Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Grass flourishes in warmer Antarctic
The Sunday Times - Britain ^ | December 26, 2004 | Jonathan Leake, Science Editor

Posted on 01/22/2005 2:15:48 PM PST by Ernest_at_the_Beach

Grass flourishes in warmer Antarctic

Jonathan Leake, Science Editor

GRASS has become established in Antarctica for the first time, showing the continent is warming to temperatures unseen for 10,000 years.

Scientists have reported that broad areas of grass are now forming turf where there were once ice-sheets and glaciers.

Tufts have previously grown on patches of Antarctica in summer, but the scientists have now observed bigger areas surviving winter and spreading in the summer months. Some fear the change portends a much wider melting of the ice-cap that formed at least 20m years ago.

Pete Convey, an ecologist conducting research with the British Antarctic Survey (BAS), said: “Grass has taken a grip. There are very rapid changes going on in the Antarctic’s climate, allowing grass to colonise areas that would once have been far too cold.”

Convey said many species of wildlife were at serious risk from such rapid change including penguins, seals, cold-water fish and giant sea spiders.

The findings come at a politically sensitive time with Europe and America clashing over the latter’s refusal to sign up to the Kyoto treaty to limit greenhouse gas emissions. The confrontation may worsen with Tony Blair saying he is determined to push the issue up the international agenda when Britain assumes the presidencies of the European Union and the G8 countries next year.

The latest research was carried out on the Antarctic peninsula, which juts northwards towards Cape Horn, and the islands around it. More strongly influenced by changes in sea and air temperatures than the rest of Antarctica, these areas are an excellent place to measure effects of climate change.

Measurements over the past three decades show these are among the fastest-warming places on earth, with winter temperatures already 5C higher than in 1974. Many glaciers and ice-sheets are melting.

Convey said Antarctic hair grass and another species called pearlwort were the only complex plants capable of surviving on the Antarctic mainland. He said: “In the past they were at the limit of their range. They used to appear sporadically with one or a few plants growing in sheltered north-facing areas where birds or the wind dropped the seeds but they never did very well.

“What we are seeing now is dense swards or lawns forming and both plants growing much further south than ever before. It is quite remarkable.”

Research by Convey and his colleagues suggests one of the main reasons for the change is that the rising temperatures have brought forward the start of the Antarctic spring and delayed the onset of autumn, enabling the grass to produce mature seed which germinates and becomes established.

Antarctica has not always been ice-bound. It once had a temperate climate and was covered in dense vegetation. The Antarctic Peninsula was then joined to South America, creating a continuous land barrier along which warm water flowed southwards from the tropics. This water warmed Antarctica in the same way that the Gulf Stream now warms parts of Britain and northern Europe.

About 30m years ago, however, movements of the Earth’s crust carried South America northwards, cutting off the warm water. It was replaced by the circumpolar current in which extremely cold water flows in a constant circle around Antarctica, keeping it frozen and isolated.

John King, principal investigator for the BAS climate change programme, said: “We have also seen a sharp increase in the Roaring Forties, the powerful westerly winds that prevail around the Antarctic. One theory is that global warming is strengthening these winds.”

King and his colleagues believe such trends could continue, possibly even raising winter temperatures on the peninsula from their past average of -10C to near freezing. Eventually this could give the peninsula a climate comparable to that of Scandinavia.

A further climate alert is to be raised by Professor Lloyd Peck, Convey’s colleague at BAS. He will deliver a stark warning in the Royal Institution’s annual Christmas lectures on Channel 4 this week. Peck said this weekend: “Climate change in Antarctica is a warning of the globally catastrophic changes that will follow unless we act now.”



TOPICS: Culture/Society; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: climatechange
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-82 last
To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
"Damn liars!!!!"

What's new Ernest?

51 posted on 01/23/2005 1:15:25 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The Lord has given us President Bush; let's now turn this nation back to him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 44 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Cool. Golfing in Antarctica next.


52 posted on 01/23/2005 2:25:17 PM PST by snopercod ( We as the people no longer truly believe in liberty, not as Americans did -- Dayfdd ab Hugh)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Bloody wateRMElons
53 posted on 01/23/2005 2:47:44 PM PST by SandRat (Duty, Honor, Country. What else needs to be said?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
You are reading waaaaaay too much into my post. Please leave me out of the Evo/Creation debate raging on this forum.

