HOME/ABOUT  Prayer  SCOTUS  ProLife  BangList  Aliens  StatesRights  ConventionOfStates  WOT  HomosexualAgenda  GlobalWarming  Corruption  Taxes  Congress  Fraud  MediaBias  GovtAbuse  Tyranny  Obama  ObamaCare  Elections  Polls  Debates  Trump  Carson  Cruz  Bush  OPSEC  Benghazi  InfoSec  BigBrother  IRS  Scandals  TalkRadio  TeaParty  FreeperBookClub  HTMLSandbox  FReeperEd  FReepathon  CopyrightList  Copyright/DMCA Notice 

Please keep those donations coming in, folks. Our 1st quarter FReepathon is off to a great start and we have a chance of getting 'er done early! Thank you all very much!!

Or by mail to: Free Republic, LLC - PO Box 9771 - Fresno, CA 93794
Free Republic 1st Quarter Fundraising Target: $88,000 Receipts & Pledges to-date: $42,130
47%  
Woo hoo!! And the first 47% is in!! Thank you all very much!! God bless.

Posts by schaef21

Brevity: Headers | « Text »
  • VANITY: What's the atmosphere in downtown St. Louis?

    08/11/2015 8:06:19 AM PDT · 3 of 26
    schaef21 to HeadOn

    Hey Headon.

    I live in St. Louis. Downtown/Stadium is 7-8 miles from Ferguson. Just about everything going on there is isolated to that area and shouldn’t be a problem for you. I live 4 miles south of Ferguson in a mixed neighborhood.... there are no issues at all here, people are just going about their business.

    It is mostly out-of-town rabble-rousers coming in.

    You’ll be absolutely fine where you will be staying.

    Hope you see some Cardinal wins!!

  • Report: Tom Brady destroyed phone, suspension to be upheld

    07/29/2015 12:47:51 PM PDT · 57 of 64
    schaef21 to Lakeshark

    We’ve beat this horse to death.

    1. A ballboy with the nickname “The Deflator”
    2. Brady’s destroyed cell phone.
    3. The balls were under the prescribed weight (and there are arguments on both sides about the “science”... you have chosen to disregard those you disagree with). BTW... we see the same thing going on in the Global Warming debate, don’t we.
    4. The study done on the fumble rate being astronomically out of the norm for the Pats starting the year that teams were allowed to supply their own balls.

    These are all bits of circumstantial evidence (just off the top of my head) and without going back to reread the Wells Report, which I did... admittedly in part, not the whole, when it first came out.

    You don’t want to recognize it.... I get it. You’re a big Pats fan and you choose to dismiss all of this. That doesn’t mean that it doesn’t exist or that it is not evidence.

    I would say that you are the one not interested in evidence, not me.

    I believe we’ve exhausted this subject. Take some more shots at me if you’d like, I’m done.

  • Report: Tom Brady destroyed phone, suspension to be upheld

    07/29/2015 11:24:32 AM PDT · 55 of 64
    schaef21 to Lakeshark

    The bias doesn’t have to be on the part of the newspaper... it can be on the part of the columnist. It happens every day in every newspaper in America.

    There is plenty of circumstantial evidence for those who don’t mind opening their eyes to see it..... that obviously is not you.

    Incidentally..... I am a St. Louis Cardinal fan. Somebody in the Cardinal front office hacked the Houston Astros. They haven’t gotten totally to the bottom of it yet, the investigation is continuing.

    Regardless of who it was, or how pervasive or innocuous it was they will be penalized and they will deserve it.

    Please note how I answered you without calling you a moron or referring to the “small recesses of your mind”.

    Namecalling is the last refuge of a man with no confidence in his argument. You are no better than those on the left who do the same thing.

  • Report: Tom Brady destroyed phone, suspension to be upheld

    07/29/2015 10:19:32 AM PDT · 53 of 64
    schaef21 to Lakeshark

    ***What stake do they have in unearthing the stupidity and vapidity of the Wells Report?***

    Bias.

    What stake does the NFL have in soiling one of their marquis players and one of their premiere franchises? Is it in their best interest to do so?

  • Report: Tom Brady destroyed phone, suspension to be upheld

    07/28/2015 11:50:57 AM PDT · 37 of 64
    schaef21 to Lakeshark

    He tried to gain an unfair advantage.... whether he did or not is irrelevant.

    Guys who take HGH try to gain an unfair advantage... whether they do or not is irrelevant.

    They get 4 games, so should he.

    Spare the crud that they didn’t do it. The Ballboy was nicknamed “The Deflator”. Do you think he’d do that without Brady’s knowledge?

    BTW.... The Washington Post defends Hillary, too. I wouldn’t give them much credence.

