catholic church for the existence of the Bible. This is another of their attempts to exalt the church as an authority in addition to the Bible.
< http://www.bible.ca/cath-bible-origin.htm >
Please notice the following from Catholic sources:
"If she had not scrutinized carefully the writings of her children, rejecting some and approving others as worthy of inclusion in the canon of the New Testament, there would be no New Testament today.
"If she had not declared the books composing the New Testament to be inspired word of God, we would not know it.
"The only authority which non-Catholics have for the inspiration of the Scriptures is the authority of the Catholic Church." (The Faith of Millions, p. 145)
"It is only by the divine authority of the Catholic Church that Christians know that the scripture is the word of God, and what books certainly belong to the Bible." (The Question Box, p. 46)
"It was the Catholic Church and no other which selected and listed the inspired books of both the Old Testament and the New Testament...If you can accept the Bible or any part of it as inspired Word of God, you can do so only because the Catholic Church says it is." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 4).
The Catholic writers quoted above state that one can accept the Bible as being inspired and as having authority only on the basis of the Catholic Church. In reality, the Bible is inspired and has authority, not because a church declared it so, but because God made it so. God delivered it by the inspiration of the Holy Spirit and declared that it would abide forever. "All scripture is inspired of God..." (2 Tim. 3:16). "...Holy men of God spoke as they were moved by the Holy Spirit." (2 Pet. 1:21). "Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away." (Matt. 24:35). "The grass withered, and the flower has fallen--but the word of the Lord endures forever." (1 Pet. 1:24-25). The Catholics are wrong, therefore, in their assumption that the Bible is authoritative only because of the Catholic Church. The Bible does not owe its existence to the Catholic Church, but to the authority, power and providence of God.
It would seem unnecessary for the Catholic Church to make the boastful claim of giving the Bible to the world when both it and so-called Protestantism accept the Bible as a revelation from God. However, it is an attempt to weaken the Bible as the sole authority and to replace it with their man-made church. If it is true that we can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church, doesn't that make the Catholic Church superior to the Bible? This is exactly what Catholic officials want men to believe. Their only problem is that their doctrine comes from their own human reasoning rather than from God. Their logic is a classic example of their "circle reasoning." They try to prove the Bible by the church (can accept the Bible only on the basis of the Catholic Church) and prove the church by the Bible ("has ever grounded her doctrines upon it"). Such is absurd reasoning which proves nothing. Either the New Testament is the sole authority or it is not. If it is the New Testament, it cannot be the church, and if it is the church, it cannot be the New Testament.
Notice, again, the following from Catholic sources:
"Because it never was a Bible, till the infallible Church pronounced it to be so. The separate treatises, each of them inspired, were lying, as it were dispersedly; easy to confound with others, that were uninspired. The Church gathered them up, selected them, pronounced judgment on them; rejecting some, which she defined and declared not to be canonical, because not inspired; adopting others as being inspired, and therefore canonical." (What Is the Bible? p. 6).
"And since the books of the Bible constituting both the Old and the New Testament were determined solely by the authority of the Catholic Church, without the Church there would have been no Bible, and hence no Protestantism." (The Faith of Millions, p. 10).
In addition to the above, Catholics often boast that the Bible was written by Catholics, e.g., "All the books of the New Testament were written by Catholics." (The Bible is a Catholic Book, p. 14). When we consider the word "catholic" as meaning "universal," we readily admit that the writers
Posted by Santorini on Apr. 07 2011,5:37 pm
AND to all your NON-BELIEVERS...I would rather believe in God; die; and find out he did not exist,
than to NOT believe, die; and find out he does exist
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 07 2011,5:45 pm
Just think of all the fun you will have missed out on if you're wrong.My earliest memory of church was hearing the story of Abraham and Isaac, and I remember thinking, "I wonder if anyone in this place is hearing voices telling them to kill a kid." After that I kept one eye on the grownups at all times since they were all clearly insane to celebrate such a crazy ass story.
Posted by the breeze on Apr. 07 2011,5:47 pm
(Liberal @ Apr. 07 2011,5:45 pm)
QUOTE
Just think of all the fun you will have missed out on if you're wrong.