Then why your comment about how "fascinating" it is to see that "the same people who push natural selection" also seem to think there can be a status quo in nature? It sounds an awful lot to me an Evo/Creation debate statement. I'm hard pressed to identify anything else that can be read into such a statment.

54 posted on 01/23/2005 4:08:05 PM PST by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, safety and success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 36 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Wonderful news, let's have trees and much more warmth!


55 posted on 01/23/2005 4:21:46 PM PST by metacognative (follow the gravy...)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: johnwayne

That's more like it. You say 'sea spider' to me, I start thinking melted lemon garlic butter. Mmm..


56 posted on 01/23/2005 4:34:44 PM PST by txhurl
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 41 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor; Ernest_at_the_Beach
When God speakes in parables, he specifically tells us so. Did you really mean allegory? - A study of Hebrew will alleviate such nonsense; the days of Genesis were normal days, not some other period. ("the evening and the morning were the ___ day")

My big fat Webster's dictionary uses the word "parable" in its definition of the word "allegory," which I had to look up! So I guess yes, I really meant "allegory" ... according to my dictionary, that's what a "parable" is.

Perhaps a study of Hebrew confirms what you say. Therefore, the earth is 5,000 years old? All I can say, is then, that the Hebrew code is being misread by men, because I no more believe, or think God would be impressed if I did, that the world is 5,000 years old than I believe that the sun revolves around the earth. God gave us brains, He made us in His image, and brainy guys like Darwin (who was a Christian, not an atheist) use and have used that gift from God to observe the world around them. Sometimes what they observe doesn't square-up with man's literal interpretation of the bible's representation of the physical world.

Apparently you think it's more Christ-like or God-like to ignore what God-given intelligence and reason reveals is truth regarding the physical world, and accept instead the word of theolgians and academics who believe they know the secrets of how God performs His miracles? The value of the bible is its moral guidance. It is a handbook that tells us how we can thrive. It is no more a physical textbook than a cookbook is a review of restaurants.

If evolution negated the moral teachings of Christ and the Bible, I'd be troubled in my heart. But indeed, evolution rather confirms them in an abstract sense: adapt and survive; fail to adapt and perish. Human societies that adapt to God's laws -- although they may seem at odds with the "natural" world and its own rules of kill-or-be-killed -- thrive, and will always survive. Those that don't, are doomed to experience strife and ultimately, destruction. Look at our own American culture. The farther we stray from God's moral laws, the more unstable we become.

Certainly Godless governments such as Communism are inevitably doomed to cave in on themselves -- it doesn't take a rocket scientist, or Hebrew scholars, to figure that one out.

What really puzzles me is ... why is the prospect that God formed us slowly through time via other of His creations, so horrifying to so many Christians? It is not taking another god before God; it is not worshipping a graven image. It is a challenge to men who presume to interpret God's word for everyone else. Evolution doesn't challenge God, it challenges men.

57 posted on 01/23/2005 5:34:56 PM PST by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, safety and success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Finny
" Therefore, the earth is 5,000 years old?"

The earth is approx. 6000 years old. That is what the Bible geneologies indicate, and that is what the physical evidence says.

If you use the preferred rock dating methods on newly cooled volcanic rocks in Hawaii, or Washington, it will tell you that those rocks are 300 million years old, so where is the credibility of the method? If you ask the psuedo-scientists why, they will simply assert that the test doesn't work on new rock; are you buying? Where is the common sense?

BTW, Darwin was a practicing occultist, until he became terminally ill, at which time he admitted that his theory had huge holes in it.

My God was and is powerful enough to do things exactly as he said in his word.

58 posted on 01/24/2005 1:34:07 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The Lord has given us President Bush; let's now turn this nation back to him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]

To: Finny
It sounds an awful lot to me an Evo/Creation debate statement. I'm hard pressed to identify anything else that can be read into such a statment.

That is because you don't know me or how much time I spend fighting the enviros that are killing our property rights. This was a statement about them, no more, no less.

59 posted on 01/24/2005 1:38:33 PM PST by farmfriend ( Congratulations. You are everything we've come to expect from years of government training.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 54 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach
I hereby claim the entire Antarctic continent.

So when it blooms all warm and lovely, we can try the concept of freedom THERE.

60 posted on 01/24/2005 1:41:36 PM PST by Lazamataz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

Comment #61 Removed by Moderator

To: WL-law
Common sense reality check -- why would GRASS be anything to merit such ridiculous propositions such as ".. Tufts have previously grown on patches of Antarctica in summer, but the scientists have now observed bigger areas surviving winter and spreading in the summer months. Some fear the change portends a much wider melting of the ice-cap that formed at least 20m years ago."