  • Report: Tom Brady destroyed phone, suspension to be upheld

    07/28/2015 10:19:51 AM PDT · 28 of 64
    schaef21 to Sacajaweau

    ***he played better with the legal balls....the whole thing is a farce.***

    That is completely irrelevant. The fact is that he tried to gain an unfair advantage is what is at issue..... it’s the same thing as the guys doing HGH, etc. They get four games, so should he.

    One other thing.... please spare me the “he didn’t know about it” stuff and especially the “they didn’t tamper with the balls” stuff. The ball boy was referred to as “The Deflator”..... and it wasn’t because he was losing weight.

  • Scientists just found soft tissue inside a dinosaur fossil. Here's why that's exciting.

    06/09/2015 2:35:29 PM PDT · 94 of 168
    schaef21 to TexasGator

    ***Occam’s Razor would say that if it is not that old we would be finding the protein remains in all the fossils ... but we do not.***

    Occam’s Razor talks about protein? :-)

    The current scientific paradigm would say that no soft tissue or red blood cells (or stretchy ligament that still snaps back into place like Mary Schweitzer found) would last anywhere near 65 million years and therefore would not be found in the specimen..... but it was and continues to be, so they have to come up with something.

    It seems to me that the most logical explanation (and simplest....Occam’s Razor) is that it is not that old..... but evolutionists absolutely cannot go down that road, so what they do is try to come up with an explanation, any explanation, that supports their tautology.

    Science establishment will not go down any road that might lead away from evolution. In the end, this hinders the advancement of science instead of helping it.

  • Scientists just found soft tissue inside a dinosaur fossil. Here's why that's exciting.

    06/09/2015 1:20:43 PM PDT · 50 of 168
    schaef21 to SunkenCiv

    ***She has said her finds in no way support a recent age for the fossils of dinos.***

    Of course she said that..... she has to say it or she loses all cred with the “scientific community”.

    Occam’s Razor would say it’s not as old as they think.... but if that is true evolution is out the window and they would have acknowledge a creator.

    We can’t be having that, can we?

  • Which conservative seniors organization did you join, and why?

    06/09/2015 8:42:16 AM PDT · 6 of 25
    schaef21 to ken5050

    Hey Ken....

    I’m very happy with AMAC.

  • Is the Big Bang Cycling Through Hidden Time?

    05/30/2015 5:31:23 AM PDT · 59 of 100
    schaef21 to HiTech RedNeck

    Uh.... Hey RedNeck.... you might want to click on my screen name and read my profile.

  • Is the Big Bang Cycling Through Hidden Time?

    05/29/2015 2:57:24 PM PDT · 19 of 100
    schaef21 to cripplecreek

    ***It was Edwin Hubble whose telescopic observations of galaxies in 1929 led to the major discovery that the universe is expanding.***

    Fr. Lemaitre could have looked in the Bible..... where it says “God stretches out the heavens” seventeen different times.

    Of course, why would a priest look there???

  • Deflate-gate investigation implicates Pats, Tom Brady

    05/08/2015 6:42:00 AM PDT · 51 of 65
    schaef21 to detective

    ***They only tested 4 of the Colt’s footballs. Three of them were below 12.5 PSI.***

    For the actual measurements you can go to page 68 & 69 of the report. There were 8 measurements taken. One gauge had them all at 12.5 or above, the other had the low end as 12.15.

    The Patriots, on the other hand, In 22 measurements, one gauge had none of them at 12.5# and actually had 5 weigh less than 11#. In the 22, only one over 12# (12.3).

    You’re grasping at straws. You’re a Patriot fan..... I get it. In the grand scheme of things you’re no different than a Clintonista. No matter what the truth is you’ll deny it and claim conspiracy.

    The report.... if you read it.... is damning. Have you actually read it?

  • Deflate-gate investigation implicates Pats, Tom Brady

    05/06/2015 3:32:34 PM PDT · 34 of 65
    schaef21 to detective

    ***In the second half of the game in question the Patriots scored 28 unanswered points after the footballs were inflated.***

    I don’t care if he threw for 1000 yards.... that has nothing to do with going outside the rules to try to gain an unfair advantage. Isn’t that what the guys who get suspended for PEDs do? Can you prove they actually got an unfair advantage?

    ***The “investigation” had to justify their time(four months) and expense. They just said “more probable than not” when giving their opinions.***

    Yeah, you’re right. What the NFL wanted was to brand a future Hall of Famer AND one of their premiere franchises as cheaters. They’ve done it before..... what makes you think they’re not doing it this time?

    You’re no different than the Clintonistas who turn a blind eye to what they do.

