Posted on 08/03/2006 5:49:23 PM PDT by blam
How is any of this notably 'conservative' in any way?
Thanks, pretty interesting.
Prehistoric terrorist training camps.
It keeps us from hanging out at DU or Daily Kos?
If you say so.
There are two sides, facts and non-facts, the "conservatives" today are usually the ones trying to conserve the truth, whereas the liberals tend to freely mix the facts and silliness together.
In scholarship there are conservative as well as liberal leanings. Fundamentalism does not have to equate with terrorism, but rather can mean trying to stick to the fundamentals as the core for your research. Conservatives would rather examine the facts and fundamentals, and wait for the evidence, and stand upon existing knowledge, whereas current liberals would rather discard all existing knowledge and just be neo everything, as if facts could not be known.
Epistemologically, truth can be known, whether it is in GPS research or theology, and conservatives understand this, and know facts can be verified. Liberals, however, tend to start subjectively rather than objectively, basing research on possibilities rather than probabilities. Actual facts are relegated to a merely one-of-many category: it could be this, this, this, and actual facts are not given significance they deserve.
When Michael Behe one by one goes through many of the claims of evolutionists in his books, liberals will simply ignore the correct points, choosing subjectism over objectivism. Conservatives will see if those points are additional verifications of the information they already have, or if their understanding needs to be updated and try to conserve their own integrity by wanting truth.
With evolutionists, it's as if they bought the Darwinian software, but are never willing to go back and get the updates.
Studying the universe is not Satanic, so you misinterpret me there.
It's basically the same attitude espoused by the fundamentalist Islamofascists in their railings against the West.
And as Ann Coulter would say, you need to practice up for the analogy section in your SATs. Comparing Christians to Islamofascists is pretty lame.
Fundamentlist Islam has core fundamentals it believes are sacred, from the Koran, one of which is that God is "Allah", and that he commands holy war upon ALL non Islams; even killing the non-Islamic is called for and honorable.
Christian Fundamentalists hold to fundamentals from the Bible, that there is one God, that within that Deity are Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, co-equal and co-eternal; that Jesus Christ came to earth and took on a human nature to be our Substitute and die in our place so that justice could be paid for our sins;that He rose physically from the dead; that this salvation is a free gift of God, received by faith alone; and that the 66 books in the Bible are God's Word.
Just because there is a similar word, fundamental, does not mean you can equate the two systems as equals.
Christians do believe that there is a spiritual realm, invisible to us, and that there are real evil beings, but not because we made it up: it was something God Himself told us, for there could be no way we could ever have that kind of knowledge without His revealing it. Have you ever noticed the incredible evil in the world? God gives the reasons, and they are recorded in the Bible, which explains what is going on behind the scenes.
Terrorists should scare you. A real Satan who has real powers should scare you. God and Christians should be welcomed. Christians are not in the category of evil fundamentalist. They may hold to fundamentals, but that has a different meaning. There are Christians who go beyond what Scripture says and are extremely subjective and mystical, but still they are not your threat.
I say with 100% certainty that there was no Islamic Pottery being made in Syrian 130,000 years ago.
God is Spirit.
I have not seen you, but are you
Didn't think so...
Please cite the scripture reference describing God as a bilaterally symmetrical, two-armed, two eyed, etc. bipedal being. Oh, and as a distinguished-looking old man with a beard and a robe...
And don't try that old stunt of citing Jesus' earthly body -- because He "took upon himself the form of a man" when He came to Earth.
Look to your own pride for the source of your vehement claim that you look like God Almighty.
Neanderthals were God's creatures.
When you have sufficiently humbled yourself, then you may be able to appreciate -- and not sneer at -- all of God's creation.
But what I said needed to be said.
Dualism is a non-Christian paganism which divides the human nature like you have. Spirit is seen as good, the physical body bad in many false religions. It is an attempt to negate the actual good work of God in His creation of the physical.
Man is both material and immaterial, physical and spiritual. God created man, and said it was good. That includes the physical. And He said man is said to be in the image of God.
God is partially defined as spirit, yes.
But the Bible is not so simplistic, and continues its definition of His nature in its 66 books. He is one, but within that one Deity are three separate but equal, co-eternal, co-omnipotent, co-omniscient holy Persons, said by Him to be the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit.
The Son came to earth, not merely taking the "form" of a human, but fully assuming a human nature along with His Divine nature. If you were in a freshman college Theology 101 course, what I am presenting to you is the basic Christian belief. These are still the descriptions after 2000 years of Scriptural examinations to define God and Jesus.
Jesus had both human and divine natures, fully man and fully God. He was fully physical,He ate, drank, could be touched, things a "form" could not do, so you have misinterpreted the meaning of that word and passage. He assumed the human nature to be our representative, the second Adam, the promised Messiah of the lineage of David, but He did not sin, so He could be our "spotless lamb" and have our sins placed upon Him. His being our Mediator opened the way for us to have access to the Father through Him.
God the Son rose from the dead physically, not just a "form," but was seen and touched and heard, and walked, and ate, and showed His disciples that God will resurrect us too when we trust in Him for His grace through Christ.