Just to answer the question regardless of the current article, the implications are that if large areas of land are covered by dark green plants thriving on photosynthesis, that they in turn will introduce more heat into the environment and further the overall warming affect.

That in itself is a true statement. Whether this is occurring in a large enough area to have a global impact is subject to debate. In addition, there is ample evidence to prove that such cyclical climate changes are normal and "part of nature" instead of a deviation of the natural cycle.

Either way, this half-ass GH Effect theory is no excuse to readily introduce or accept Socialism or Communism.

Those who forward Kyoto as a solution to Global warming discredit themselves simply by associating themselves to Kyoto. They cannot expect Kyoto to have any discernible results, especially when they do not address the use of fossil fuels and emissions by emerging nations such as China and India. They need to be harshly treated for the fools that they have proven themselves to be.

62 posted on 01/24/2005 1:52:38 PM PST by Caipirabob (Democrats.. Socialists..Commies..Traitors...Who can tell the difference?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

RE: The latest research was carried out on the Antarctic peninsula, which juts northwards towards Cape Horn.

Easy to miss this little item here. I'd be very interested in knowing the exact precipitation figures and *geological* factors in the study area. It's not as if this area (at a lower latitude than the Antarctic Circle) was part of the polar ice cap and grass started growing there. The climate in the area in question has more to do with Patagonia than it does with Polar Antarctica.


63 posted on 01/24/2005 5:19:30 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways

Plus the area in question is not even truly polar. I believe the latitude is lower than 66 deg S latitude.


64 posted on 01/24/2005 5:23:29 PM PST by GOP_1900AD (Stomping on "PC," destroying the Left, and smoking out faux "conservatives" - Take Back The GOP!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Darwin was a practicing occultist? *whew* Where on earth did you hear that? And are you at all sceptical of the source?

Still no word on how, exactly, the age of the earth, evolution, or natural selection negates the moral teachings of Christ, or how it entails taking another god before Him, or worshiping graven images. You, on the other hand, allow pride and worldliness to provoke you to malign a man who was by contemporary and historical accounts, a Christian and respected by his peers, even those who disagreed with him. He never claimed to have a hard-set theory -- his book, Origin of Species (have you read it? I have ...) was a chronicle of observations in his extensive travels and studies, and conclusions drawn from them, but he never, ever claimed to understand fully the workings of natural selection, so your information that he "admitted" to huge holes in his theory only on his death bed, is patently ridiculous.

Someone is leading you on, and it isn't the Bible, it isn't God -- it's MEN who sense a challenge to their power. By the way ... does the earth revolve around the sun, or is that pseudo science as well? Never mind. One can't take you seriously. God be with you.

65 posted on 01/24/2005 7:20:58 PM PST by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, safety and success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 58 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend
Farmfriend -- Accept my humble apology! You're probably right, I am a little trigger-happy and actually rarely engage in the Evo/Creation debate. Believe me, my sympathies are entirely with you regarding the battle between enviros and agriculture. I wrote many features for a local paper years ago trying to "balance" the information to help otherwise uninformed city newcomers to a rural area understand that the very property measures the were asked to vote on to "protect" farmers and ranchers would do the opposite, and in one case, perhaps it helped because a measure that would have severely restricted property rights of agriculturalists didn't pass. (You'd think voters would be suspicious since NONE of the agricultural organizations supported said "protections.")

IMO, environmentalism is one of the biggest threats to America today. It promotes a New Age Dark Age. About the only thing worse than an environmentalist is a vegan environmentalist.

I come from a commercial fishing background. From puberty on up, I watched as environmentalism put many men out of business and destroyed the livelihoods of many families. You read sometimes about how the stocks of fish are going down -- the reports never correlate an increase in protected seals, otters, etc., that eat TREMENDOUS amounts of fish. My brothers still fish for sport, and report seeing seals and sea lions foraging for fish much, much further offshore than they ever saw 20 years ago.

If you haven't already, read Tom Clancy's "Rainbow Six." It will do your heart good, especially the ending! Absolutely the most delicious, fitting end for environmentalists you can imagine!!!

66 posted on 01/24/2005 7:48:15 PM PST by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, safety and success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 59 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

Anybody want to buy some Antarctic swampland?