    ***If the temperature is decreased and the football is wet the pressure of the air in the football will drop.***

    So then why didn’t that happen with the Colts balls.... did the weather only affect the Patriots sideline?

    Before you make a fool of yourself any further you might actually try reading the report. You can actually start at the bottom of Page 44 like I did and read about 6 or 7 pages. That ought to be enough to turn off the crocodile tears.

  • Deflate-gate investigation implicates Pats, Tom Brady

    05/06/2015 2:10:03 PM PDT · 32 of 65
    schaef21 to detective

    ***There is no proof of anything***

    Thanks, Hillary.

    Piles of circumstantial evidence but since nobody will fess up to doing it and there were no witnesses it can’t be proven.

  • Onward, Christian Florists

    03/31/2015 9:57:17 AM PDT · 10 of 18
    schaef21 to Kaslin

    So if a member of Westboro Baptist Church walks into a gay signmaker’s shop and orders a sign that says “God Hates Fags”, the signmaker has to make the sign, right?

  • Richard Dawkins: The state needs to ‘protect’ children from religion...and their parents

    03/05/2015 12:46:19 PM PST · 66 of 111
    schaef21 to sickoflibs

    *** What’s the Trinity there? Mao, Lenin and Stalin? ***

    No sickoflibs...... Dawkins (and all atheists & evolutionists) trinity is: Father Time, Mother Nature and Lady Luck.

  • Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution

    02/20/2015 7:30:17 AM PST · 40 of 47
    schaef21 to Moonman62

    ***None of your sites claim valves are in the artery. They either claim “blood vessels” or “jugular vein.” There are no valves in the artery of the giraffe.***

    Excuse me, Moonman.... I should have said “blood vessels”. Would you like to address the rest of the post?

  • Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution

    02/20/2015 7:12:41 AM PST · 38 of 47
    schaef21 to Moonman62; SpaceBar; Zeneta

    Hello Moonman.... thanks for your reply:

    ***I’m pretty sure giraffes don’t have valves in their arteries***

    It doesn’t take much research to find out that they do:
    Here are three websites that talk about it:

    http://www.researchgate.net/publication/225183634_The_structure_and_function_of_giraffe_jugular_vein_valves

    http://www.tigerhomes.org/animal/animal-facts/giraffes-neck.cfm

    http://www.crossroad.to/articles2/05/giraffe.htm

    ***could have evolved***

    That’s actually the point, isn’t it Moonman. I can also say “could have been created”. You have your worldview, I have mine. Although in the case of evolution, it would be an incredibly fortunate process that saw the giraffe develop all four of those parts by a random, undirected and purposeless process.

    A worldview without a creator gets rather convoluted.

    Natural Law says that matter and energy cannot be created or destroyed by natural processes. Deductively then, they must have been ordained from outside of nature.

    Natural law also says that life only comes from life (Biogenesis). Deductively then, life must have been ordained from outside of nature. In fact to believe in chemical evolution you need to figure out a process by which chemicals learned how to think.

    We are thinking, reasoning, emotional human beings that, according to the atheistic theory of evolution, started out in a mud puddle full of chemicals. Can you come up with any reasonable scenario to explain that? Even if you did come up with something it would be filled with “could haves”, “might haves”, “maybes” and “I thinks”.

    The point is.... that is not science, it is philosophy... which was my original premise.

  • Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution

    02/19/2015 4:13:27 PM PST · 35 of 47
    schaef21 to SpaceBar; Zeneta; Moonman62

    ***You can’t test an orogeny (mountain building event) either, yet through the powers of observation and rational deduction about our tiny little time snapshot of the end result of an extremely slow process, the mechanisms of plate tectonics, pluton emplacement, ore body formation etc are well understood and accepted concepts.***

    Ok SpaceBar.... here’s one for you:

    The Bull Giraffe goes, on average, about 18’ tall. His neck, again on average, is about 6’ long. In order to pump blood against gravity up 6’ of neck to his brain requires a heart like a jackhammer.

    So now this giraffe has got his heart pounding like a jackhammer and decides to bend down and get a drink. With the pump now going with gravity instead of against it, he has just blown his brains out.....but....in his arteries are little valves that shut down the flow of blood as he is bending over. The last squirt of blood, then shoots into a sponge-like organism that just happens to reside underneath the giraffe’s brain and absorbs the blood.

    This, of course is extremely fortunate for the giraffe. As he’s drinking, he senses a predator and stands up quickly to run away. He then, from standing too quickly and having no blood flowing in his brain, passes out and gets eaten by the predator, only this doesn’t happen because the sponge has been circulating the blood to the brain the whole time.

    So, as he stands up, the valves reopen to resume the blood flow and the giraffe can flee the predator.