YOUR starting assumption is false, that the physical CANnot be in the image of God. It can, because Scripture informs us that it IS, and Jesus said the Scripture was inspired by God. And He should know!
Yes God is spirit.
But then we also have Jesus Himself saying, "When you have seen me, you have seen the Father." Since He rose from the dead proving He was God incarnate, He should know better than you! The Father is God. The Son is God. When we see Jesus, we see not just a human, but also God.
Oh, but you think those words can't be true, that He was only in the 'form' of a man. Well, 2000 years of examining Scripture disagrees with you on the nature of Jesus Christ.
Scripture, God's word, tells us what the "image of God" means, but you're already saying, "Oh but it doesn't mean THAT, it means..." There can be right and wrong interpretations, would you agree? Would you want to have the right understanding, rather than the wrong, as you have now?
I suggest you read "The Two Natures in Christ" by Martin Chemnitz, available at www.cph.org, because each of your false arguments is answered in far more space and detail better than I can, which is what I think you might appreciate.
Unless you are one of those Neanderthal you think are so wonderful. Then maybe just get a human to read it to you.;-)
I did not hijack anything. Neanderthals kept being brought up by you, by others, and so I asked a simple question. I then have answered your response points. Are you saying you only want responses that have nothing to do with God? Then you better stop breathing too, because He made your lungs.
When YOU make false claims, and expect Christians to have no freedom of speech, to have no dialogue with you, then why are you here? You only want to be around people who agree with you? Why not want truth, instead?
This is a thread on archaeology, with claims about how to find knowledge, but built in are assumed "facts" which are not fact, but actually have been proven wrong. If you are glad to find that a wagon road went from here to there, surely wouldn't more relevant knowledge be important?
But godless liberalism refuses that, and instead insists Christians are doing wrong by speaking. Sounds like Iran where they kill people for spreading the truths of Christianity.
So -- the writings of the Apostle Paul are "non-Christian paganism" ? Careful, there...
There can be right and wrong interpretations, would you agree?
I absolutely do agree -- and Satan has been pushing the self-centered misinterpretation you have chosen for a long, long time (even well before the advent of our Redeemer).
Did you ever stop to question why you get so personally angry whenever someone mentions that your body's physilcal 'form' may have "evolved" (been "formed from the dust of the earth")? Hubris. Pride. Ego-centrism. Sin.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
BTW, you never provided a single Scripture reference describing God as physically identical to man -- Michaelangelo and other "graven image" producers notwithstanding. (Did you ever read that commandment?)
My Creator (and yours, of course) left two records of His works: Scripture (a brief outline in Genesis, etc., and Creation itself -- all of it. Your egocentric, geocentric, and homocentric misinterpretation that relies solely on Scripture leads you down the deadly path of calling much of the evidence of God Almighty's creation itself a lie. God does not lie. Neither does his Word. Neither does His Creation.
You should look deeply within your own soul and discern who is the source and author of your pagan viewpoint -- that insists on squeezing Amighty, Omniscient, Omnipresent, Eternal, Invisible, Creator God -- into a sweaty, puny, aching, physical body and a timescale dictated by the spin rate of this ball of mud upon which He placed you.
Please explain why demeaning God and His mighty works to make yourself and your planet seem to be the center of His creation is anything other than wrong (and infantile). And do it with Scripture. Just claiming that the heresy has persisted as "basic Christian belief" for a long time proves nothing other than that Satan is very good at what he does.
Yes. In your misplaced zeal to push your Scriptural error, you hijacked this thread.
Read the posted article. The subject is the use of overhead imagery analysis to detect evidence of ancient human activities.
Read my comments. 100% on topic -- including considerable ("friendly", BTW) effort expended to show how interested parties can find the resources to do their own overhead imagery analysis and investigations.
~~~~~~~~~~~
"Neanderthals"... Cite where I ever used the term -- before I wrote:
"Neanderthals were God's creatures."
-- in the penultimate line of my first response to your already lengthy, overzealous -- and wrong and off-topic rantings using the term.
Interrupting other folks' conversation with irrelevant rantings is rude, crude, and boorish -- and it is certainily no acceptable or effective way to "witness for Christ". In fact, to most folks, it is a definite "turn off". :-(
Yes, You hijacked this thread -- and I apologized to the others for letting your pontifications goad me into calling you on your abominable rants.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Back on topic: if anyone else is interested in doing a little do-it-yourself overhead imagery searching for historic/prehistoric traces in places that interest you, just post to this thread or FReepmail me. I'll do what I can to help.
1. The article of the thread mentioned Neanderthals, and I responded to that in the article. You posted it. If "the subject is" overhead imagery, why didn't YOU edit the article to EXCLUDE ALL aspects which were NOT pertinent to that subject, such as Neanderthal?
2. If you were in an exclusive "Special Coven of the Overhead Imagery Forum", you might be able to demand that no one ever speak of east or west but only overhead. But you are in a public forum, and the article made claims which were wrong, and I pointed that out. Why would you not expect the public to hold you accountable as the poster?
