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

Skip to comments.

Fossil finds shake up dinosaur theories
The Mercury News ^ | July 19, 2007 | Betsy Mason

Posted on 07/22/2007 8:19:41 PM PDT by DaveLoneRanger

Dinosaur fossils found in New Mexico are challenging the idea that when dinosaurs appeared on the scene some 235 million years ago, they quickly rose to dominate the landscape.

Buried among the dinosaur bones, a team led by UC Berkeley paleontologists discovered the remnants of the dinosaurs' predecessors, dinosauromorphs, that lived 15-20 million years after the first dinosaur showed up.

"It was very exciting because we knew this was a type of animal that no one thought you'd find anywhere at any time in North America," said paleontologist Randall Irmis, a graduate student at UC Berkeley and lead author of the study which appears today in Science.

The discovery means that dinosaurs didn't simply replace their ancestors. Instead, the two types of animals lived side-by-side and competed for resources for millions of years.

"It has shaken up the old theory," said Bill Parker, a paleontologist at Petrified Forest National Park who also studies dinosaurs. "Everything was nice and neat before."

Scientists thought dinosaurs evolved from the dinosauromorphs in South America. Then, they may have driven their predecessors to extinction by outcompeting them with their bigger, faster and stronger bodies. Or, their ancestors and other animals suddenly went extinct for another reason, and the dinosaurs took advantage of the newly empty ecological niches.

Either way, the belief was that by the time dinosaurs were roaming North America, the dinosauromorphs were long gone.

"Everybody thought those animals had gone extinct," Parker said. "I think people are going to be surprised."

(Excerpt) Read more at mercurynews.com ...


TOPICS: Extended News; Miscellaneous; Philosophy
KEYWORDS: crevo; dinosaur; dinosaurs; evolution; fsmdidit; godsgravesglyphs; paleontology
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-265 next last
To: Locke_2007

Actrually yeah I do have better things to do than to answer some of the incredulous silly questions of others- (yours wasn’tr that bad a question- but soem of hte others are) So Adue

I guess he gave up. I’m still waiting to hear why they aren’t contradictions. Guess I’ve got a long wait...


151 posted on 07/23/2007 6:16:45 PM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: vpintheak
Send me the information regarding your comment please. Also, I have never heard any reputable scholar saying they know the exact datesof any Biblical event.

The date of the global flood:

2252 BC -- layevangelism.com

2304 BC -- Answers in Genesis (+/- 11 years).

2350 BC -- Morris, H. Biblical Creationism. Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books, 1993.

2370 BC -- TalkOrigins.com

2500 BC -- http://www.nwcreation.net/biblechrono.html

2522 BC -- Dr. Gerhard Hasel

2978-3128 BC -- http://www.asa3.org/archive/ASA/199605/0162.html

3300 BC -- http://www.biblediscoveries.com/flood1.html

3537 BC -- Setterfield (1999)

The data concerning the lack of a global flood at this date comes from archaeology, sedimentology, and a host of other disciplines. As far as I am aware, no scientific discipline has found any significant evidence for a flood at this time.

I do archaeology, and I have studied many archaeological sites which cross-cut this time with a continuity of culture, mtDNA, fauna and flora, stratigraphy, etc. None of these would be possible with a global flood at this time.

152 posted on 07/23/2007 6:21:13 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 69 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

You do know that “continuity” was put there to test your faith.

;-)


153 posted on 07/23/2007 6:58:32 PM PDT by mgstarr (KZ-6090 Smith W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 152 | View Replies]

To: DaveLoneRanger

It’s kind of fun to read about people trying to sort out a fallacy.


154 posted on 07/23/2007 7:02:36 PM PDT by GretchenM (What does it profit a man to gain the whole world and lose his soul? Please meet my friend, Jesus)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: coincheck
IF evolution is a FACT why is it still called a THEORY (not yelling:)) and why have NO “missing links” been found, why did Mr Darwin say that the eye gave him the most trouble about his theory?

Three questions:

1) Evolution is both a fact and a theory. Evolution is the change in genomes from generation to generation. Fact. Evolution is also the theory of evolution, a theoretic construct designed to explain the millions of facts involved in change in the genome from generation to generation over hundreds of millions of years.

2) "Missing link" is a newspaper term, not a scientific term. The nearest equivalent is "transitional." Lots of those have been found. Here is a link: 29+ Evidences for Macroevolution: The Scientific Case for Common Descent.

3) Why did Darwin say the eye was a problem? That was 150 years ago. Don't you think we have learned anything since then? The eye is no longer a problem.


why have we not found in the fossle [sic] record evidence of the very beginnings of life? surely they would be there.

Maybe, maybe not. In either case, that's not my field.


why have we not found fossle [sic] evidence of animals, plants, and fish evolving into their current form? but we have found just the opposite, animals and plants in unalterable form

Not my field, but as I recall, the biologists have a pretty good record of evolution. It convinces scientists. Nothing will convince those who, for religious reasons, will not accept any scientific evidence.

I have studied human evolution, and there is a pretty good track on how humans got to their present form. There are still a lot of details to be worked out, but the overall picture is becoming pretty clear.


why are we not seeing the continuation of this evolution today, what has stopped this evoutionary cycle? and don’t say that is is a v-e-r-y slow cycle.

What makes you think it has stopped? Our culture may be altering the normal progression of things, but there are still a lot of opportunities for change in the genome. HIV is one. Malaria is another. How about the third molars--what are they doing? This is a very detailed question and I simply don't have much time right now.


why no archeological evidence of the “nutrient rich broth” that started the whole evolutionary cycle? again, we should have at least found some trace of this somewhere

The atmosphere has changed. We are now oxygen-rich. It was not always so. Could this make a difference?


why is it that when anyone challenges the theory of evolution they are automatically thought of as having the IQ of either their shoe size or a rock and not able to understand the scientific method, therefore they are not able to be trusted in anything they say?

Most folks who challenge the theory of evolution have no understanding of the theory. They have never actually studied it. They get their talking points from religious sources who are opposed to the theory on religious grounds.

They come to these threads with "its just a theory" and "evolution is impossible because of the second law of thermodynamics." One poster a couple of years back even referred to the "second law of thermal documents."