    Michael Behe has referred to this in his book “Darwin’s Black Box” as irreducible complexity. In order for this morphology to work, all of the pieces have to be present at the same time.

    The neck without the heart....dead.
    The heart without the neck....dead.
    The neck without the valves....dead.
    All of the above without the sponge....dead.

    In other words, the morphology of the giraffe requires that:

    1. A jackhammer heart
    2. A 6 foot long neck
    3. Valves in the arteries
    4. A sponge under his brain

    all be present at the same time or he’s dead meat. Or to put it another way, extinct.

    I said all that to say this: Science can observe all of this and realize that there is no way that evolution could randomly put all of these pieces together at the same time in the same animal. But they don’t. Because they don’t want to.

    Because the theory of evolution is a philosophy that they are comfortable with an they don’t want to consider a creator to whom they would be accountable. So they refuse to consider anything but natural/material reasons.

    If your keys are in the kitchen and you refuse to look there you are never going to find them.

    Blessings to you, SpaceBar

  • Ten Scientific Problems with Biological and Chemical Evolution

    02/19/2015 12:37:39 PM PST · 7 of 47
    schaef21 to sparklite2

    Please tell me how evolution is verifiable? You can’t test it.... since you can’t test it you can’t repeat the test and get the same result (verify it) and since you can’t test it you can’t falsify it. It lies outside the limits of the scientific method.

    It is therefore philosophy that is based on the non-existence of a creator and the need for a process to explain the existence of and the diversity of life.

    I would argue that the laws of nature argue powerfully for a creator.

  • The GOP's Electoral Cliff

    02/18/2015 1:32:01 PM PST · 66 of 118
    schaef21 to TangledUpInBlue

    This means nothing if Hillary is the candidate. Forget all of those polls.... it’s all name recognition at this point.

    People are sick of her.... she won’t wear well during an extended campaign and the Dems know it. That’s why we haven’t seen her lately, they are keeping her out of the limelight.

  • On Darwin Day, 5 facts about the evolution debate

    02/12/2015 2:50:04 PM PST · 19 of 33
    schaef21 to EveningStar

    Christian Trinity = Father, Son & Holy Ghost
    Darwinian Trinity = Father Time, Mother Nature & Lady Luck

    I’m sticking with scripture on this one.

  • Bill Belichick says he has ‘no explanation’ for Deflategate

    01/22/2015 8:40:30 AM PST · 68 of 167
    schaef21 to Alas Babylon!

    ***I understand you and many more assume the less inflated ball is easier to throw and catch, but the outcome seems to be it really doesn’t make things easier OR harder.****

    The point is not that it didn’t affect the outcome of the game. The point is that it was intended to affect the outcome of the game. They flouted the rules......AGAIN.

  • Assassinations? Blame Obama and Holder

    12/23/2014 6:37:00 AM PST · 10 of 19
    schaef21 to tumblindice; doug from upland

    tumblindice.... I am as conservative as anyone on FR. I love Ted Cruz and would eagerly vote for him for President.

    For the life of me I can’t figure out why any consevative would have refused to vote rather than vote for Romney.... especially after having already experienced the first four years of Obama.

    Hold your nose, vote for Romney and then re-fight the battle in the next primary.

    You reap what you sew. Take a good look at it.

  • New level of Fox News dominance demands analysis, not dismissal

    11/25/2014 1:23:35 PM PST · 28 of 51
    schaef21 to PROCON

    I had an argument with an Obama sycophant about this.

    I tell him that yes, Fox is a right-leaning network where you do actually hear liberal opinions from liberals.

    The other networks are liberal networks where you hear liberals who consider conservatives to be heinous give the conservative opinion.

    People who hold those opinions don’t like to be insulted.

  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 8:09:43 AM PST · 18 of 103
    schaef21 to C19fan

    ***Jesus was invoking Genesis to teach about divorce not some scientific statement that the earth was 6,000 years old.***

    Nevertheless, Jesus said male and female were created “
    from the beginning of the creation”. You can’t get around that.

  • There’s no getting around Jesus’ teaching on the age of the earth

    11/25/2014 8:08:21 AM PST · 16 of 103
    schaef21 to Tenacious 1

    ***Are we sure Adam and Eve were not actually single cell organisms?***

    Do you think single cell organisms were created in the image of God?

  • Aliens Removed or Returned: Fiscal Years 1993 TO 2013 (Obama lies)

    11/21/2014 8:31:20 AM PST · 7 of 10
    schaef21 to aquila48

    According to Krauthammer, the Obama Administration is actually counting people who are turned away at the border as having been deported. Those people were never counted as deported in previous administrations because they never actually got here.

    Does it surprise anybody anymore when Obama does something deceptive?

