Free Republic

a63rve & Mrs - via requested Oregon absentee ballot for Donald Trump & Alek Skarlatos.

It will be with the greatest pride and satisfaction to replace the Socialist and Communist DeFazio.

more local newspaper details...........

http://www.oregonlive.com/business/index.ssf/2015/12/sweet_cakes_owners_pay_damages.html

four giants, not five. 1 Chr 20:4–7

So I went to Newt’s website Thursday to donate $75. When I saw my credit card statement online Friday morning, it showed a donation of $2500. I emailed them but have not heard or seen an adjustment. No way to call the correct person. I’ll correct the charge Monday myself.

So is this the reason for the record one day amount, his website is hosed ??

Four irrefutable arguments to evolution were presented.

Every evolutionist ultimately requires outside input, ie the big bang, implicitly affirming the laws of thermodynamics are true.

I think I’ll let these two speak for me.

“Of all the statements that have been made with respect to theories on the origin of life, the statement that the Second Law of Thermodynamics poses no problem for an evolutionary origin of life is the most absurd… The operation of natural processes on which the Second Law of Thermodynamics is based is alone sufficient, therefore, to preclude the spontaneous evolutionary origin of the immense biological order required for the origin of life.” Duane Gish, Ph.D. in biochemistry from University of California at Berkeley

“It is probably no exaggeration to claim that the laws of thermodynamics represent some of the best science we have today. While the utterances in some fields (such as astronomy) seem to change almost daily, the science of thermodynamics has been noteworthy for its stability. In many decades of careful observations, not a single departure from any of these laws has ever been noted.” Emmett Williams, Ph.D

Defeating Darwin in Four Steps - So Easy a Caveman Could Do It

Wonderful example of a "drive-by" lack of thinking posting.  It's also a perfect example of Ann Coulters recent article

The Flash Mob Method of Scientific Inquiry

A more honest assessment 'cartoon' of the belief systems of creationism and evolutionism is:

Evolutionist scientists have assumptions+facts; the same as 

creationist scientists have assumptions+facts.  

They look at the same evidence and using their assumptions come away with different conclusions.

However, there is a slight advantage to the creationist scientists, since they use an infallible and inerrant history book. 

Science is a constantly changing observational understanding of the universe.  

Why do college students buy new science books each year ??? 

That was exactly why I described the article as superficially inaccurate. You and I know the difference, but the article so superficial as to be inaccurate to its headline.

That was exactly why I described the article as superficially inaccurate. You and I know the difference, but the article so superficial as to be inaccurate to its headline.

This article is superficially inaccurate. There are private companies that dispose of radioactive waste. www.wcstexas.com is the best example.

> ‘Tis so sad you now equate baptism to a “good deed” — whereas
> the Bible nowhere includes baptism among an extracted list
> of “good deeds.”

I apologize Colofornian. I originally thought you misunderstood a few passages on baptism. I now see, by your own words, that you are boasting in your ritual of water baptism.

Notice that God DOES HAVE A LIST of excluded good deeds which includes ritual water baptism. And to aid your limpidity, I will quote only full verses.

“Where then is boasting? It is excluded. By what kind of law? Of works? No, but by a law of faith. For we maintain that a man is justified by faith apart from works of the law.” Rom 3:27–28 NAS95

#1 —— FAITH IS **ONLY** ITEM NOT ON WORKS LIST —-

“For this reason it is by faith, in order that it may be in accordance with grace, so that the promise will be guaranteed to all the descendants, not only to those who are of the Law, but also to those who are of the faith of Abraham, who is the father of us all,” Rom 4:16 NAS95

#2 —— FAITH ALONE, NOT FAITH AND WATER BAPTISM —-

“For the promise to Abraham or to his descendants that he would be heir of the world was not through the Law, but through the righteousness of faith.” Rom 4:13 NAS95

#3 —— ALL BELIEVERS ARE CHILDREN OF ABRAHAM’S FAITH —-

“For by grace you have been saved through faith; and that not of yourselves, it is the gift of God; not as a result of works, so that no one may boast.” Eph 2:8–9 NAS95

#4 —— SALVATION IS BY FAITH ALONE, CHRIST ALONE —-

“Now I make known to you, brethren, the gospel which I preached to you, which also you received, in which also you stand, by which also you are saved, if you hold fast the word which I preached to you, unless you believed in vain. For I delivered to you as of first importance what I also received, that Christ died for our sins according to the Scriptures, and that He was buried, and that He was raised on the third day according to the Scriptures,” 1 Cor 15:1–4 NAS95

#5 —— THE GOOD NEWS IS GOD’S CROSS WORK WHICH WE BELIEVE —-

> According to the bible baptism is a profession of faith. It doesn’t make you a Christian. [driftdriver]

> He saved us through the washing of rebirth and renewal by the Holy Spirit, whom he poured out on us generously through Jesus Christ our Savior, so that, having been justified by his grace, we might become heirs having the hope of eternal life. (Titus 3:5-7)

> Driftdriver & ActrFshr, What's the "washing" referencing here? 