What do you think scientists should do when confronted with such gross ignorance? Award it a Nobel Prize? We laugh at it! Gross ignorance if this kind is not scientific data and deserves the laughter it gets.


I understand how science developes their theorys and how they test them, science is either directly or indirectly responsible for the advances we have made over the past years. Without science we would still be using wood to heat and light out homes and cook our food. we would also still be dieing of tooth infections or appendecitis.

I am not stupid, I do understand how science works, what I do not understand is that when NO evidence has been found to support this theory and when a theory leaves many many more questions(simple and complex) than it is able to answer since its inception and yet it is still is clung to as “truth” this is where I have a problem.

You are absolutely incorrect when you say "NO evidence has been found to support this theory." I have actually studied evolution (six years in grad school), so I have an informed opinion on this topic. What is the source of your information? A creationist website?

And as for evolution, or any other scientific theory claiming to be "truth" or TRVTH" -- that is simply false. On my FR homepage I have a lot of definitions of terms as used by scientists. Here is the definition of "truth":

Truth: This is a word best avoided entirely in physics [and science] except when placed in quotes, or with careful qualification. Its colloquial use has so many shades of meaning from ‘it seems to be correct’ to the absolute truths claimed by religion, that it’s use causes nothing but misunderstanding. Someone once said "Science seeks proximate (approximate) truths." Others speak of provisional or tentative truths. Certainly science claims no final or absolute truths. Source.

That is all I have time for at the moment.
155 posted on 07/23/2007 7:20:50 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 129 | View Replies]

To: mgstarr

Landru...

156 posted on 07/23/2007 7:37:50 PM PDT by mgstarr (KZ-6090 Smith W.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 153 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007

Your complete misrepresentation of religious people, Christians in particular is a complete sham and degrading. No one I know looks at the clouds and see’s angels. Give me a break, do you think we are all so foolish and infantile? I have had many people talk to me patronizingly, but your continued comments take the cake. I know so many people with so many different degrees, not from Christian Schools, who believe in Christ; your attempt to paint us as ignorant fools is almost laughable, if it wasn’t sad. Please spend some time redirecting your life, you won’t be sorry.


157 posted on 07/23/2007 9:07:11 PM PDT by vpintheak (Like a muddied spring or a polluted well is a righteous man who gives way to the wicked. Prov. 25:26)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 134 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007

it’s all illogical locke- you’re much much smarter than God and Christians- there’s simply no logic to be had- everythign can be explained away- and nothign makes sense- Run away- Run as far far away from the illogic as you can- don’t stop until you hit the county line, and don’t look back- Run like the devil Himself is after you. fter all, 1 billion people who are christians must all be morons- don’t take any of hteir words for the fact that God has a personal relationship with His Children and that He enlightens us through the Holy Spirit, and teaches us in a personal way- it’s all just baloney Locke- Run Run Run- We’re all lying ot you- It’s a giant conspiracy to ‘trick the masses’ into somthing absolutely horrible- peace- and by golly we’re all out to git ya. And while you’re running, keep chanting to yourself so’s as to drown out that still small voice that you try to stifle by arguing so vehemently against Christians- that still small voice that tells you that there might actually be somethign to this ‘Christian thing’- yup- just ignore it- it’s all one giant honkin big conspiracy muahahahaha!!!


158 posted on 07/23/2007 10:12:40 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman; coincheck

[[What is the source of your information? A creationist website?]]

What wqas your source of info? DogmaTIC bias? Why yes, I do believe it was- but thanks for being snide about ‘creationist websites’. Apparently, in your mind, when creatiuonist websites point out hte PROBLEMS with eovlution- of which there are many, and they are serious problems, not some obscure moot points, you feel the info can be safely dismissed because they ainty gots the degree you do, and when they do have degrees, and better degrees at that, another wave of the gigantic dismissal hand is all it takes apparently to dismiss the evidence

Coincheck- whe3n you’re doen reading the garbage that Coyote posted on the suppsoed ‘29 evidneces for Macroevolution’ Take a wander over to this ... gasp ... ‘creationist website’ that rips the talkorigin’s points to shreds and tells you the actual truth instead

http://www.trueorigin.org/theobald1b.asp

and

http://www.trueorigin.org/ca_ac_01.asp


159 posted on 07/23/2007 10:23:11 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman

[[Most folks who challenge the theory of evolution have no understanding of the theory.]]

Yes, no understanding at all. You see, in order to understand it, you must assume, and must assume big time- You must assume that all life came from a single source, that everythign is related and that the biologically impossible is possible. You must also assume that the lack of evidences aren’t really a big deal, and that any copunter-evidences can be explained away ‘sometime in the future’

[[I have studied human evolution, and there is a pretty good track on how humans got to their present form. There are still a lot of details to be worked out, but the overall picture is becoming pretty clear.]]

‘A lot of details’ Like hte fact that there is no evidence for macroevolution, liek the fact that there are billions of gentic differences between apes and man, liek the fact that if life didn’;t get it’s start from God, then it began an absolutely impossible journey from non life- but by golly, we’re getting closer to overcoming those impossibilities.

[[Evolution is also the theory of evolution, a theoretic construct designed to explain the millions of facts involved in change in the genome from generation to generation over hundreds of millions of years.]]

When do ya suppose they’re goign to start on that explaining bit?

[[Not my field, but as I recall, the biologists have a pretty good record of evolution. It convinces scientists]]

Yup- they crossed that impossible chasm of biological barriers way ba... oh wait- no they didn’t- The evidence convinces them? Which evidence? the missing evidence for macroevolution?

[[What do you think scientists should do when confronted with such gross ignorance?]]

They expound on it and call it a ‘well documented theory of evolution’ when infact it isn’t- I thought you knew that?


160 posted on 07/23/2007 10:32:31 PM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 155 | View Replies]

To: js1138

“It’s difficult to see how Mendel could have discovered this...”

Plants do produce fertile hybrids at times, but Mendel also realized that for success (fertile offspring), the plants had to be closely related.

“Real biology does not expect a strong definition of species.”

Quite true. The concept of species varies by situation, and can be problematic.


161 posted on 07/24/2007 12:26:59 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 92 | View Replies]

To: edsheppa
“Interspecific hybrids can be viable and such hybridization is thought to have produced new species.”

Point taken, however this appears to be rare. Again, we are confronted with the difficulty of defining specie.