My earliest memory of church was hearing the story of Abraham and Isaac, and I remember thinking, "I wonder if anyone in this place is hearing voices telling them to kill a kid." After that I kept one eye on the grownups at all times since they were all clearly insane to celebrate such a crazy ass story.
My earliest memory of church was hearing the story of Abraham and Isaac, and I remember thinking, "I wonder if anyone in this place is hearing voices telling them to kill a kid." After that I kept one eye on the grownups at all times since they were all clearly insane to celebrate such a crazy ass story.
what fun would that be.
Posted by Santorini on Apr. 07 2011,6:00 pm
(Liberal @ Apr. 07 2011,5:45 pm)
QUOTE
Just think of all the fun you will have missed out on if you're wrong.
My earliest memory of church was hearing the story of Abraham and Isaac, and I remember thinking, "I wonder if anyone in this place is hearing voices telling them to kill a kid." After that I kept one eye on the grownups at all times since they were all clearly insane to celebrate such a crazy ass story.
My earliest memory of church was hearing the story of Abraham and Isaac, and I remember thinking, "I wonder if anyone in this place is hearing voices telling them to kill a kid." After that I kept one eye on the grownups at all times since they were all clearly insane to celebrate such a crazy ass story.
I will keep praying for ya
Posted by Santorini on Apr. 07 2011,6:03 pm
Breeze,What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
Posted by irisheyes on Apr. 08 2011,2:16 am
(Santorini @ Apr. 07 2011,5:16 pm)
QUOTE
Irisheyes is it? Just taking a wild guess here that if you are Irish...then you were probably brought up Catholic.
And if my theory is correct...then you of ALL people should know WHO wrote the Bible
And if my theory is correct...then you of ALL people should know WHO wrote the Bible
Your theory is correct, but nothing in my post was wrong, I simply claimed that the Bible was not written by God or Jesus. It was written by man, although it may also be said by those same men to have been divinely inspired, that doesn't change the authorship. I don't have a problem with the Bible or those that read the Bible, I've read plenty of it myself.
Santorini-
QUOTE
Why you have become the resistance is what I do not understand
I'm not a part of any resistance other than the idea that we should let science class be for science. I would be just as adamantly opposed if anyone suggested teaching the Torah, Koran, or Laws of Manu in a science class. If you want to teach about all those books in another class, feel free to open them up and learn all they want.
Posted by Stone-Magnon on Apr. 08 2011,2:36 am
That's an interesting story Liberal. I remember sitting in kindergarten Bible school in church and remember watching the fellow try to teach the class. I watched him struggle. I could tell he knew what he was teaching could not possibly be true, but tried his best to teach it anyhow. I was very young, but even then I could sort of "Spock mind meld people". I could get inside his head and feel what he was feeling and Liberal...these were good people way back then. They tried to do the best with what they were given. Sadly, the religious people we see today (the Tea bag Foxer's, Robertson, our local councilman's church, some on this forum) all who are representing what we once were are not those people. The church has been hijacked and is being used as a political tool these days. Many of todays's religous types are using religion to cloak they're true hatred of man.
Posted by the breeze on Apr. 08 2011,9:17 am
(Santorini @ Apr. 07 2011,6:03 pm)
QUOTE
Breeze,
What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
history shows it didn't happen that way.
Posted by the breeze on Apr. 08 2011,9:18 am
(the breeze @ Apr. 08 2011,9:17 am)
QUOTE
(Santorini @ Apr. 07 2011,6:03 pm)
QUOTE
Breeze,
What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
history shows it didn't happen that way.
The Roman Catholic Church did not give the world the Bible!
Return to "Canon of the Bible" Home Page
< http://www.bible.ca/b-canon-church-did-not-give-world-bible.htm >
Introduction:
The claim of Roman Catholic and Orthodox leaders that they gave the world the Bible, is as outrageous as it is blasphemous. We invite Roman Catholics and Orthodox to read out "Questions" section.