3. If you didn't want to get into a conversation about something you weren't interested in, why did you return posts TO ME? There's a little "self-control" button over there on the left ...maybe you had yours turned off.
4. And again you demonstrate liberal godlessness by not answering my content, that the theory of evolution has been disproven, and resort to namecalling, ranking my answering your accusations with "abominable," the same term as Satan gets in the Bible. And you brag about how nice your thread is. Nice until someone points out your error. ---------
http://earth.google.com might be a good place for images too. I use high quality monitors and many of the tools they offer.
I stand corrected that it was not TXnMA who posted the original article, it was Blam, sorry.
Yesterday's troll conversations were with Junior, whose blog site is pro Darwin/Anti-Coulter, and I confused the two since their attitudes were suspiciously similar.
TXnMA asked Hitman how any of this is conservative,
I wrote back, about conservative and liberal scholarship.
But TXnMA could not edit the article if posted by Blam, So I apologize for what I said there.
However, if you did not like the thread going in a different direction, you still wrote a public post asking a question, to which I responded. Just ignore a poster if you don't want to engage in conversation with them.
You are correct. I overlooked the fact that the article did, indeed mention (at the end, in passing) that the same investigators (who had success using overhead imagery) had also found tools that "could have been made by either Neanderthals or early modern humans." (...a conjecture...) But, then, I don't go around with my antennae out for buzzwords that give me an excuse to start an off-topic Bible-thumping rant, either.
You posted it.
WRONG. I did not post the article. I'll not call that a "lie" --as you did my overlooking the word, "Neanderthal" -- but a simple mistake occasioned by unrighteous anger. The article (a good one, BTW) was posted by blam, who, IMO, does an outstanding job of finding and posting articles on history and prehistory.
2. ...the article made claims which were wrong, and I pointed that out.
No, the article made a conjecture, which you used as an excuse to start pimping for your medieval misinterpretation of Scripture that disregards the evidence of the magnificence of God's creation that untold thousands of honest scientists (many of us Creation-believing Christians) are striving to observe and to understand.
Why would you not expect the public to hold you accountable as the poster?
See "WRONG." above...
3. If you didn't want to get into a conversation about something you weren't interested in, why did you return posts TO ME?
Because, as a born-again Christian, I am vitally interested in the witness of Christ -- and in the damage those of your misguided ilk are doing to it with your continuous negative harping against your imaginary "evil of Evolution". Do you actually think you are going to win anyone to Christ (particularly those of a scientific orientation) by trashing their honest efforts to understand the majesty of God's handiwork? Maybe you have a "self-control button", but I, OTOH, have a Christ-controlled life. Maybe you should re-read what I wrote about root causes...
4. And again you demonstrate liberal godlessness by not answering my content, that the theory of evolution has been disproven
WRONG. I am about as conservative as they come. And WRONG. I am a born-again believer in Jesus, and a knowledgable believer in the truth and incomparable majesty of Almighty God and his (entire) creation.
Evolution? We never discussed it.
However, if the TOE -- or some improvement therupon -- turned out to be a good explanation for how God brought His (biological portion of) creation to its present state, my beliefs in Him and his Word would not be shaken one bit. And the same holds true if it were disproven and a better answer began to emerge. Too bad your flimsy faith depends on the success of your desparate effort to disprove and disparage the work of others. Perhaps the Holy Spirit will, some day, move you beyond your prideful desire to force Almighty God into a physical body like your own. Then you, too, can look back and marvel at the energy you wasted tilting at the windmill called, "evolution". I'll be praying for you.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://earth.google.com might be a good place for images too.
Thank you for that contribution to the "meat" of the thread! (I am serious.)
Although I have access to (Texas) databases that provide multispectral image data and "metadata" that facilitates "GIS" georeferencing and GPS receiver input, I will definitely check out your suggestion. Thanks again!
It HAS BEEN disproven. There IS NO EVIDENCE for transitions between species. There are changes within a species, sure, if you eat more protein, your kids may be taller. But a squirrel falling from a tree does not turn into a bat turn into turn into... It HAS been disproven, because there IS NO evidence, even by Darwin's OWN standards of how to disprove it.
I do believe people appreciate truth, and that no, I am not doing harm when I speak factually, according to Biblical guidelines. Some will get irritated, but some actually do appreciate learning. I am not this enemy against whom you have to rise to some righteous cause and pull out all your big insults.
People cared enough about the Lord to be obedient to Him and to teach me, and so I try to do the same for others. Good night.
Many of the so-called "conservatives" posting here are no such thing. They are as statist as their liberal counterparts and often for similar ideological reasons.
BTW, Darwin Central is not "my" blog site. It is the meeting place of dozens of pro-conservative, pro-science individuals who are fighting a losing battle to convince the world that not all conservatives are a bunch of benighted, anti-science bohunks.
Then why not admit you have NO evidence for transitional species evolution, and have fallen for bohunkery yourself; but as a true conservative, wanting truth, wanting to align yourself with scientific facts, not wanting to be enslaved to that false mindset anymore, you renounce it, and come out into the light?
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.