162 posted on 07/24/2007 12:38:51 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 118 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
There is nothing in this science article that supports creationism.

The usage of the word creationism has a specific meaning and given that I won't disagree, however, what has been found does not disagree with what the Bible the WHOLE book instructs.

I do have a question, did all these species die at the same time either under the old theory or under the new evolving theory?

163 posted on 07/24/2007 12:40:19 AM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: mgstarr

Preserve us!


164 posted on 07/24/2007 12:44:38 AM PDT by stormer
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 156 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
OK, I looked up the versus and the contexts are quite different.

The rule in Deuteronomy was a law God was giving to Israel to follow in matters of crime and punishment. The other is a prophecy about what God Himself will bring about to the royal line of Babylon through a war of conquest by a foreign agent named Cyrus (who turned out to be the king of Persia who fulfilled the prophecy about 150 years later, see Isaiah 44:27 though 45:5 for where he is mentioned by name).

But certainly no contradiction when placed in context. On one hand God tells His followers not to punish the children just because of the crimes of their parents. On the other hand He foretells that royal line of Babylon will be ended by a conquerer who does not even acknowledge the God of Israel. So where is this contradiction supposed to be? I must confess if there is one, I will need it spelled out.

Now do you still claim this is a "contradiction" or shall we move on to the next?

165 posted on 07/24/2007 1:25:53 AM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 119 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
I’m still waiting to hear why they aren’t contradictions.

I thought he did a good job answering your questions, and quite frankly, he has much more patience than I at addressing these matters and posters such as yourself. I'm inclined to agree with him that you're just not receptive to any argument that is contrary to what you already believe. I will however take a stab at one that he glossed over.

Who was at the Empty Tomb? Is it:

MAT 28:1 In the end of the sabbath, as it began to dawn toward the first day of the week, came Mary Magdalene and the other Mary to see the sepulchre.

MAR 16:1 And when the sabbath was past, Mary Magdalene, and Mary the mother of James, and Salome, had bought sweet spices, that they might come and anoint him.

JOH 20:1 The first day of the week cometh Mary Magdalene early, when it was yet dark, unto the sepulchre, and seeth the stone taken away from the sepulchre.

Here we have three different quantities of people at the tomb. In John we have one: Mary Magdalene. In Matthew we have two: 1 ) Mary Magadalene, 2) the other Mary. In Mark we have three 1) Mary Magdalene, 2) Mary, mother of James, 3) Salome.

The "other" Mary in Matthew, is the same as the second Mary in Mark, the mother of James. We know this because she was at the Crucifixion, which is clear from Matthew 27:56, and that is who the author is referencing. So that clears up the one identity.

The quantities themselves, is a little more difficult to explain, and you have to understand the the authors of the Gospels are reporting, in many cases, partial observations that need to be connected to each other to understand what is going on. I'll give you an example that immediately comes to mind.

In John 20:17 Jesus says to May Magdalene touch me not, for I have not yet ascended to my Father.It doesn't indicate though, previous to that verse, she did, or was about to touch him. In Matthew 28:9 however, it says and they came and held him by the feet, yet in the verses that follow, it doesn't describe this admonishment by Jesus. Now, put them together, and they make sense

Interestingly enough, if you read the verses carefully, each book to their own, you get the distinct impression that there are things missing in the conversation between the Jesus and the women, or actually, between Jesus and Mary Magdalene, because those two are the central characters, which is probably why the author of John is only reporting on Mary. It doesn't mean that the others weren't there, It's just a matter of how that particular author is reporting their part of the story.

You'll find this theme throughout the Gospels, and it's there for a reason, and the reason is that they who have ears, will hear.

In another, the topic of one particular conversation was, did God put stumbling blocks in his creation, and the answer to that is a big fat yes, so that those whose hearts are of God, will seek him out and find him, and those whose hearts are not, will, and for lack of a better word, perish....and by their own doing.

Seek and you shall find.
Ask, and it shall be given you

I can tell you from first hand experience, that those words are indeed true. But it has to come from your heart, and no where else.

166 posted on 07/24/2007 2:31:04 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
oops, let me clear something up in one of those last paragraphs:

"In another thread, the topic of...."

167 posted on 07/24/2007 2:34:42 AM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 151 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Junk math. By those calculations whenever those people playing poker on TV receive any hand of cards a miracle has occurred.


168 posted on 07/24/2007 6:16:57 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 65 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

You make the astute observation that pillow lava forms under water. Excellent! Now you must explain why strata supposedly laid down during the flood contain so many volcanic deposits that do not take the form of pillow lava.


169 posted on 07/24/2007 6:18:20 AM PDT by ahayes ("Impenetrability! That's what I say!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 73 | View Replies]

To: csense

Gosh, I’m sorry. I thought the Bible was the Perfect Word of God Almighty, and therefore was perfectly accurate, with no inconsistencies. Ok, for the sake of argument, let’s assume for the moment that I accept your explanations as stated. Let’s move away from contradictions (for just a minute, we’ll get back to them shortly) and move on to inaccuracies. How about these:

The bat is not a bird
LEV 11:13 And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the fowls; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
LEV 11:14 And the vulture, and the kite after his kind;
LEV 11:15 Every raven after his kind;
LEV 11:16 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
LEV 11:17 And the little owl, and the cormorant, and the great owl,
LEV 11:18 And the swan, and the pelican, and the gier eagle,
LEV 11:19 And the stork, the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.

DEU 14:11 Of all clean birds ye shall eat.
DEU 14:12 But these are they of which ye shall not eat: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray,
DEU 14:13 And the glede, and the kite, and the vulture after his kind,
DEU 14:14 And every raven after his kind,
DEU 14:15 And the owl, and the night hawk, and the cuckow, and the hawk after his kind,
DEU 14:16 The little owl, and the great owl, and the swan,
DEU 14:17 And the pelican, and the gier eagle, and the cormorant,
DEU 14:18 And the stork, and the heron after her kind, and the lapwing, and the bat.


Rabbits do not chew their cud
LEV 11:6 And the hare, because he cheweth the cud, but divideth not the hoof; he is unclean unto you.

‘Gerah’, the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does *not* mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated ‘chew the cud’ in the KJV is more exactly ‘bring up the cud’. Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that’s that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it.