A. Discussion:
The councils of the church played little part in the canonization of scripture. When councils did speak on the subject, their voice was a ratification of what had already become the mind of the church. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Everett Ferguson, Factors Leading to the Selection and Closure of the New Testament Canon, p 319, 2002)
Even James Bernstein, an Orthodox leader admits: "The councils did not legislate the canon so much as set forth what had become self-evident truth and practice within the churches of God." (Which Came First: The Church or the New Testament?, Fr. James Bernstein, Orthodox churchman, 1994, p 13)
In other words, the New Testament canon is a recognition and acknowledgment of books that were authoritative from earlier periods on, not a creation of the fourth-century church. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Peter Balla, Evidence for an Early Christian Canon: Second and Third Century, p 373, 2002)
Of interest here is the fact that the community of faith, rather than church authorities, were responsible for this process; what they determined to be edifying and useful later found a place in the canon. Church authorities only authorized or sanctioned what had already been in use. (Lee Martin McDonald, James A. Sanders, Editors: The Canon Debate; Kent D. Clarke, The Problem of Pseudonymity in Biblical Literature
Posted by grassman on Apr. 08 2011,10:48 am
This has merit. Note the last few words. The Republicans read that to mean give to the wealthy.
Posted by Santorini on Apr. 08 2011,11:31 pm
Great Obit!
ps [not clapping for the part about Republicans]
But if you mean by giving to the wealthy...you must be speaking of the unions who are continually fed funds by their donors; you must be speaking of the heads of programs such as planned parenthood, and other out-dated unnecessaries being federally funded. Yep...I see your point about giving to the rich
Posted by Santorini on Apr. 08 2011,11:43 pm
(the breeze @ Apr. 08 2011,9:17 am)
QUOTE
(Santorini @ Apr. 07 2011,6:03 pm)
QUOTE
Breeze,
What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
history shows it didn't happen that way.
Breeze, I hate to argue with someone of Faith, however, you are wrong.
Catholic is the only religion that can be traced back to Jesus.
The Jews gave us the Old Testament and the Christian Catholics the New Testament.
ANYONE who tries to tell you differently does NOT know their history
Posted by Santorini on Apr. 08 2011,11:59 pm
(the breeze @ Apr. 08 2011,9:17 am)
QUOTE
(Santorini @ Apr. 07 2011,6:03 pm)
QUOTE
Breeze,
What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
history shows it didn't happen that way.
Breeze, you do not have any authors that wish to take credit for the article you posted...what are they afraid of?
2nd...St. Ignatius [50-107AD] was the first to ever use the Greek work Katholicos meaning universal. This word was used to describe the universality of the Church established by Christ.
and in 397AD the Catholic Church gave definitive decision as to which writings and books should be admitted into the Bible. As stated previously, Catholic is the only religion that can be traced back to Jesus
Posted by Santorini on Apr. 09 2011,12:11 am
(irisheyes @ Apr. 08 2011,2:16 am)
QUOTE
(Santorini @ Apr. 07 2011,5:16 pm)
QUOTE
Irisheyes is it? Just taking a wild guess here that if you are Irish...then you were probably brought up Catholic.
And if my theory is correct...then you of ALL people should know WHO wrote the Bible
And if my theory is correct...then you of ALL people should know WHO wrote the Bible
Your theory is correct, but nothing in my post was wrong, I simply claimed that the Bible was not written by God or Jesus. It was written by man, although it may also be said by those same men to have been divinely inspired, that doesn't change the authorship. I don't have a problem with the Bible or those that read the Bible, I've read plenty of it myself.
Santorini-
QUOTE
Why you have become the resistance is what I do not understand
I'm not a part of any resistance other than the idea that we should let science class be for science. I would be just as adamantly opposed if anyone suggested teaching the Torah, Koran, or Laws of Manu in a science class. If you want to teach about all those books in another class, feel free to open them up and learn all they want.
You are right...the Book WAS divinely inspired...
AND I agree with you that science class should be just for science!My problem with science [which BTW my degree is in Science!], is what is currently being taught regarding evolution [which just simply means changing]! Some of Faith are offended by this injustice; by this I mean teaching evolution is one thing but to put the idea in a childs head that human beings somehow evolved from apes without allowing our description of how human life begins is biased teaching.
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 09 2011,12:41 am
The problem is finding a scientist that's sane and believes in intelligent design.In your bizarro world why do men have one less rib? Is it because they took something us men weren't even using mixed it with a little dirt and came up with a woman? And if God just conjured up us men, why couldn't he do the same for women? Why did God need our rib and dirt? He just got done making a whole freaking universe out of thin air but he needed our rib to make women?