  • Senator Harkin says inaction by Congress forced president to act on immigration

    11/20/2014 2:59:05 PM PST · 31 of 53
    schaef21 to Tailgunner Joe

    Headline when “W” was president:

    Inaction by Congress forced President Bush to act on the Alaska National Wildlife Reserve. Drilling to start next week.

    Yeah..... that would have flown with the Dems and the media.
    You bet.

  • Questions About Sharpton’s Finances Accompany His Rise in Influence

    11/18/2014 10:21:23 AM PST · 15 of 20
    schaef21 to reaganaut1

    They sent 200 Federal Agents out to get Cliven Bundy because his cattle ate grass on government property.

    Why hasn’t anybody from the government visited Al? I don’t get it..... oh wait.

  • **Election Day 2014 - LIVE THREAD**

    11/04/2014 6:58:21 AM PST · 138 of 2,906
    schaef21 to Maine Mariner

    ****What was in like in 2008, 2010, 2012 by comparison?****

    2012 was my first time voting there. Voted approximately the same time and waited in line for over 1/2 hour to vote. This morning...... crickets. I loved it.

  • **Election Day 2014 - LIVE THREAD**

    11/04/2014 6:50:36 AM PST · 132 of 2,906
    schaef21 to RKBA Democrat

    Voted at 7:30AM in a heavily Democrat suburban district. It was me and the 6 Poll workers..... that’s it. Lord, please...... I pray that every other heavily D district in the country is exactly the same as mine!!

  • State tax incentives for Ark Encounter in limbo following hiring dispute

    10/09/2014 10:09:22 AM PDT · 33 of 38
    schaef21 to DoodleDawg; DJ MacWoW

    ****And I suspect that regardless of what their job posting says, the chances of someone named Mohammed or Jignesh or Bernstein ever working at Ark Encounter hovers somewhere between zilch and none.****

    Hey DoodleDawg.....if Mohammed or Jignesh or Bernstein are Bible believing Christians and qualified applicants, you bet they’d be hired. I go to church with several Jews who believe Christ is the Messiah. There are also many former Muslims who profess faith in Christ.

    You don’t become a Christian by being born into a “Christian family”. You become a Christian when you submit to the Lordship of Christ.

    Romans 10:9 - If you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead you will be saved.

  • State tax incentives for Ark Encounter in limbo following hiring dispute

    10/09/2014 9:25:57 AM PDT · 22 of 38
    schaef21 to DJ MacWoW; DoodleDawg

    Taking that one step further...... Planned Parenthood (who gets a fortune from the Federal Govt) can not discriminate in hiring against a pro-life Christian seeking a counseling job. If they can, then the Ark Encounter folks are being victimized by a double-standard.

  • State tax incentives for Ark Encounter in limbo following hiring dispute

    10/09/2014 9:14:37 AM PDT · 20 of 38
    schaef21 to DoodleDawg

    It is a 501c3 non-profit religious organization.

    You’re OK then with government telling them (or anyone else) who they can and cannot hire?

  • State tax incentives for Ark Encounter in limbo following hiring dispute

    10/09/2014 8:06:47 AM PDT · 10 of 38
    schaef21 to gdani

    The Creation Museum in Kentucky brings in visitors from all over the United States. These people stay in hotels, eat in restaurants and go to other area attractions which bring in tax revenue to the state. Ark Encounter will do the same thing.

    That is why the state offered them tax incentives.

  • State tax incentives for Ark Encounter in limbo following hiring dispute

    10/09/2014 8:04:44 AM PDT · 9 of 38
    schaef21 to DoodleDawg

    Is it really out-of-line for a Christian organization, espousing Christian values and wanting to create a Christian work atmosphere to want Christian employees?

  • Politico: 15 things you didn’t know about the brownie-baking Lois Lerner

    09/22/2014 2:48:48 PM PDT · 22 of 48
    schaef21 to 1Old Pro

    Politico wrote a puff-piece like this about Scooter Libby too. You remember that one don’t you? Don’t you?

  • Darwin's 'Special Difficulty' Solved?

    07/14/2014 2:30:25 PM PDT · 85 of 86
    schaef21 to sakic; Ethan Clive Osgoode

    ***Are you denying that that site is a young Earth proponent? You want to debate science and fact with them as your experts? Next, we should add witch doctors as experts.***

    Very cute. I am not denying that they are young earth proponents, I am one myself.

    Are you denying that most of the authors of these articles hold PhDs? Are you saying that their PhDs are invalid because after evaluating the evidence they disagree with you?

    There is plenty of evidence available that would support the young earth view.... they have that evidence on their website. It is your prerogative to disagree... that’s totally fine.

    Dismissing them out-of-hand, though, is what your side of the argument does. Easier to do that than to deal with their arguments.