Insects do NOT have four feet
LEV 11:21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
LEV 11:22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
LEV 11:23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.


170 posted on 07/24/2007 6:28:57 AM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 166 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
why would God create a flawed creation with the full foreknowledge that we woudl fail to understand him? And create a Hell to punish us with an eternity of torment for only a lifetime of sin? How cruel is that? (Not to mention incompetent)

We "special creations" are even less special than you imagine. Why, it's been stated on this very thread that "[a]ll people . . . are ignorant, stupid, and arrogant, ALL people."

Intelligent design, with a dash of intelligent sadism.

171 posted on 07/24/2007 7:03:20 AM PDT by atlaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 150 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
Gosh, I’m sorry. I thought the Bible was the Perfect Word of God Almighty, and therefore was perfectly accurate, with no inconsistencies. Ok, for the sake of argument, let’s assume for the moment that I accept your explanations as stated. Let’s move away from contradictions (for just a minute, we’ll get back to them shortly) and move on to inaccuracies. How about these:

How 'bout you do your own research. Just as there are websites that specialize in promoting such criticism of the Bible, there also websites that deal specifically with answering those charges. They're easy enough to find...but I'm sure you already know this

What I posted came from my heart, and from intimate acquaintance with the material. Instead of taking someone else's word that the Bible is this or that, why don't you try reading it for yourself and making up your own mind. If then you have some questions, I'll be more than glad to help if I can...

172 posted on 07/24/2007 12:05:40 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: csense

Thanks for the polite response. I suspect that both morally and politically we are on the same wavelength - but we will forever differ on the religion thing. It just doesn’t make any sense at all to me, either from a common-sense standpoint or a scientific one. Have a good one... :-)


173 posted on 07/24/2007 12:11:00 PM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 172 | View Replies]

To: editor-surveyor

Hooray for real science...properly vetted for bias and enforcing personal honesty and integrity in those who seriously practice within its realm!

I think the maxim “To thine own self be true” should be the first highest principle that all scientists should hold, in order for them to work as proper scientitsts.


174 posted on 07/24/2007 12:36:23 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 130 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
The bat is not a bird

Why must a term translated as "bird" not include bats?

175 posted on 07/24/2007 12:39:25 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 170 | View Replies]

To: Enchante

Don’ t forget the obama-rex and the mighty baraka-saurous.


176 posted on 07/24/2007 12:42:28 PM PDT by mdmathis6
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 131 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

What about insects having 4 legs? And the rabbit cud thing? And if God really is omnipotent, why did he have to rest on the 7th day? And why would an infinitely-merciful, infinitely-loving God create a Hell to preside over; to torture his flawed creations (whose fault is that?) for eternity?

To answer your question: Bats aren’t birds - they are flying rodents. An omniscient God would know this, and not include them. An omniscient God would’ve caused the Bible to be written in a manner that would have allowed no doubts or controversy as to what it said. Most doubt could’ve been cleared up if the Bible just said something like “The way of life is as 2 threads entwined” or something like that - that primitive man had no way of knowing and would’ve meant nothing until the discovery of DNA. There is no knowledge in the Bible that demonstrates “wisdom” beyond what ancient man knew at the time. The “prophecies” don’t count; as they are so vague that they could’ve meant almost anything - and no precise dates are given.


177 posted on 07/24/2007 1:05:27 PM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 175 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
What about insects having 4 legs?

Lets do quality before quantity.

Do you concede that the Deuteronomy and Isaiah versus did not contradict each other? I believe you put that forth in the context of one of the few most "compelling" contradictions I asked for. Do you still find it compelling? It seemed to that the contention fell apart when I simply read the surrounding passage in Isaiah. Perhaps all of your claims are just as weak when examined.

At a glance there are many flaws in the rant you just made. But why should I take the time to expose them when you are likely to ignore my answers and simply throw more mud?

So one thing at a time. Do you still think that the Deuteronomy and Isaiah versus contradict each other? And if they do not, why did you think they did, and does this teach you anything about being careful in your own research?

178 posted on 07/24/2007 1:43:10 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

No, I don’t concede at all. Is the “God” of the Bible a God of peace or a God of war? Why would an infinitely-compassionate being call for the deaths of innocent children because of the actions of the fathers? Your God seems terribly capricious, not to mention moody.

PS - which version of the >50 versions available of the Bible did you quote?

Don’t you see the logical contradictions I mentioned in my “rant”? And this is not one of the most “compelling” contradictions - it is but one of many - hundreds, actually. I just picked it as a starting point.


179 posted on 07/24/2007 1:50:45 PM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 178 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
Thanks for the polite response.

You're welcome

I suspect that both morally and politically we are on the same wavelength - but we will forever differ on the religion thing. It just doesn’t make any sense at all to me, either from a common-sense standpoint or a scientific one.

I think you're right on the first part, but on the second part, who knows. My views have certainly changed over the years, and there was a time when I did embrace evolution. In fact, I came very close to becoming an anthropologist. I had always loved science since I was young boy. First, I wanted to be a geologist. I even had a very impressive rock collection when I very young, and I'm not talking rocks that just pick up in your yard. I'd go to the library and do my own research and learn as much as I could. A lot of it escapes my memory now, but there was a time when I could recite all the relevant tests that distinguished the different properties of those rocks.

Then as I approached my teenage years, I acquired a fascination for what was then termed lost civilizations, such as the Maya, Aztec, and Inca...and my interest gravitated toward Archeology.

By the time I graduated High School in '75, which by the way was a fairly prestigious Catholic High School, I settled on anthropology, and in my senior year I attended an open house (for lack of a better term) at Brandeis University with the intent of somehow pursuing that field. Unfortunately, my family didn't have the money to finance a college education, and in those days, scholarships were few and far between, so I eventually enlisted in the Marine Corps, with the intention of using the G.I. bill to pursue a higher education after I served my time. Unfortunately again, I got married right after I got out, and that was the end to that.

Anyway, even though I was raised Roman Catholic and I went to Catholic Schools (and yes, I was taught and I accepted evolutionary theory) my faith through the years started to wane, and I wound up questioning everything, especially in the light of science, and I simply couldn't reconcile things.

I always had God, or at least my version of God, in the back of my mind, but I disassociated myself with organized religion. I remained there for quite a while.

Then, in 2000, my father died of cancer, and to make a long story short, that prompted me to revisit all those questions that I had put aside in the deep recesses of my mind, and I submerged myself in philosophy....looking for the answers.

That led me on a path to where I am now.

Look, and I'll tell you straight out...I don't know how to explain the fossil record, or anything else that science proposes which seems to conflict with what I believe, but I can tell you from personal experience that what I believe is true. I can't offer you empirical evidence. All I can do is offer my testimony and the limited knowledge (thus far) of the Bible.

I can't even put the experience into words...it is just that profound, and although I can understand that such testimony, in itself, doesn't compare to the methodology of science, I now understand what other people were talking about when I was in your position.

That said, I could probably get into much more detail about certain things, but I don't bore you.

Anyway, thanks for a pleasant conversation

180 posted on 07/24/2007 2:08:05 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 173 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
What about insects having 4 legs? And the rabbit cud thing? And if God really is omnipotent, why did he have to rest on the 7th day? And why would an infinitely-merciful, infinitely-loving God create a Hell to preside over; to torture his flawed creations (whose fault is that?) for eternity?

I can only wonder if your words draw a smile to the Heavenly Father face or if He has a specific idea in mind in how to answer Himself your questions. I can tell you at least one thing your understanding of what Hell is does not match with what has been written. The actual word hell has different meanings and it literally depends on whose hand/mind used the word hell. The Bible does not say that there will be this place where anybody is going to literally be tortured for eternity. That concept is a man made visual and yes I have met many who can become very gleeful at the idea of themselves getting to watch those who they perceive deserve such a place getting sent there. Is not going to happen. First, judgment day nobody is still going to be dragging around these flesh bodies. Secondly, hell is the action of destroying bodies that are not visible to the naked flesh eye and it is described the destruction comes from within like a smoke rising into the vast immense of space for eternity. Ever tried to capture smoke? Not much to sit around and observe.

To answer your question: Bats aren’t birds - they are flying rodents. An omniscient God would know this, and not include them. An omniscient God would’ve caused the Bible to be written in a manner that would have allowed no doubts or controversy as to what it said. Most doubt could’ve been cleared up if the Bible just said something like “The way of life is as 2 threads entwined” or something like that - that primitive man had no way of knowing and would’ve meant nothing until the discovery of DNA. There is no knowledge in the Bible that demonstrates “wisdom” beyond what ancient man knew at the time. The “prophecies” don’t count; as they are so vague that they could’ve meant almost anything - and no precise dates are given.

Psalms 22 penned hundreds of years before the event described events that literally did in fact occur. Even what the Roman appointed high priest would have to say. Christ said that it is NOT given for all to understand for their own protection. Hmmmmm, now what exactly does that mean???? So some of us need be protected from actual understanding of what is Written, that being the case then what offense must one literally commit to get oneself sent to hell???

181 posted on 07/24/2007 2:16:15 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

Psalms 22 penned hundreds of years before the event described events that literally did in fact occur.

No they didn’t. An omnipotent God would’ve given exact dates - to clear up any uncertainty. He didn’t. That same God created my mind, knowing before the beginning of time that I would be a skeptic, right? Why did he make me a skeptic if he wanted me to worship him?


182 posted on 07/24/2007 3:39:19 PM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 181 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007

Since you are completely ignorant of the Bible, I can see why you are confused, but differing degrees of detail recounted by different observers or reporters are in no way contradictions. The rest of your confusion is rooted in your total lack of understanding of Hebrew idioms.

You are clearly not a student of anything.


183 posted on 07/24/2007 3:50:53 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies]

To: js1138
"It's not a question about gravity or frames of reference. It's a simple question about light and shadow on a sphere."

I know that you are attempting to discuss something that you don't understand, but it is a foolish question. Changing the coordinate origin, or rotation will in no way affect the travel of light. Spatial relations are tough for amateurs like you, but you can learn if you have the desire.

184 posted on 07/24/2007 3:55:03 PM PDT by editor-surveyor (Turning the general election into a second Democrat primary is not a winning strategy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 143 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
No, I don’t concede at all

Contradiction would mean they can't both be true at the same time. I'm still waiting for an explination of why they can't be.

Is the “God” of the Bible a God of peace or a God of war?

What a silly thing to say. A mortal might be a man of war on occasion and yet be a man of peace in another. I beleive Robert Heinlein once summed it up by saying "specialization is for instects.". Am I to supposed to beleive Henlein was a Christian apolgist or perhaps that people are inherant contradictions and must not exist?

Why would an infinitely-compassionate being call for the deaths of innocent children because of the actions of the fathers? Your God seems terribly capricious, not to mention moody.

Let me explain the concept of contradiction. If two things contradict each other it is impossible for the two to both be true. It has nothing to do with you finding one of the concepts less palatable. Now putting our emotion aside, is there any logical reason the versus could not both be true?

And this is not one of the most “compelling” contradictions - it is but one of many - hundreds, actually. I just picked it as a starting point.

I sympathise with your desire to move on. But I think theology is best pursued in a careful deliberative manner. If God exists, He is a more complex being then we are, so we are not well equipped to understand Him even when we apply ourselves well--much less when we get sloppy with our logic in the heat of a debate.</patronization>

185 posted on 07/24/2007 4:07:56 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 179 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
"Psalms 22 penned hundreds of years before the event described events that literally did in fact occur." No they didn’t. An omnipotent God would’ve given exact dates - to clear up any uncertainty. He didn’t. That same God created my mind, knowing before the beginning of time that I would be a skeptic, right? Why did he make me a skeptic if he wanted me to worship him?

You cannot have read Psalms 22 and then say it did not foretell what would happen.

How do you know God did not give exact dates to those who were predestined to accomplished a specific instruction? What exactly is your uncertainty about dates? Now if you have a plan and the plan requires top secret intel to only be disclosed at specific given times why would you publish those dates with specificity in advance?

It is written that all souls belong to the Heavenly Father, given how many souls that have come to inhabit this earth some even for but a short span of time that is one huge family to oversee. Now we are told in different places the purpose of 'flesh' man/woman. There were to come to this earth born of woman with out any remembrance of what had happened before. The flesh body is described as the flesh housing of the soul. Each soul would be given that opportunity to be born of woman obviously not all literally have due to whatever made that physical entrance. When this flesh dies that soul returns to the Father that sent it.

So what we are not told is a date in time when all souls were created but there is a history yet we are not allowed to know before this flesh age. Reason because no one can accuse the Heavenly Father of interfering in their minds about the path that he freely gave them during this flesh age. Is there accountability yes but only based upon what the flesh mind actually is aware of. The Heavenly Father in His perfection does not judge based upon the literal sin alone but what only He can do is know the intent and fore knowledge of the person committing the sin. Meaning He literally can read our minds, and He is not going to interfere unless asked by the person for His help.

Now peradventure one is wanting an answer but does not know the impact of what that answer might literally have upon them, and getting the answer would in the long term cause an unrecoverable harm the answer is not going to be given. This is not a about a short term process it is about the eternity.

I am not sure exactly what made you a skeptic or if you were actually born that way. Maybe you found what people under religious mantles tell you the Bible says or that God is does not fit with what you literally find to be the case made you a skeptic.

I can tell you what I was raised up to believe I found to be so totally without credibility that I found myself at a point in time saying the whole thing was a hoax. Interesting though I still found myself praying to a Heavenly Father I did not know to never ever let me be deceived again. Guess what I found out that one's own self if not disciplined very carefully can become the primary deceiver there is.

186 posted on 07/24/2007 4:17:55 PM PDT by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 182 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

I think you are beginning to feel what I feel (frustration) when I attempt to discuss these matters with Creationists.

I guess I am just silly. At any rate:

“Contradiction would mean they can’t both be true at the same time. I’m still waiting for an explination of why they can’t be.”

An omniscient being wouldn’t HAVE to be both things - he would not have made a flawed creation in the first place that would’ve caused such an odd contradiction. If he were a competent God, his creation would’ve worked properly in the first place (since he is perfect he would’ve seen all possible errors and corrected them before they happened) and he wouldn’t have needed to contradict himself.

“What a silly thing to say. A mortal might be a man of war on occasion and yet be a man of peace in another. I beleive Robert Heinlein once summed it up by saying “specialization is for instects.”. Am I to supposed to beleive Henlein was a Christian apolgist or perhaps that people are inherant contradictions and must not exist?”

I like Heinlein’s writings also. This does not mean he was an authority on everything. An omnipotent God would not have to have duality of his nature to make up for his previous mistakes. (please reference previous paragraph, above)

“Let me explain the concept of contradiction. If two things contradict each other it is impossible for the two to both be true. It has nothing to do with you finding one of the concepts less palatable. Now putting our emotion aside, is there any logical reason the versus could not both be true?”

Please let ME explain the concept of contradiction. An ancient text, supposedly written by an omniscient, omnipotent Supreme Being who was laying down his laws for all of us to hear, respect, and abide by in our worship of him, would not have made any contradictions in said book. The very fact that you and I, two intelligent, reasonable people, are disagreeing about the interpretation of said book proves that it was not written by a Supreme Being with perfect intentions. If God created insects, wouldn’t he know how many legs they had?

“I sympathise with your desire to move on. But I think theology is best pursued in a careful deliberative manner. If God exists, He is a more complex being then we are, so we are not well equipped to understand Him even when we apply ourselves well—much less when we get sloppy with our logic in the heat of a debate.</patronization>”

LOL! you are patronizing ME!!?? [guffaw] You think I have not reasoned in a careful, deliberative manner, and examined ALL of the evidence to arrive at my perfectly reasonable conclusions? I’m not the one who is surrendering his reason and logic to obviously flawed atavistic dogma, and bending over backwards to justify it in the light of all the mountains of empirical evidence that renders it laughable in the light of modern reason. Your assertion that God is beyond our ken, if true, would render all debate meaningless, no? Who’s the one with sloppy logic, now? ;-) [Stated with all due respect and humility. /No sarcasm. Really./.]


187 posted on 07/24/2007 4:48:20 PM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
Please let ME explain the concept of contradiction.

Great, but this is what you followed with:

An ancient text, supposedly written by an omniscient, omnipotent Supreme Being who was laying down his laws for all of us to hear, respect, and abide by in our worship of him, would not have made any contradictions in said book. The very fact that you and I, two intelligent, reasonable people, are disagreeing about the interpretation of said book proves that it was not written by a Supreme Being with perfect intentions. If God created insects, wouldn’t he know how many legs they had?

This neither addresses the definition of a contradiction nor does it seem related to the two versus in question. So I guess I must wait for your definition of a contradiction as well as your explanation as to how the versus contradict each other.

Your assertion that God is beyond our ken, if true, would render all debate meaningless, no?

My position is that understanding God is difficult and is best done with care and deliberation. I did not mean to convey it was so difficult as to be completely worthless.

Who’s the one with sloppy logic, now?

Lets assume it is me. So as the logical one, please explain how the two versus you sited contradict each other. Alternatively you could attempt a little honesty and simply admit that they don't actually contradict each other so we could move on.

188 posted on 07/24/2007 5:23:40 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
An omniscient being wouldn’t HAVE to be both things

An omniscient being would have to be something to be comprehensible, and there's no reason why those "somethings" couldn't be both...so long as they don't contradict each other, and judging by the duologue you're having with AndytheBear, you either do not understand the principle of contradiction, or you harbor, yourself, conflicting logical rules for science and theology.

I'd like to address for a moment the concept of whether an all loving God can engage in war or destruction. The problem with this argument, and there may be some here who may issue with what I have to say, is that God is not all loving, at least in the way that we understand that concept. What I mean by that, is that we have placed a contingency to this concept that excludes all other traits that, as another poster has said, do not in our standards as we apply them to ourselves, necessarily contradict each other. In other words, if we applied the same standards to ourselves, it would men that a mother who defends her young would exhibit this contradictory nature....and from common sense and experience this is not the case.

It's curious though, that this subject has come up. Sometimes. late at night, I'm lucky enough to catch Dr Gene Scott on T.V.....and as an aside, if you want to see real scholarship of the Bible firsthand, then watch him, because so far, he's very impressive indeed to behold when he is at work and teaching. At least from what I've seen.

Anyway, last night he addressed this very subject, which to me made a whole lot of sense, and although I can't recall his words per se, I'll briefly sum it up for you and say that, God *needs* to be both since there is essentially a war going on, and I don't need to tell you, as a fellow conservative, what the impacts are for a people that are pacifists in a time of war, especially by an aggressive enemy.