> Why is "washing" directly linked to something "salvific?" 

> And if it's not baptism what makes you say it's not (such as looking > Titus 3 in context)?

  The phrase "the washing of rebirth" is only used in only one English Bible translation, almost all translations say "the washing of regeneration."  That being said, please note the word 'baptism' is not used.  Your assumption that the phrase is equivalent to 'water baptism' is purely subjective without evidence from the text.  By reading the surrounding verses of this chapter, it is clear this is NOT a personal salvation verse. Note *Tit 3:1  It is a command to submit to divinely delegated authority and verses *Tit 3:3-8 explains our motivation for submission beginning with the explanatory connective "for."  Notice the main verb of this motivation for submission is vs. *Tit 3:5, "He saved us." Then Paul states further that people are "NOT SAVED on the basis of deeds we have done in righteousness."  Yet your main and erroneous assumption of your post is that immediately after this Paul would now instruct someone to use a "deeds done in human righteousness" to be saved, that is "water baptism" to be saved. Paul must be two minded.  How sad. 

      The Bible is clear beyond question that no one can be saved by works, i.e. human activities.  The only exception to works is faith, a non-works mechanism (Rom 3:27–28), whereby we rest on His completed work on the Cross where He paid the full and complete penalty for our sin. His righteous provides our salvation.  He is our Rock! The spiritual benefits of His work when we believe are new spiritual birth, and new spiritual life transformation.  These are the results of His action, not our human works or rituals.  *Tit 3:6,7   Verse *Tit 3:8 reinforces the command to submit in *Tit 3:1, and that type of life activity is good because it proceeds from Christ, the spiritual root of one's new birth and life.

> 1 Peter 3:21: and this water symbolizes baptism that now saves you also—not the removal of dirt from the body but the pledge of a good conscience toward God. It saves you by the resurrection of Jesus Christ...

> If baptism has no "salvific" reference point, why does Peter come right and disagree with you? (actually you are disagreeing w/Peter -- something about him having spoken out first on this matter). How do you explain this passage away?

  I notice that you cherry pick which version of the Bible to quote from to buttress your arguments.  In the Titus passage you used KJVS and now in 1Peter you are using NIV.  I conclude that this is because the word "water" DOES NOT occur in this passage, in other English translations nor the original Greek text.

  If one reads the surrounding context of 1Pet 3:21, one easily notes that 21 is a comparison with 20. In fact, vs 21 is the antitype of vs 20.  As I read your posting it sounds as though YOU believe this passage teaches that the death and resurrection of Christ impart mystical powers to a water baptism ritual to save you.  How unbiblical is that!  In vs 20 the water immersed individuals were lost and the dry individuals were saved.   Note that the word "baptism" can be dry or wet. It is neutral in meaning. "Baptism" is almost exactly the original Greek word letter for letter.  It is untranslated as to its meaning. It comes from a root 'to dip, to color, to identify'.

> Jesus answered, "I tell you the truth, no one can enter the kingdom of God unless he is born of water and the Spirit. (John 3:5)

    He is talking about salvation yet he does not say "water baptism".  He says "water". This passage has nothing to do with water baptism.  You attempt to read into the text your assumptions.  The word  baptism does not occur!  Or do you insist every place in the Bible where the word water occurs is an example of "water baptism" ?  The passage should be understood the way Jesus spoke and how Nicodemus understood it.  Notice the following verses.

    "Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.” Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. “That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. “Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born again.’ “The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”" John 3:3–8 NAS95

    Notice in Jo 3:3 someone must be born again to see the kingdom of God - ritual water baptism is absent.

In Jo 3:4 Nicodemus understands Jesus to be talking about a second physical birth (water)  But in 3:5 Jesus repeats with the added second spirit birth requirement  A better English translation of 'and' should be 'even' the adverbial sense of  the Greek word 'kai'. Jo 3:6 where he states water relates to physical fleshly birth and spirit relates to the second spiritual birth.  Isn't this the conclusion of 3:7 He is explaining the new spiritual birth aspect.  Unless you think Jesus is promoting a second physical birth?

  There is NO WATER BAPTISM at all associated to this context. 

> Acts 2:38 -- which also links baptism to receiving the Holy Ghost -- and Acts 2:39 -- which stresses that baptism is a promise for children: Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost. For the promise is unto you, and to your children, and to all that are afar off, even as many as the LORD our God shall call.

    In Acts 2 Peter is preaching to Jews. He states who will be saved in Acts 2:21 without mentioning ritual water baptism requirement. Those who believe that Jesus saves will call upon his name. This passage Acts 2:37-28 is a clear presentation that a mental attitude of changing their minds about what was the basis of their salvation precedes the outward expression of that attitude.  Consequent to their changed mental attitude was a public declaration in union with that Savior and His Work. (Baptism = Identification) It is not their own work of ritual baptism that they promoted.  It is a faith-rest on the work of the Cross of Jesus Christ,  His righteous, not theirs.  Jews were already doing ritual water baptism.  It is no new nor special thing.