67 posted on 01/24/2005 7:49:50 PM PST by RobRoy (I like you. You remind me of myself when I was young and stupid.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: TXFireman

ping


68 posted on 01/24/2005 7:52:56 PM PST by Jonx6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Finny
Thanks for the book recommendation and the apology. Those trying to protect farms definitely do not have farm protection at heart that is for sure. They are usually funded by developers. Wonder why? They tend to pit farmers against fishermen over water as well. The sea lions waiting at the bottom of the fish ladders don't help the salmon runs.
69 posted on 01/24/2005 8:02:40 PM PST by farmfriend ( Congratulations. You are everything we've come to expect from years of government training.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 66 | View Replies]

To: Finny
"Still no word on how, exactly, the age of the earth, evolution, or natural selection negates the moral teachings of Christ"

The teachings of Christ were not 'moral.' Therein, perhaps, lies your confusion. Christ taught that morality didn't get it. The pharisees were very moral; he called them whited sepulchres.

Adam was a real man, the first man; he was created. Had we 'evolved,' we would all be the same seed, would we not? But Christ taught that there are two separate "seeds," Adam/Seth's seed, and the serpant's seed. You and I cannot discern the difference; to us both seeds look the same, but the Lord the difference was visible: he called the pharisees serpant seed. He told them that their father was the serpant. Evolution is a lie that is perpetuated in order to hide the fact that there are two distinct seeds, and to further the myth of the "fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man." You won't find that in God's word, because it is a lie.

The 'educated' elite class of 19th century western Europe was infiltrated with many occultists, some of whom were highly placed 'elders' in the church of England, such as Benson, Westcott, Hort, and Balfour. They belonged to a group that called themselves the "Ghostly Guild." Westcott's son, Arthur, published much information about the comings and goings of his father, and his circle of friends; Darwin was one of them. You need to be more curious

70 posted on 01/25/2005 8:05:34 AM PST by editor-surveyor (The Lord has given us President Bush; let's now turn this nation back to him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Interesting. I absolutely don't get how you can say that the teachings of Christ are not moral, but interesting just the same. Also: Does the sun revolve around the earth?


71 posted on 01/25/2005 8:53:41 AM PST by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, safety and success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

I'd like to see a companion study on undersea volcanic activity for the same period; sea-surface temperatures have far more effect on surrounding air temperatures than air temperatures have on sea-surface temperatures which is why it never freezes over along California's coast and fog is a coastal phenomenon for much of the year.


72 posted on 01/25/2005 9:07:58 AM PST by Old Professer (When the fear of dying no longer obtains no act is unimaginable.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Please elaborate: Christ taught that there are two separate "seeds," Adam/Seth's seed, and the serpant's seed. You and I cannot discern the difference; to us both seeds look the same, but the Lord the difference was visible: he called the pharisees serpant seed. He told them that their father was the serpant.

In everyday terms, how does this manifest itself today, and how does it apply today in our world? Real world examples?

Evolution is a lie that is perpetuated in order to hide the fact that there are two distinct seeds, and to further the myth of the "fatherhood of God and the brotherhood of man." You won't find that in God's word, because it is a lie.

In layman's terms, tell me what this means. I don't understand how evolved species negate the teachings of Christ or the word of God as regards how humans should treat each other, or how it negates the Ten Commandments or the seven deadly sins. Your sentence, "The teachings of Christ were not 'moral'," makes zero sense to me. Please explain.

You ask me to believe that fossils are manufactured and planted by occultists? Are you asking me to believe also that the earth revolves around the sun?

Westcott's son, Arthur, published much information about the comings and goings of his father, and his circle of friends; Darwin was one of them. You need to be more curious.

Can you recommend a book I'd find in the library RE Arthur Westcott's revelations? Was Arthur the only contemporary to write about it?

Just to throw this out here ... could it be that the interested folks that would perpetuate a lie (truth will set you free) are men who seek to protect their own powerful roles in how regular Joes like you and me interpret our Bibles in context with growing knowledge of the physical world around us? Things that some of us observe with our own eyes, and other of us learn from trusted sources? Is it a Godly thing to deny the conclusions we would draw from abilities and gifts God gave us? Is it Godly to contort things such as to cast thousands of people in evil light in order to preserve a status quo of power? Would you advocate that I view with suspicion and regard as malignant fellow humans who study our physical world and come to inevitable conclusions that don't square with literal translations of the bible of things that relate not to spirituality but to physical realities?