You seem like a smart guy, and I don't think I need to state in my scenario person, force, entity, or whatever, that I'm talking about, and that some might giggle and scoff at.

Make no mistake. God does need to defend Heaven, and we are all involved in one way or another, whether anyone wants to admit it or not....

189 posted on 07/24/2007 5:33:00 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 187 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
What about insects having 4 legs?

The link at the bottom is just the first that popped up on google. I'm sure there are many more, and are probably similar. If you have the desire to hear the explanation, then it's right at your fingertips

As I said before, I don't like to get into cut and paste wars, but the reason I addressed this question is because it simply defies common sense to propose that these people who ate such insects as part of their daily diet, wouldn't have known that they have six "legs" if they indeed were the very same people who authored, or correctly put, "manufactured" the Bible.

Obviously, no matter how you look at i...i.e., whether or not the Bible is the inspired word of God, or manufactured by men...such descriptions were readily, and commonly understood by the people of the time.

http://www.tektonics.org/af/buglegs.html

190 posted on 07/24/2007 6:29:14 PM PDT by csense
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 177 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear
But I think theology is best pursued in a careful deliberative manner.

You discussed Heinlein in your post. Here is what he said about theology:

Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.

Robert A. Heinlein, JOB: A Comedy of Justice, 1984


191 posted on 07/24/2007 6:33:46 PM PDT by Coyoteman (Religious belief does not constitute scientific evidence, nor does it convey scientific knowledge.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 185 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

“This neither addresses the definition of a contradiction nor does it seem related to the two versus in question. So I guess I must wait for your definition of a contradiction as well as your explanation as to how the versus contradict each other.”

My definition of a contradiction is a logical incongruity. An example would be a supposedly omnipotent and omniscient Supreme Being who creates a flawed creation, like us. Another good example of a contradiction would be for said Supreme Being to be surprised at anything we, his creations do. Therefore he created us to be exactly the way we are (flawed), with malice aforethought; this is NOT a logical incongruity.

“My position is that understanding God is difficult and is best done with care and deliberation. I did not mean to convey it was so difficult as to be completely worthless.”

Fair enough. However, if God really is infinite, then how can we, as finite, mortal beings, ever hope to have the slightest comprehension of him if he chooses to remain hidden and not guide us?

“Lets assume it is me. So as the logical one, please explain how the two versus you sited contradict each other. Alternatively you could attempt a little honesty and simply admit that they don’t actually contradict each other so we could move on.”

They do, indeed contradict each other. This is what you posted previously:

” The rule in Deuteronomy was a law God was giving to Israel to follow in matters of crime and punishment. The other is a prophecy about what God Himself will bring about to the royal line of Babylon through a war of conquest by a foreign agent named Cyrus (who turned out to be the king of Persia who fulfilled the prophecy about 150 years later, see Isaiah 44:27 though 45:5 for where he is mentioned by name).”

here is Isaiah 22: For I will rise up against them, saith the LORD of hosts, and cut off from Babylon the name, and remnant, and son, and nephew, saith the LORD.

Now, just WHO is talking, here, saying that they will not only kill the King of Babylon, but their sons and nephew(s) as well? Could it be the LORD? (it doesn’t matter who he has working as his agent - if he causes said agent to kill the sons for the sins of the father, then God is as guilty as if he did it himself) This reinforces my previous contention that God is calling for punishing the sons (and here, even nephews) for the sins of the father (in this case the king of Babylon, and his sons, and nephews). So, it’s OK to punish the sons for the sins of the father if they are royal blood, or just in the case where you happen to be the king of Babylon? So, God’s perfect justice is one way for crimes (don’t punish the sons for the sins of their fathers) but different if you are either royalty in general, or maybe just the King of Babylon in this particular case? How is this not contradictory? The king’s sons and nephews could’ve been good people for all we know. But they have to die because God is inconsistent (and not at all merciful) in the way he defines his justice? How is this not a logical incongruity? How is it he fact that God doesn’t even know how many legs insects have not a logical incongruity? How is the statement that God rested on the 7th day (a supposedly omnipotent being needing rest?) not a logical incongruity?


192 posted on 07/24/2007 6:52:12 PM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

One other thing. Why would an infinitely compassionate, infinitely loving God have one set of rules for Babylonians and another for the Israelites? Doesn’t this sound, rather, errr... racist? I thought God’s compassion was supposed to extend to everybody, equally? Except Babylonians? Or just Babylonian royalty? Or just that particular Babylonian family? No logical incongruities there. Nope. Whatever happened to “love thine enemies”?


193 posted on 07/24/2007 7:03:42 PM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 188 | View Replies]

To: Coyoteman
Theology is never any help; it is searching in a dark cellar at midnight for a black cat that isn't there. Theologians can persuade themselves of anything.

Exactly, so as I said he is hardly a Christian apologist. I appreciate your support in this.

194 posted on 07/24/2007 8:44:39 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 191 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
Thank you for attempting to defend your position.

Alas, you merely seem to be judging God to be hypocritical and unjust in Isaiah 14:22. But, this is a contradiction between the God described in the Bible and your idea of what God should or must be--not a contradiction in the Bible.

If I am wrong in this assessment then please show me by illustrating the alleged contradiction without projecting your values onto God.

195 posted on 07/24/2007 9:13:10 PM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 192 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

“Thank you for attempting to defend your position.”

2nd condescending reply by you, to me. This is a move of desperation, as you see the corner you have painted yourself into. I believe what I have stated previously precisely defined the contradiction for all to see. It is you who are avoiding discussing what I said, at this point. An infinitely-wise God would have left no wiggle room for us to argue in, would he? And I need project no values onto God but those that are espoused in the Bible itself. Doesn’t God abide by his own laws? Or is it “Do as I say, not as I do?” Here’s another passage where he passes punishment unto the (innocent) children for 3 or 4 generations (I guess the actual number being determined by his capricious mood): Exodus 20:4 “You shall not make for yourself an idol in the form of anything in heaven above or on the earth beneath or in the waters below. You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the fathers to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, but showing love to a thousand {generations} of those who love me and keep my commandments.” My question is, where is God’s love after the 1000th generation, in the latter case? Does he count the generations, then stop loving at 1001? Is he really jealous? Does this not strike you as being an all-too-human flaw? You are using the ultimate Creationist cop-out “He works in mysterious ways”, followed closely by “We cannot know the conscience of God”. Actually, yes, we can. Supposedly the Bible is his word write large for all to see (and obey). When one points out the inconsistencies in this dogma - one is usually attacked by believers, as the very foundations of their irrational beliefs are threatened. That is the case here.