And how do you young Earthers explain carbon 14 dating that goes back about 60,000 years? What about Chinese pottery that dates back older than 15,000 years?
Posted by the breeze on Apr. 09 2011,9:10 am
(Santorini @ Apr. 08 2011,11:59 pm)
QUOTE
(the breeze @ Apr. 08 2011,9:17 am)
QUOTE
(Santorini @ Apr. 07 2011,6:03 pm)
QUOTE
Breeze,
What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
history shows it didn't happen that way.
Breeze, you do not have any authors that wish to take credit for the article you posted...what are they afraid of?
2nd...St. Ignatius [50-107AD] was the first to ever use the Greek work Katholicos meaning universal. This word was used to describe the universality of the Church established by Christ.
and in 397AD the Catholic Church gave definitive decision as to which writings and books should be admitted into the Bible. As stated previously, Catholic is the only religion that can be traced back to Jesus
frist lets get the name right Why does The Apostle's Creed Refer
to the Holy 'Catholic' Church?
-by Tony Warren
The question is often asked, why did the early Church fathers refer to the Church as Catholic. Particularly, the Apostle's Creed which is truly an ecumenical symbol of faith and is dated to about a century after the New Testament was completed. It is important to understand that the term 'Catholic Church' simply refers to the universal Church of believers. It is in no way referring to Roman Catholicism.
To fully understand this, we need to look at the original languages. For example the word Creed is from the Latin [credo] meaning I believe, thus the apostles creed was a statement of Christian beliefs. Some people have the mistaken idea that the word 'catholic' belongs to the Roman Church. But simply because Rome claims to be the catholic church, doesn't make it so. In truth the word catholic is simply a form of the Greek word [katholikos] which means, "of the whole." Taken from two root words [kata], meaning pertaining to, or about, and the word [holos], meaning the whole. i.e., the it means the whole or Universal Church.
Before those grounded in sound Biblical Theology broke away from the dominant Roman Church in protest (thus they were called, protestants) of that Churches slipping into idolatry and unscriptural practices, they were of the one whole (universal) Church. They still are. Rome can claim ownership of the word, but that is mere semantics. For they are not holy, nor catholic, nor in the real sense, the Church. In the false sense, they are a church, but they have long ago left being under authority of God.
The name catholic in our day has come to denote a denomination rather than it's true meaning. But in the early Church it was the title denoting it's universal nature, and had nothing to do with a denomination in Rome. Denominations are an invention of man. There is only the universal Church, not a Roman Church and a Protestant Church, but one holy universal Church.
In the big picture, this hasn't really changed today. The true Church of God is the Universal (catholic, in Greek) Church, no matter what label man puts upon it by denominational edict. There is one Holy Universal Church fulfilling it's commission to go to the ends of the earth with the gospel. And it exists all over the world and has gone by many denominational names. It has nothing to do with what is the Roman Catholic Church today.
the truth is, since we don't speak Greek, we could just as easily translate it:
I believe in the Holy Spirit,
The Holy Universal Church,
The communion of saints..
Every educated scholar of course knows this. But because Reformed Churches are steeped in tradition, and have a high regard for their creeds (nothing inherently wrong with that) it is still rendered (usually) the Holy Catholic Church. And really, there is no good reason to change it. Why should we? No denomination can usurp a word as exclusively their own. Just so long as we all understand that the word simply means universal.
We should also be aware that it is not called "The Apostles' Creed," because it was written or authored by any of the Apostles, it is called this because it is actually an excellent brief synopsis of what they taught. Moreover, it sets forth the Christian gospel in a concise, though pertinent fashion, with proper reverential and liturgical high regard.
Peace,
Copyright 2000 Tony Warren
For other studies free for the Receiving, Visit our web Site
The Mountain Retreat! < http://www.mountainretreatorg.net >
-------------------------*---------------------------
Feel free to duplicate, display or distribute this publication to anyone so long as the above copyright notice remains intact and there are no changes made to the article. This publication can be distributed only in it's original form, unedited, and without cost.
Created 8/15/00 / Last Modified 8/15/00
The Mountain Retreat / twarren10@aol.com
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by the breeze on Apr. 09 2011,9:21 am
(grassman @ Apr. 08 2011,10:48 am)
QUOTE
This has merit. Note the last few words. The Republicans read that to mean give to the wealthy.
very nice.