> Also, whole households were baptized simultaneously (Acts 16:14-15;: Acts 16:33; Acts 11:14-17). 

Acts 11:15-17  No water baptism at all.  This is not applicable.

"“And as I began to speak, the Holy Spirit fell upon them just as He did upon us at the beginning. “And I remembered the word of the Lord, how He used to say, ‘John baptized with water, but you will be baptized with the Holy Spirit.’ “Therefore if God gave to them the same gift as He gave to us also after believing in the Lord Jesus Christ, who was I that I could stand in God’s way?” When they heard this, they quieted down and glorified God, saying, “Well then, God has granted to the Gentiles also the repentance that leads to life.”" Acts 11:15–18 NAS95

Acts 16:11-15  An OT believer hears and believes Paul's message in her heart (faith response) AND THEN publicly proclaims that belief by water baptism(identification with that truth).  The water baptism is subsequent to salvation and in no way a means of individual salvation.

"So putting out to sea from Troas, we ran a straight course to Samothrace, and on the day following to Neapolis; and from there to Philippi, which is a leading city of the district of Macedonia, a Roman colony; and we were staying in this city for some days. And on the Sabbath day we went outside the gate to a riverside, where we were supposing that there would be a place of prayer; and we sat down and began speaking to the women who had assembled. A woman named Lydia, from the city of Thyatira, a seller of purple fabrics, a worshiper of God, was listening; and the Lord opened her heart to respond to the things spoken by Paul. And when she and her household had been baptized, she urged us, saying, “If you have judged me to be faithful to the Lord, come into my house and stay.” And she prevailed upon us." Acts 16:11–15 NAS95

Acts 16:30-33 Since you carefully chose to delete preceding information, I will include the quotation.  It is the only place in the Bible where someone asks Paul "What must I do to be Saved".  Paul answers "Believe".  He says nothing about water baptism about being any requirement.  After they have listened to Paul and believed the gospel, ie Jesus Christ died for their sins.  They later publicly identify with Jesus and his Cross work by water baptism (identification).

"and after he brought them out, he said, “Sirs, what must I do to be saved?” They said, “Believe in the Lord Jesus, and you will be saved, you and your household.” And they spoke the word of the Lord to him together with all who were in his house. And he took them that very hour of the night and washed their wounds, and immediately he was baptized, he and all his household." Acts 16:30–33 NAS95

    In summary, you have selectively quoted different translation, cut sentences in half, quoted partial contexts, and read in your ideas to support a works salvation of water baptism.  It is easily clear that the Bible teaches only a faith salvation from beginning to end in the Bible.  There are no verses which teach a works salvation only a works judgement at the future Great White Throne.

    "I thank God that I baptized none of you except Crispus and Gaius, so that no one would say you were baptized in my name. Now I did baptize also the household of Stephanas; beyond that, I do not know whether I baptized any other. For Christ did not send me to baptize, but to preach the gospel, not in cleverness of speech, so that the cross of Christ would not be made void." 1 Cor 1:14–17 NAS95

Are there plans for protest in Grand Junction, Colorado ? Signs ? Route ?

According to scripture,..... Reference please.

My feelings are just fine. It’s simply that you won’t engage in a serious, deliberative discussion. You use name calling to attempt to elevate your responses and denigrate others. You use insult to hide your lack of responses. You claim to have all these years of oil industry experience and yet can’t spare the time to educate anyone. What’s the point ??

Do you ever post any factual replies that do not contain personal attacks ?

Shouldn't that whale skeleton be oil ??? So decades for fats and oils to drip out in the ocean to be magically coalesced into oil deposits thousands of feet under the ocean ?? Wow! Now that's a fishing storey if I every heard one.

Whether you like someone or not makes little difference to factual truth of oil formation theories.

From the lack of substantive factual response, I gather you have no opposing facts. I'm encouraged that others have considered an alternate theory for oil formulation. Years ago, in the seventies, oil crisis the "experts" like yourself predicted peak oil within years. Yet here we are, with more oil than ever before. Am I to understand those "experts" were wrong. And "you and the current experts" are now right ???

The reality that oil companies do not hit oil 100% does not validate the fossil theory either. And your reply shows a general misunderstanding of oil migration thru the subsurface.

>>How did dinosaurs get at the bottom of the North Sea?

>They sunk.

Present ocean bottom observation does not support your response. The bottom of 90% of the ocean is devoid of any organic debris because it is eaten by other ocean dwelling creatures on the way down and at the bottom, so that by time it settles on the bottom only bones remain. There is NO WAY to form oil from bones.