Posted on 05/01/2006 8:29:14 AM PDT by SirLinksalot
I hope reading it gave someone there a headache or heartburn at least. ;-)
Acts 17:26-2726. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
27. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
24. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands.
25. And he is not served by human hands, as if he needed anything, because he himself gives all men life and breath and everything else.
26. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
Was LUKE wrong about this?
Okay - how about BC and AD?
The footprints reputed to be of human origin are not. For example:
Some of the footprints are dinosaur footprints. Processes such as erosion, infilling, and mud collapse obscure the dinosaurian features of some footprints, making them look like giant human footprints, but careful cleaning reveals the three-toed tracks of dinosaurs (Hastings 1987; Kuban 1989).
Some of the reputed prints are erosional features or other irregularities. They show no clear human features without selective highlighting.
Some of the prints show evidence of deliberate alteration (Godfrey 1985).
The Paluxy tracks are illustrative of creationists' wishful thinking and of their unwillingness to face evidence. Although some creationists have repudiated the Paluxy claim, many others still cling to it (Schadewald 1986).
Research is our friend.
Smarten up? You mean agree with you? LOL I rather not but thanks anyway.
And the other 4 are named for Norse gods; Tiw, Woden, Thor, and Frigg.
And why do "most people" believe that?
Science gots RULES???
So much for thinking outta da box!
Most of the palynology work was done by Clifford Burdick, who had very little knowledge of geological techniques. Creationists themselves admit that his results come from contamination of old rocks by recent pollen [Flank 1995; Chadwick 1973; 1981].
Intrusion of pollen in older rocks is very common. Pollen is ubiquitous, and its small size allows it to be carried into even small cracks by water seepage. To verify that pollen is fossil pollen rather than a contamination, one must look at several factors:
What color is the pollen? Pollen darkens as it ages. If it is yellow or clear, it is recent.
Have the rocks been cooked? Vulcanism around the rocks would burn up the pollen.
Are the pollen grains flattened? Fossil pollens would be flattened as they are buried and compressed.
There is no indication that the out-of-place pollen passes any of these tests. In particular, the Hakatai Shales have lava intrusions, so we would expect any fossil pollen in them to have burned up.
Researh keeps us from looking stupid.
I find your explanations lacking proof in both cases. But then I find evolution lacking proof as well. It is very easy to make these statements but much harder to supply proof. Hint: check all assumptions at the door.
For instance there are many assumptions in the math behind the old age earth dating theories yet they continue to be expounded by the masses while ignoring the scientific proof that the speed of light is not a constant but is actually slowing down (google Barry Setterfield if interested).
Yep, I knew that was coming....
http://paleo.cc/paluxy/mantrack.htm
"The most thorough analyses indicate that the alleged human tracks here are elongate, metatarsal dinosaur tracks--made by dinosaurs that, at least at times, impressed their soles and heels as they walked (Kuban, 1986a, 1986b; Hastings, 1988)"
By the way, want to find an actual cite to that "human skulls in Pliocene" "evidence", other than a vague reference to it on a creationist website?
Evolution is a process by which life forms change to suit their environment. It has nothing to do with "predicting" the condition of fossils.
That's like saying that meteorology never predicted that the puddle in my driveway would resemble Lake Erie.
I know, I know. Your scientist smart - my scientist stupid. No surprise there. You believe whichever scientists you want and so will I.
Dinosaurs are still around, in the ocean at least. The Japanese fished one up and then dumped it for its bad smell. Aaaargh!
I'll go with the scientists who I believe. You can believe as you wish.
That started out kinda hot.
Can you actually read or did you purposely ignore the second paragraph of my post? Does "LOL" stand for "Lots of laughs" or "Lack of Language". Gee... what does the first sentence of my second paragraph say? Let's take a look at my post shall we? It says:
"Now you know what... if a scientist actually proposed a theory that was different from Evolution but explained what we see in the fossil record and what we see today that is perfectly fine."
I clearly state that opposition to Evolution is something I am ok with, as long as it was a "better scientific explanation". Yet... you seem to think I said the opposite. What a funny person you are. We could start our own Vaudeville show where I say something and you think it is the opposite.
Now whatever orifice you pulled that "To not allow any opposition to TOE?" idea from I don't want to know. Just put it back there, ok?
You are making yourself look like a complete idiot.
Maybe your time would be better spent reviewing the holes in the evolution theory or even better disproving the Bible. Two very simple questions from John MacArthur. 1.) How did the rule of law evolve w/o the Bible? 2.) How did the 7-day week evolve w/o the Bible?
My question:
Could you please clarify if you are saying that the rule of law would not exist without the Bible?
Your response:
yes
Ok then. You're wrong of course, but let me point out some resources for you that will adequately show you why. I'll let you google them yourself:
Ancient Codes of Law:
The Inscriptions of Umma and Lagash - Ancient Sumeria, approx. 2500 BCE
The Code of Hammurabi - Ancient Babylonia, approx. 1780 BCE (Babylon has earlier extant laws, but they aren't presented as a compiled code)
The Instruction of Ptah Hotep - Ancient Egypt, approx. 2300 BCE
The Athenian Constitution - Ancient Greece, approx. 350 BCE
The Law Code of Gortyn - Ancient Crete, approx. 450 BCe
The Laws of Manu - Ancient India, approx. 1500 BCE
Legalist Views on Good Government, Han Fei Tzu - Ancient China, approx. 233 BCE
Isn't it amazing how it appears that all cultures developed codes of law without the assistance of the Bible?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.