Posted by Santorini on Apr. 09 2011,1:20 pm
Breeze, I get confused as to the substance and motivation of your authors that you quote Frank whats his name was a mechanic
and this Tony Warren is he not a British soap script writer?
Where exactly would their expertise lie
Posted by Santorini on Apr. 09 2011,1:49 pm
(Liberal @ Apr. 09 2011,12:41 am)
QUOTE
The problem is finding a scientist that's sane and believes in intelligent design.
In your bizarro world why do men have one less rib? Is it because they took something us men weren't even using mixed it with a little dirt and came up with a woman? And if God just conjured up us men, why couldn't he do the same for women? Why did God need our rib and dirt? He just got done making a whole freaking universe out of thin air but he needed our rib to make women?
And how do you young Earthers explain carbon 14 dating that goes back about 60,000 years? What about Chinese pottery that dates back older than 15,000 years?
In your bizarro world why do men have one less rib? Is it because they took something us men weren't even using mixed it with a little dirt and came up with a woman? And if God just conjured up us men, why couldn't he do the same for women? Why did God need our rib and dirt? He just got done making a whole freaking universe out of thin air but he needed our rib to make women?
And how do you young Earthers explain carbon 14 dating that goes back about 60,000 years? What about Chinese pottery that dates back older than 15,000 years?
Liberal, the insane scientists are the ones that believe that you somehow formed through an inanimate, unintelligent manner...
The sane scientists understand the complexity and design of all living things; can scientifically and categorically list their makeup; yet realize the forces needed to create the intelliegence cannot be tested, put under a microscope and defined
Posted by the breeze on Apr. 09 2011,3:05 pm
(Santorini @ Apr. 09 2011,1:20 pm)
QUOTE
Breeze, I get confused as to the substance and motivation of your authors that you quote
Frank whats his name was a mechanic
and this Tony Warren is he not a British soap script writer?
Where exactly would their expertise lie
Frank whats his name was a mechanic
and this Tony Warren is he not a British soap script writer?
Where exactly would their expertise lie
Jesus was a carpenter. i think these men are experts in the truth. what about what they wrote.?
Posted by the breeze on Apr. 09 2011,3:10 pm
(Santorini @ Apr. 07 2011,6:03 pm)
QUOTE
Breeze,
What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
Dating of the New Testament Books
In order By Most Likely Date
Free Beginning Home
The following chart provides the dates when the New Testament books were written. In the cases in which historians disagree on the date, we have identified the prominent historians who support the earliest and lastest possible dates.
< http://www.freebeginning.com/new_testament_dates/ >
Related topics:
Our sources
When were the New Testament writtings accepted as scripture?
Did Eusibius rewrite the New Testament?
N.T. Book Author Earliest
Latest Most Likely
Galatians Apostle Paul A.D. 48 A.D. 50 A.D. 48
1 Thessalonians Apostle Paul A.D. 50 A.D. 52 A.D. 51
2 Thessalonians Apostle Paul A.D. 50 A.D. 52 A.D. 51
Mark Mark A.D. 45
John Wenham / John A. T. Robinson A.D. 60
A. Harnack A.D. 48-55
1 Corinthians Apostle Paul A.D. 55 A.D. 55 A.D. 55
2 Corinthians Apostle Paul
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 09 2011,3:12 pm
Animals, whom we have made our slaves, we do not like to consider our equal.Charles Darwin
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 09 2011,11:33 pm
Nobody is dense enough to believe that Roman Catholics were around since Jesus. Christianity wasn't even legal in Rome until the sun got to Emperor Constantine in the early 4th century.Later he gathered all the Christian Bishops at the Council of Nicea and they decided what books to put in the new testament and which to leave out. That was over 300 years after the death of Jesus.
QUOTE
Constantine is perhaps best known for being the first Christian Roman emperor; his reign was certainly a turning point for the Church. In February 313, Constantine met with Licinius in Milan where they developed the Edict of Milan. The edict stated that Christians should be allowed to follow the faith of their choosing.[199] This removed penalties for professing Christianity (under which many had been martyred in previous persecutions of Christians) and returned confiscated Church property. The edict did not only protect Christians from religious persecution, but all religions, allowing anyone to worship whichever deity they choose. A similar edict had been issued in 311 by Galerius, then senior emperor of the Tetrarchy; Galerius' edict granted Christians the right to practice their religion but did not restore any property to them.[200] The Edict of Milan included several clauses which state that all confiscated churches will be returned as well as other provisions for previously persecuted Christians.
< http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki...tinople >
Posted by Liberal on Apr. 09 2011,11:40 pm
QUOTE
Liberal, the insane scientists are the ones that believe that you somehow formed through an inanimate, unintelligent manner...
QUOTE
The Dragon In My Garage
by Carl Sagan
"A fire-breathing dragon lives in my garage"
Suppose (I'm following a group therapy approach by the psychologist Richard Franklin) I seriously make such an assertion to you. Surely you'd want to check it out, see for yourself. There have been innumerable stories of dragons over the centuries, but no real evidence. What an opportunity!
"Show me," you say. I lead you to my garage. You look inside and see a ladder, empty paint cans, an old tricycle -- but no dragon.
"Where's the dragon?" you ask.
"Oh, she's right here," I reply, waving vaguely. "I neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon."
You propose spreading flour on the floor of the garage to capture the dragon's footprints.
"Good idea," I say, "but this dragon floats in the air."
Then you'll use an infrared sensor to detect the invisible fire.
"Good idea, but the invisible fire is also heatless."
You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.
"Good idea, but she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick." And so on. I counter every physical test you propose with a special explanation of why it won't work.
Now, what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, floating dragon who spits heatless fire and no dragon at all? If there's no way to disprove my contention, no conceivable experiment that would count against it, what does it mean to say that my dragon exists? Your inability to invalidate my hypothesis is not at all the same thing as proving it true. Claims that cannot be tested, assertions immune to disproof are veridically worthless, whatever value they may have in inspiring us or in exciting our sense of wonder. What I'm asking you to do comes down to believing, in the absence of evidence, on my say-so. The only thing you've really learned from my insistence that there's a dragon in my garage is that something funny is going on inside my head. You'd wonder, if no physical tests apply, what convinced me. The possibility that it was a dream or a hallucination would certainly enter your mind. But then, why am I taking it so seriously? Maybe I need help. At the least, maybe I've seriously underestimated human fallibility. Imagine that, despite none of the tests being successful, you wish to be scrupulously open-minded. So you don't outright reject the notion that there's a fire-breathing dragon in my garage. You merely put it on hold. Present evidence is strongly against it, but if a new body of data emerge you're prepared to examine it and see if it convinces you. Surely it's unfair of me to be offended at not being believed; or to criticize you for being stodgy and unimaginative -- merely because you rendered the Scottish verdict of "not proved."
Imagine that things had gone otherwise. The dragon is invisible, all right, but footprints are being made in the flour as you watch. Your infrared detector reads off-scale. The spray paint reveals a jagged crest bobbing in the air before you. No matter how skeptical you might have been about the existence of dragons -- to say nothing about invisible ones -- you must now acknowledge that there's something here, and that in a preliminary way it's consistent with an invisible, fire-breathing dragon.
Now another scenario: Suppose it's not just me. Suppose that several people of your acquaintance, including people who you're pretty sure don't know each other, all tell you that they have dragons in their garages -- but in every case the evidence is maddeningly elusive. All of us admit we're disturbed at being gripped by so odd a conviction so ill-supported by the physical evidence. None of us is a lunatic. We speculate about what it would mean if invisible dragons were really hiding out in garages all over the world, with us humans just catching on. I'd rather it not be true, I tell you. But maybe all those ancient European and Chinese myths about dragons weren't myths at all.
Gratifyingly, some dragon-size footprints in the flour are now reported. But they're never made when a skeptic is looking. An alternative explanation presents itself. On close examination it seems clear that the footprints could have been faked. Another dragon enthusiast shows up with a burnt finger and attributes it to a rare physical manifestation of the dragon's fiery breath. But again, other possibilities exist. We understand that there are other ways to burn fingers besides the breath of invisible dragons. Such "evidence" -- no matter how important the dragon advocates consider it -- is far from compelling. Once again, the only sensible approach is tentatively to reject the dragon hypothesis, to be open to future physical data, and to wonder what the cause might be that so many apparently sane and sober people share the same strange delusion.
Posted by Stone-Magnon on Apr. 11 2011,8:07 am
I got a feeling...this is the sound of Santorini's brain after reading Sagan... Posted by the breeze on Apr. 11 2011,10:19 am
(Santorini @ Apr. 08 2011,11:59 pm)
QUOTE
(the breeze @ Apr. 08 2011,9:17 am)
QUOTE
(Santorini @ Apr. 07 2011,6:03 pm)
QUOTE
Breeze,
What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
What exactly is your point with that LONG submission on did the Catholics give us the Bible?
Please explain
history shows it didn't happen that way.
Breeze, you do not have any authors that wish to take credit for the article you posted...what are they afraid of?
2nd...St. Ignatius [50-107AD] was the first to ever use the Greek work Katholicos meaning universal. This word was used to describe the universality of the Church established by Christ.
and in 397AD the Catholic Church gave definitive decision as to which writings and books should be admitted into the Bible. As stated previously, Catholic is the only religion that can be traced back to Jesus
"". As stated previously, Catholic is the only religion that can be traced back to Jesus
""" if you mean roman catholic, its a lie. but this one can.
A Call for New Testament Christianity
Jesus died for his church, the bride of Christ. (Ephesians 5:25-33) Man throughout history has corrupted the church that Christ died for through denominationalism, by adding man-made laws to the scriptures, and by following creeds other than the Holy Bible.
It is possible today, to be obedient to the will of Christ. Christians can resolve to restore the church to being the church of the New Testament. (Acts 2:41-47)
< http://church-of-christ.org/index.htm >
Some Things You Should Know
You should know that in Bible times, the church is called:
The temple of God (1 Corinthians 3:16)
The bride of Christ (Ephesians 5:22-32)
The body of Christ (Colossians 1:18,24; Ephesians 1:22-23)
The kingdom of God's son (Colossians 1:13)
The house of God (1 Timothy 3:15)
The church of God (1 Corinthians 1:2)
The church of the first-born (Hebrews 12:23)
The church of the Lord (Acts 20:28)
The churches of Christ (Romans 16:16)
You should know that the church is:
Built by Jesus Christ (Matthew 16:13-18)
Purchased by the blood of Christ (Acts 20:28)
Built on Jesus Christ as the only foundation (1 Corinthians 3:11)
Not built on Peter, Paul, or any other man (1 Corinthians 1:12-13)
Composed of the saved, who are added to it by the Lord who saves them (Acts 2:47)
You should know that members of the church are called:
Members of Christ (1 Corinthians 6:15; 1 Corinthians 12:27; Romans 12:4-5)
Disciples of Christ (Acts 6:1,7; Acts 11:26)
Believers (Acts 5:14; 2 Corinthians 6:15)
Saints (Acts 9:13; Romans 1:7; Philippians 1:1)
Priests (1 Peter 2:5,9; Revelation
Posted by stardust17 on Apr. 21 2011,1:25 am
(Santorini @ Mar. 15 2011,11:02 pm)
QUOTE
(stardust17 @ Mar. 12 2011,1:09 am)
QUOTE
How coincidental it is that humans, so good at creating myths, story books, and republics, then ordain ONLY themselves with "unalienable" rights.
Seems all these are really handy survival mechanisms.
Seems all these are really handy survival mechanisms.
How can you dispute The Book that was written thousands of years ago over a period of 1400-1800 years with over 40 different authors
Do you really think the likes of Palin and Beck just sat down and wrote this volumous book one day to be contrary?
Actually...it is the scientists that cannot agree on their theories
But The Book has held steadfast
How grateful am I that scientists have proven past "truths" untrue. Stagnant beliefs breed ignorance.
How odd that Christianity reflects the philosophy of Plato who lived some years earlier...that nothing exists outside ones mind; and a total rejection of natural law.
There are people who yet believe in astrology, a belief older than The Book...a belief proven by astronomers to be factually impossible.
As in politics people tend to believe what they WANT to believe. And that belief invariably benefits the believer...or so they believe.
A curiousity of the unkown(including death)is a major factor in creating human myths, which are an integral part of human development. But when religious zealots cannot integrate newly discovered natural truths into their beliefs then humanity suffers, as what happened for hundreds of years during the Dark Ages.
Let's let the Sun shine.