    You wouldn’t have read their stuff even if they were old-earthers would you, sakic?

    Nice talkin’ to you.

  • Darwin's 'Special Difficulty' Solved?

    07/14/2014 10:26:31 AM PDT · 83 of 86
    schaef21 to Ethan Clive Osgoode

    ***Piltdown Man was a good one. ***

    Although this wasn’t a true hoax..... my favorite was Ardepithicus Ramidus Kadabba. In 2001, Time Magazine featured him on the front cover and had a seven page article on the inside.

    Very prominently displayed was a toe bone with the caption: “This toe bone proves the creature walked on two legs.”

    When you get to the last page of the article you find out that the toe bone was found 10 miles away from the rest of the fossil and that by their dating methods it was 300,000 years older.

    They see what they want to see...... “Evolution is true, now let’s look at the evidence.”

  • Darwin's 'Special Difficulty' Solved?

    07/14/2014 8:01:39 AM PDT · 82 of 86
    schaef21 to sakic; Ethan Clive Osgoode

    ***You are pointing me to a site that believes the planet is 6,000 years old and offering it up as science?***

    That’s what you’ve got, huh? Don’t bother to read the articles.... you might get a different perspective.

  • Darwin's 'Special Difficulty' Solved?

    07/14/2014 7:03:20 AM PDT · 79 of 86
    schaef21 to sakic; Ethan Clive Osgoode

    ***How would this account for Cro-Magnon etc,.?***

    Hey sakic. Books have been written about the frauds involved in the so-called “human evolution” series.

    The easiest thing to do would be to provide you with a link to a bunch of articles concerning this topic. You can judge for yourself:

    http://creation.com/anthropology-and-apemen-questions-and-answers

    Here’s one specifically on Cro-Magnon:

    http://creation.com/cro-magnon-not-a-club-wielding-brute

  • Darwin's 'Special Difficulty' Solved?

    07/11/2014 2:09:24 PM PDT · 66 of 86
    schaef21 to sakic; Ethan Clive Osgoode

    ***I saw nothing specific in your Biblical quotes that states evolution cannot be part of God’s plan.***

    Really? Christ, whom the Bible says is the Creator says that He created man and woman from the beginning of creation. If He created man and woman from the beginning, where does that leave room for millions and millions of years of evolution..... the only thing you can do is twist the plain meaning of the word “beginning” to make it fit your worldview.

    In other words you have to pull a Clinton: “It depends on what the meaning of the word “beginning” is.”

    If you don’t like that one try this.....

    Genesis 1:26 says we were created in the image of God.

    If evolution is true we apparently were created in the image of a bunch of chemicals in a mud puddle.

  • Darwin's 'Special Difficulty' Solved?

    07/10/2014 10:36:26 AM PDT · 30 of 86
    schaef21 to sakic

    ***Why couldn’t God have given us evolution?***

    Actually sakic, it is an untenable position for a Christian.... and for many reasons. Not the least of which is this:

    Mark 10:6-7 says: 6 But from the beginning of the creation, God ‘made them male and female.’ 7 ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife

    John 1, Colossians 1 and Hebrews 1 all tell us that Jesus Christ is the Creator. So in this passage, the Creator of the universe told the Pharisees that He created man and woman “from the beginning of Creation.”

    If you look up “beginning” in Strong’s Concordance it sends you to the appendix. In other words, according to Strong’s, the definition of beginning is so obvious that they see no reason to define it.

    Mark 10:6 leaves no room for a Christian to hold to evolution. If Christ is your Savior, belief in evolution is tantamount to calling Him a liar (based on this passage).

  • Chimp DNA Mutation Study--Selective Yet Surprising

    07/02/2014 6:54:34 AM PDT · 81 of 85
    schaef21 to Natufian; TXnMA; RegulatorCountry; BrandtMichaels

    ***Thanks for the links although I’m puzzled as to why you posted them, they don’t address the issue of how many people where on the planet and how many languages they spoke during the Bronze Age.***

    The article from Dr. Carter didn’t include a lot of information that he gives in his power point presentation. My bad..... I assumed that it did.

    I put in the links about the Miautso people because they provide extra-biblical confirmation of the biblical account of the flood.

    When missionaries found the Miautso they had no written language (and obviously had not seen or read a bible), they relied on oral accounts and traditions. They were meticulous about their genealogies and recited them at weddings and funerals. Their lineage goes back to Nuah (and eventually all the way back to “Dirt”) through Lo-Shen. Lo-Shen had two brothers named Lo-Han and Lo-Jahphu. We would call them Noah and his three sons, Shem, Ham and Japheth.