196 posted on 07/25/2007 6:28:32 AM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 195 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007

[[2nd condescending reply by you, to me. This is a move of desperation, as you see the corner you have painted yourself into.]]

Give it a rest- you’re whining about people being condescending when You flat out come out calling Christians ignornat? Cripes- Cry me a river.

[[An infinitely-wise God would have left no wiggle room for us to argue in, would he?]]

Ah- the old fallible argumment from someone who suppsoes himself more wise than God- Yes Locke- God should bow down to you and Ceede His Godship to you as you apparently are much the more wise than He. I’ll pray tonight and inform God that He needs to check in with you before He makes any decisions as apparently, His actions haven’t been to your liking.

It’s very evident You are very angry against God Locke ,and you plum don’t like the fact that He requires faith and doesn’t explain himself to your liking as clearly as you seem to require- His word isn’t contradictory to those who don’t go into His word looking for apparent esxcuse with which to reject Him with. All those passages you mention as supposed contradictions are not infact contradictions IF you look more fully into His word and understand His Omniscience and Soveriegnty- something I see you have completely missed.

As I stated, and as Andy tated, and as many others reading your comments no doubt understand because it is plainly obvious- no matter how many supposed contradictions we explain aren’t infact contradictions to you won’t amount to a pisshole in the snow as far as you’re concerned- You WANT God to be fake- You WANT amunition with which to sling at Christians, and you WANT barbs and snares with which to seemingly trap Christians- but hte only problem is that you won’t get them be3cause anyone with an iota of common sense who doesn’t go into God’s word with a vindictive a priori belief understands that God is true, that His word can be understood with CAREFUL understandings and examinations, and know God to be a personal God who cares individually for His children.

Your objections in your above post show a complete lack of understanding of the Soverign God who has EVERY RIGHT to judge a wicked people even into generatiosn to come as He alone knows their hearts- even the hearts of htose yet born. So please- enough with the petty unlearned vitriolic accusations. And, you can either learn to ask ligitmate questions with which you may be uncertain in a manner that is more civil, or you can learn to deal with folks hwo get quite tired of your lame little jabs and return the favour. Don’t dish it out if you’re not able to recieve it in return.

If you wish to feel you have won some petty little battle- then by all means- run along and pat yourself on the back for your perceived victory- We don’t mind one bit because we udnerstand the whole of God’s word and understand that the desperate need to grasp at smoke for hteir weapons.


197 posted on 07/25/2007 8:53:39 AM PDT by CottShop
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: CottShop

Blah blah blah. Who’s whining now? It isn’t my fault your religion is a nonsensical fairy tale. I’m not against God - I’d love to see proof that he exists and cares deeply about us - I’m afraid, however that all the empirical evidence available to us shows that he just isn’t there. Even ignoring the mountains of scientific evidence, just a dispassionate, common-sense critique of the many hundreds of biblical contradictions should be enough to convince any reasonable person that it was written by ignorant primitives that were describing the natural world in the only terms they could understand - superstitious ones. What almighty God would be so insecure as to profess jealousy and revenge? Doesn’t this strike you as cruel and immature? In fact, I like Christians, and have stated in other threads that I prefer to live around them. They are nice people, generally. Your remarks reveal to me several things: 1) That you pre-judge atheists (you assume I am one, but I am just a very skeptical agnostic, actually) as being full of hate and very immoral. I am neither. 2) The only hate I see here is yours. Andy was just condescending to me, another Creationist tactic to make my strong arguments appear to be weak. You however, take the concept of “vitriol” to a new level. How un-Christian of you. 3) The strength of your hateful response to my calm assertions reveals that I have struck a nerve, somehow. Could your faith, somehow, be in doubt? And where did I say have won? All I said was I believe I had made my point, using logic and quotes from your own holy book. It is not my fault your beliefs are demonstrably foolish; don’t blame the messenger. I have argued with calm deliberation, not desperation. It is the entire tone of your post to which this is the reply that is filled with hate and desperation. I thought Jesus preached love and tolerance? Am I wrong, or did you just miss church that day?


198 posted on 07/25/2007 9:32:52 AM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 197 | View Replies]

To: Locke_2007
Your paragraph contains more projections of your values onto God. For instance, you are asserting He must do what He tells the Isrealites to do.

Why must this be so?

2nd condescending reply by you, to me. This is a move of desperation, as you see the corner you have painted yourself into.

If you have only spotted two times I am doing better then I thought. The temptation to be condenscending is very high, but I'm trying to discipline myself not to be, I had thought I slipped more then twice.

199 posted on 07/25/2007 10:06:43 AM PDT by AndyTheBear (Disastrous social experimentation is the opiate of elitist snobs.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 196 | View Replies]

To: AndyTheBear

“Your paragraph contains more projections of your values onto God. For instance, you are asserting He must do what He tells the Isrealites to do.
Why must this be so?”

So it’s “Do as I say, not as I do” then? Aren’t we supposed to emulate God? Doesn’t God rule by example? If he doesn’t, can we consider this to be hypocrisy on his part? Can we then create arbitrary rules for how to behave, and call this God’s Way, as we are emulating him? And you have direct knowledge of God’s conscience to know that this is what he meant by being contradictory, that there is one law for God and another for the Israelites and yet another for the Babylonians (and everybody else)? This suggests that you believe that you are the final arbiter of God’s truth. I think you are the one who is projecting his (exaggerated and illogical) values here, not I. How is your previous interpretation of the quotes I posted not projecting YOUR values on them? [sigh] If only your God had written the bible in a manner that would have not allowed interpretation or logical incongruities to cause so much trouble and consternation amongst his flawed creations. Or was that his whole purpose to begin with?


200 posted on 07/25/2007 10:23:48 AM PDT by Locke_2007 (Liberals are non-sentient life forms)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 199 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-50 ... 101-150151-200201-250251-265 next 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