God forbade fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, not fruit from the tree of knowledge of biology, or math, or geology, or music, or chemistry, or any other knowledge. The way I see it is that the Bible and Christ teach us spiritual ways to mitigate evil, those ways being behavioral. My knowledge of the Bible is admittedly scant -- I've never read all of the Old Testament (but have read the New a few times), and am the first to say that it is very confusing and hard to understand, and I am loathe to automatically trust interpretation to others, especially when others have so much interest in the outcome via power they hold over thee and thine and me and mine. What isn't hard to understand is the code of moral behaviour advised in the Bible.

I don't find the bible's words confusing regarding that (though I may find hard to understand the reasons -- sometimes God's laws seem arbitrary, but in the long run they're like a parent who tells a kid not to have candy for breakfast; a child doesn't understand why, but as the child becomes an adult and understands the reality of the wolrd, comes to see that eating candy for breakfast is physically unhealthy for the body. It's the same, I think, with God's commandments and deadly sins.)

Science doesn't seek to discern good and evil, it finds things like fossils and such and attempts to draw conclusions about the world around us. I'm leery when I see mortal men attempting to determine knowledge of good and evil from observations of rock, stone, old bones, and the reasoning of sensible minds.

73 posted on 01/25/2005 9:50:56 AM PST by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, safety and success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 70 | View Replies]

To: Ernest_at_the_Beach

"Tufts have previously grown on patches of Antarctica in summer, but the scientists have now observed bigger areas surviving winter and spreading in the summer months."

Huh. Some tough f-ing grass, considering it doesn't even require sunlight. ;') Obviously, unless someone is spreading seed each summer, the grass has been there, and has been surviving, for a good long time. This grass needs to be studied, or if a recent introduction, how it got there. Thanks for the ping.


74 posted on 01/25/2005 11:50:50 AM PST by SunkenCiv (In the long run, there is only the short run.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: farmfriend

Except when it comes to humans. And then, all people who are less than perfect must be euthanisized out of compassion.


75 posted on 01/25/2005 12:17:18 PM PST by Nataku X (You've heard, "Be more like Jesus." But have you ever heard, "Be more like Mohammad"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways

The article itself says that there have always been "tufts" in Antarctica. 'Nuff said. This is media hype.


76 posted on 01/25/2005 12:19:14 PM PST by Nataku X (You've heard, "Be more like Jesus." But have you ever heard, "Be more like Mohammad"?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 28 | View Replies]

To: Peace will be here soon; Ernest_at_the_Beach

Read Crichton's "State of Fear" for an exposee of their tactics.


77 posted on 01/25/2005 12:28:16 PM PST by aquila48
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Can lawn gnomes be far behind?


78 posted on 01/25/2005 1:54:07 PM PST by Tony in Hawaii (Lookin' for the joke with a microscope)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 77 | View Replies]

To: Finny
" I absolutely don't get how you can say that the teachings of Christ are not moral, but interesting just the same. Also: Does the sun revolve around the earth?"

I didn't say that the teachings of Christ are immoral, I said that Christ didn't teach morality. Morality is not the route to eternal life, that's man's idea (the lie again). Eternal life is only available to his elect, through the shedding of his blood at the cross.

What possible difference would the sun revolving around the earth make? Albert Einstein prepared a proof that geocentrism offered no consequences in general relativity.

"You ask me to believe that fossils are manufactured and planted by occultists? Are you asking me to believe also that the earth revolves around the sun?"

You are asking to debate a strawman. The fossils are the direct result of the death of most of the aquatic life on earth when "the fountains of the great deep" gushed up through the cracks in the earth's crust scalding them with super heated water. The events of the flood and the following 200 or 300 years account for the present condition of the earth.

"I don't understand how evolved species negate the teachings of Christ or the word of God as regards how humans should treat each other, or how it negates the Ten Commandments or the seven deadly sins. Your sentence, "The teachings of Christ were not 'moral'," makes zero sense to me."

The lie of evolution is a total denial of God's word. It is a negation of God's plan of salvation through his son, the 'kinsman redeemer' (read the book of Ruth). Seven deadly sins? All sin is deadly; the wages of sin is death, and eternal life is a gift from God to his elect, through the shed blood of his son. Christ made it clear that you cannot 'earn' your way to eternal life through moral behavior. Sin once and you are doomed; the price for one sin is eternity in hell, and that price will be required of all but those for whom the price was paid by their 'kinsman redeemer." There is no "code of moral behavior" proferred in God's word. God's word says that "there is none righteous, no not one." It says that our righteousness is as the bandages on the leper's lesions. That means that our righteousness is merely a covering on the fetid rot that lies in our hearts.