    Nuah and his sons, according to Miautso tradition, survived a global flood. When you read their account, it tracks pretty closely with the biblical account.

    I don’t think that I could possibly give you any links that would change your mind... but any study done on the number of people and the number of languages from an early time period would have to be based on models. These articles will show you that there are viable models that support the biblical accounts:

    http://www.ldolphin.org/popul.html
    http://creation.com/population-growth-since-flood
    http://creation.com/where-are-all-the-people

    Here is an interesting article about language:

    http://creation.com/the-tower-of-babel-account-affirmed-by-linguistics

    ***The evidence that there were more than 8 and that they spoke more than one is overwhelming.***

    I would say that the evidence is not overwhelming. I’m sure you could link articles taking the other side.

    The only thing that anyone can do to defend their position is to propose a plausible model and see if the evidence fits. I believe that the Creationist (Biblical) side has done that.

  • Chimp DNA Mutation Study--Selective Yet Surprising

    07/01/2014 1:09:51 PM PDT · 78 of 85
    schaef21 to Natufian; TXnMA; RegulatorCountry; BrandtMichaels

    One last thing for you, Natufian.

    ***It also claims that in about 2,300BC there were only 8 people on the planet and only one language. The evidence would strongly suggest that it is incorrect.***

    Many studies have been done on that, Natufian, that back up the biblical account. Here’s an interesting read on that:

    http://creation.com/noah-and-genetics

    I know Dr. Carter personally.... he’s a brilliant guy.

    Extra-biblical evidence of the flood and biblical genealogies can be found in the book “After the Flood”:

    Here’s a link to the book:
    http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/

    If you take the time, the information on the Miautso people of China is extremely interesting. In fact here is their genealogy (appendix from the book):

    http://www.ldolphin.org/cooper/appen12.html

    Blessings, Natufian.

  • Chimp DNA Mutation Study--Selective Yet Surprising

    07/01/2014 12:20:46 PM PDT · 75 of 85
    schaef21 to Natufian; TXnMA; RegulatorCountry; BrandtMichaels

    ***They do. They just use a phrase you don’t like. They say ‘we don’t know’. ***

    I love the phrase “I don’t know”. What I don’t like is the phrase “I don’t know but I know you are wrong”.

    ***There is an another option (maybe #5 in your eyes but which I think is merely a tweak to your #4), it goes like this...

    ...that matter and energy were created by a process that we as yet, do not understand.***

    Now if I had said something like that you would accuse me of using the “God of the gaps” fallacy, right?

    Let me expand on that for you: “...that matter and energy were created by a process that we as yet, do not understand but that would have to violate natural law.”

    ***Here we go again. Science doesn’t have the tools to detect the supernatural. However much you want science to find the keys in the kitchen, until you explain HOW they can do so, you’ll never be successful. Can you do it? ***

    Natufian, I’m merely suggesting that you look elsewhere. I’m not suggesting that you use science to look elsewhere.

    The Bible is a historically accurate document that makes a lot of claims and it is filled with a lot of prophesy that has been fulfilled, including the regathering of Israel, which occurred less than 70 years ago (and about 3000 years after the prophesy was written). The bible predicted this event... nothing like it had ever happened before or since.

    I will suggest to you that by studying the bible and looking into those claims you just might find the Creator.

    ***Thanks for the offer but unless you can use science to reveal this creator, I’ll take a pass.***

    Understanding science has led a lot of people to the Creator. When you look at the intricacy of the cell, the awesome morphology displayed in the animal kingdom, the wonderful symmetry that exists in the universe that makes life even possible at all here on earth...
    Creator God makes a lot more sense than a bunch of chemicals (where did they come from) in a mud puddle (where did it come from) billions of years ago..... if you’re honest with yourself, deep down inside you know there is a creator.

    Ignore Him at your peril.... the Bible says He was here and He is coming back.

    Blessings to you, Natufian.

  • Chimp DNA Mutation Study--Selective Yet Surprising

    07/01/2014 10:28:46 AM PDT · 72 of 85
    schaef21 to Natufian; TXnMA; RegulatorCountry; BrandtMichaels

    ***Despite agreeing that science doesn’t have the tools to investigate the supernatural, you still want it to accept it’s existence?***

    Those two statements are not mutually exclusive... the supernatural can exist even though science does not have the tools to investigate it.

    ***You also want an area of study that only deals in the knowable do bring into it’s realm the unknowable?***

    No.... I just want secular science to admit that the answer to some of the problems that have been heretofore insoluble may exist outside of nature.

    Consider this, Natufian:

    One of these statements is true as they are the only options available:

    1. Matter/Energy do not exist.
    2. Matter/Energy are eternal.
    3. Matter/Energy spontaneously generated out of nothing.
    4. Matter/Energy were created.

    Option #1 is falsified by the Scientific Method.
    Matter & Energy are observed everyday.

    Option #2 is falsified by the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. As a universe, we are headed for heat death....the sun, for example, can not burn forever, it will eventually run out of fuel. If the universe were eternal, this would have happened already.

    Secular science is all-in on the Big Bang theory anyway, admitting that there was a beginning and therefore the universe is not eternal.

    Option #3 - Spontaneous generation is falsified by the 1st Law of Thermodynamics (By natural processes, energy cannot be created or destroyed), The Law of the Conservation of Matter (By natural processes, matter cannot be created or destroyed) and the Law of Cause and Effect (every effect must have a greater and preexistent cause).

    That leaves us with Option #4... that matter and energy were created. This does not violate any natural law and is the only available option we have left.

    A Creator would by definition exist outside of his creation and the Laws of Nature point directly to a Creator.

    Which brings me back to the original point that has you so angry. Naturalism is a philosophy. I’ll go further and say that it is an important one for learning about the natural world in which we live.

    What I reject is this: “The answer to all of life’s questions can be found in the natural world.... now let’s study the natural world.” That is philosophical and can be refuted by using natural law itself.... I just did it above.

    Here’s a quote from a Nobel Prize winning Harvard neurobiologist, George Wald:

    “When it comes to the origin of life, we have only two possibilities as to how life arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to evolution; the other is a supernatural creative act of God. There is no third possibility...Spontaneous generation was scientifically disproved one hundred years ago by Louis Pasteur, Spellanzani, Reddy and others. That leads us scientifically to only one possible conclusion — that life arose as a supernatural creative act of God...I will not accept that philosophically because I do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose to believe in that which I know is scientifically impossible, spontaneous generation arising to evolution.”

    Secular science throws out the Creator before they look at the evidence....he just said it.

    I’ll say once more......If my keys are in the kitchen and I refuse to look there, I’m never going to find them..... if the answer is a Creator and you refuse to look there, you are never going to find Him.

    Incidentally, Natufian. I know the Creator. If you’d like to know him as well I can help you with that.

  • Chimp DNA Mutation Study--Selective Yet Surprising

    06/25/2014 1:07:00 PM PDT · 56 of 85
    schaef21 to TXnMA; RegulatorCountry; BrandtMichaels; fishtank; Alamo-Girl; betty boop

    As another Bible believing Christian I suggest that you read what the bible says about how to treat a brother:

    James 4:11 - Do not speak evil of one another, brethren. He who speaks evil of a brother and judges his brother, speaks evil of the law and judges the law.

    And if you do have a disagreement with a brother (like me), take heed of this:

    2 Thessalonians 3:15 - Yet do not count him as an enemy, but admonish him as a brother.

    I can cite many more passages for you if you’d like.

    My desire is that people know Christ. One way I do that is to try to get them to think critically about Him as Creator. (John 1:3, Colossians 1:16, Hebrew 1:2).

    I normally start with generalizations to get people thinking and then get more specific after I’ve found out more about their worldview.

    You just undermined that.

    If you think I’ve said something wrong or untrue, the best thing, you could have done (as a Christian) is to have sent me a private message to discuss it so I don’t make the same mistake again (if it was a mistake).

    Instead what you did was tell everyone reading this thread that you are a Christian..... and then you acted in a most unChristian manner.

    I suggest you rethink a few things and dig into the Word.... Based on your attitude, I’d say thatPaul’s epistles are a good place to start.

  • Chimp DNA Mutation Study--Selective Yet Surprising

    06/25/2014 11:04:03 AM PDT · 43 of 85
    schaef21 to Natufian; RegulatorCountry

    ***The scientific method only has tools that can deal with the natural. How do you propose that science investigates the supernatural?***

    I never suggested that it could be. My point is that science (at the present and in general) is undergirded by a belief that there are natural answers for everything. This is a belief just like my belief in God. It is not knowable and therefore philosophical.

    I believe that the evidence, when evaluated with an open mind, points toward a Creator.

    Bill Gates once said: “DNA is like a computer program only far, far more complex than any computer program ever invented.”

    You would never believe that a computer could program itself (unless it was programmed to program itself) but yet you seem to believe (I don’t want to put words in your mouth) that complex life did just that.

    Occam’s Razor would tell you (in my opinion and in this instance) that a Creator is the most logical explanation. Your philosophy throws Him out before the evidence is even evaluated.

    In essence, “There is no God, now let’s look at the evidence”. By doing that, you’re going to see what you want to see.

    As I said in an earlier post... If the keys are in the kitchen and you refuse to look there, you are never going to find them.

    Don’t be afraid to look elsewhere, Natufian.