"Science doesn't seek to discern good and evil, it finds things like fossils and such and attempts to draw conclusions about the world around us."

There are some real, honest, objective researchers out there, and most of them have no difficulty asserting that there is no evidence that honestly supports 'evolution.' Even Steven Gould wrote that if evolution were true, life would be increasingly diverse, rather than decreasingly diverse (the 'cone of increasing diversity' called for in his book, Wonderful Life, but admitted not to exist at all). Men seek to explain how life could come to exist without God, not to explain how God did it; Gould admitted that many times.

For your mind to digest: If man evolved, when did he begin to be "in the image of God?" Can chimps claim eternal life? Were there 'primitive men' who are not to share in Christs death at the cross because they were not yet human? These issues are dealt with in the word, but you have to read it to get the answers. All the answers to all possible relevant questions are in the word, and if you want those answers you have to read and pray for them. Those who hate our Lord are not going to offer truth; they live by the lie of Genesis chapter 3 ("ye shall be as gods.")

79 posted on 01/25/2005 7:05:29 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The Lord has given us President Bush; let's now turn this nation back to him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
My Scottish family crest bears the motto, "Dread God," and the older I get, the more I understand it! But YOU are ONE SCARY DUDE in more ways than one. So either you have never sinned, or you are destined for hell. I can tell you that if you are correct, I and everyone I know is destined for Hades!
80 posted on 01/26/2005 9:12:05 AM PST by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, safety and success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor
Oh -- humbly ask you to excuse my reply -- I see that you're saying that one sin and we're destined for hell except via the Redeemer. I misread and misreplied.

You still have really said nothing to convince me of anything but the idea that you are contorting your mind, closing yourself off to alternative possibilities, and denying many things, in order to accommodate your narrow interpretation of the Bible. Again, the Bible is very, very confusing and contradictory and hard to understand, and for every person who reads it, there is a different interpretation of it. The printing press gave mankind the freedom and the option to read the Word each for himself, as opposed to days prior when those in power in the church interpreted it -- and enforced said interpretation -- on everyone. You are acting as if it's all very clear, cut and dried, when it is not. The only thing that, to me, is cut and dried in the bible is its advice on how to behave to each other and behave within a moral framework. That I feel confident that I understand fairly well, and I also know that anyone who, like yourself, claims to understand all of the Bible, is leading himself on.

81 posted on 01/26/2005 9:25:33 AM PST by Finny (God continue to Bless President G.W. Bush with wisdom, popularity, safety and success.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 79 | View Replies]

To: Finny
"You still have really said nothing to convince me of anything but the idea that you are contorting your mind, closing yourself off to alternative possibilities, and denying many things, in order to accommodate your narrow interpretation of the Bible."

Could it be possible that you are simply a Gnostic?

God's word is not difficult to understand if you are willing to accept it God's way. It only becomes difficult when you wish to stretch it to conform to what you wish it to say. My understanding is in conformance with the basic orthodox Christian belief system commonly known as protestant fundamentalism. We accept his word as inerrant, fully inspired, and sufficient for all aspects of life.

"The printing press gave mankind the freedom and the option to read the Word each for himself, as opposed to days prior when those in power in the church interpreted it -- and enforced said interpretation -- on everyone."

While that statement is essentially true for those of us fortunate enough to live in the western world, it doesn't mean that just any interpretation is equally correct. The Bible has a specific message, the Gospel of Jesus Christ, sent to his elect, and intended only for their understanding. The Lord made it plain during his stay here on earth that his elect was only a small 'remnant' of the population of the earth, and it was to them that he was speaking. That was the reason for the parables; he was definately hiding his message from the serpant's seed, although he said also that they would reject it anyway.

I've never met anyone who claims to understand all of the Bible, and parts of it may be deliberately obscured until specific points in time, as Daniels prophecies were 'sealed' from Israel at the time they were written yet are readily understandable today, but you are wrong to assume that the word is so difficult to understand. Pray and read with faith that understanding will be given to you, and you will have greater satisfaction. The Bible is one work, and no part of it contradicts another. If you perceive a contradiction, pray and read again, it's not real.

82 posted on 01/26/2005 4:45:49 PM PST by editor-surveyor (The Lord has given us President Bush; let's now turn this nation back to him)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 81 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-82 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson