Hi G.
I don’t need the best of both worlds.
I need God’s Kingdom. I need his righteousness. I need his Power, His Understanding, His PErspective, His insight, His delight, His …
GRanted, we all need that, but after 40 years of following, and learning to follow Jesus, I’ve come to the realization that as much as I’m forced to live in this planet, in this body, with these limitations, as a follower of JEsus… I do not want this world’s pollution, or corruption to further confuse me. According to Jesus, there’s an enemy of the human race, and according to Moses, he’s extremely adept at knowing our weaknesses, and our buttons. He even had Jesus nailed on that one, as we read in Matthew 16. One of Jesus’ own friends uncovered it for him. To avoid the cross. Thankfully, Jesus went to the cross, and we now live.
I have an errand to run. Back later.
Ciao.
Well, I do have better things to do. I can explain it, but I can’t understand it for you, even though this is not a topic that involves any secret knowledge. Millions of high school students learn it every year. It doesn’t seem to me that you are actually interested in learning or understanding, so I would consider it a waste of my time to explain it. I gave you a link to an explanation. You are also perfectly capable of googling the definition of evolution if you don’t get it. At this point, you are the proverbial horse who has been led to water, but chooses not to drink.
This is more evidence that you don’t know much at all about evolution. The Big Bang theory is not evolution. Theories of abiogenesis are not evolution. The theory of evolution only models how life changes over time. It starts with living cells, it does not explain how those living cells got there, or how the elements that form them got there. Most of the people you will encounter on this site believe God created the universe and God created life.
Do you honestly think that humans are the only creatures with immune systems?
I agree. I just think he used the process of evolution to create with instead of making things out of nothing or clay or ribs. Is it really that much more incredible to create out of the DNA of ancestor species than to create out of the dust of the earth?
Who says this? The imaginary “evolutionist” in your mind? All of the people I know who have PhDs in biology and have spent much more time than I have looking at “critters” say there is overwhelming evidence for evolution. The people who insist there isn’t are a lot like you. They don’t even know the difference between Big Bang theory and evolutionary theory, so I have to assume they aren’t the most reliable sources of scientific expertise.
Darwin couldn’t explain the eye? So what? You realize that evolutionary theory has evolved in the hundred plus years people have been working on it, right?
You should be honest and say you have never even tried to look at the evidence. That’s fine, but don’t act like you’ve done this thorough study and rejected it from an informed place. You haven’t. You said you didn’t even understand the basic definition of evolution. I honestly don’t care if you ever change your mind, but you should represent yourself with integrity.
I am totally confident in my relationship with God and secure in the knowledge that in all the places I am wrong, his grace is sufficient. I think God is much more concerned with whether we are out in the world he made loving and serving people in Jesus’ name and than he is concerned with the nuances and details of our origins positions.
In case you’re interested, lymphatic and adaptive immune systems evolved long, long, before hominins come on the scene - back about 500 million years ago. Hominins are a thing of yesterday by comparison, since they are only around 4-6 million years old.
Yep! This is the same exact excuse I get from every other evolutionist I ask this question of.
Well, have it your way. You’ve proven to me that you’re not different than the atheists who claim to believe evolution is the truth.
Have a nice life.
Really?
Ok, cool. So you have actual, verifiable evidence for this, I can run through the scientific method to test this for myself?
She literally gave you a link to a very accessible way to get all the basics in evolutionary theory, written by a Christian who is a very good communicator and teaches evolutionary theory at a major Christian liberal arts university.
You refused, multiple times, to even bother clicking on the link. I can tell, because there isn’t a little “1” next to the link, which there would be if you clicked it.
She did not ignore your question or tell you to buzz off. You, on the other hand, have shown that you have zero interest in learning anything about evolutionary theory. Which is actually fine. Just, as she said, don’t go around pretending you’ve tried to understand it when you haven’t.
Have a nice evening.
AMW
Is it your intention to give a sermon, for no relevant reason, now and then, on these pages?
You are preaching to a very broad audience of Christians (but of course, not exclusively Christian). Your tone creates the vague (?) impression that there are no Christians reading what you write.
Wow, @Steve_Buckley, this is a super annoying posting.
Have you had any formal academics in science? If you were to tell me that Jesus did “this thing” 2000 years ago, and Moses did “something” 3000+ years ago, would you find it strange if someone started asking you questions about who I could talk to that would verify your claims?
Wouldn’t you find it a bit facetious?
As for your sarcasm about “testing for yourself” … you indeed could run similar or even newly devised tests for approximating when various genetic configurations first developed in a 5 billion year timeline for Earth.
Did you know that field researchers have been able to build and verify arctic ice cores that can reliably differentiate “warm spells” from the annual pattern of Summers and Winters for 100,000 continuous years?
Funny thing … no global flood… not ever. And that’s been tested in several different ways…
Here’s the ultimate irony - - you can look through the histories and commentaries of the Egyptian dynasties… from Dynasty 4, 5, 6, 7, and even 8. Somewhere between the 4th dynasty and the 8th dynasty, the global flood was supposed to have wiped out all the pagans of the Earth.
Perhaps these are very small pagans… because Egyptian culture, writings, buildings and history continued without the slightest hiccup through all those dynasties…
I cannot tell you how many times I have read the Bible…straight through from cover to cover, in various translations. Probably over 20 times by now. In addition to my regular, daily reading, I have done many intensive studies on various passages and books, including some in a formal, post-graduate academic setting.
So maybe I can give just a little bit of certainty that it actually is possible to ingest scripture significantly and still reconcile God’s creation of everything with the process of evolution.
I don’t know, maybe it’s because I’m Canadian…
Dead means dead. Alive means alive.
Do you know the difference between eisegesis and exegesis? Because the Bible says that Moses wrote the Law does not mean that Moses wrote the Pentateuch.
Hi Jon,
One more point on the Pentateuch. I gave you a few and could give you probably 100 quotes from the Pentateuch that are declared to be from Moses. Your chart lists a lot of them, maybe all, I haven’t gone through and checked for all of them. So I know the Jews regarded the Law of Moses to be the Pentateuch, there is no evidence that they ever believed anything else. Josephus lists them and Philo quotes it all over and also attributes it to Moses so we know what the Jews considered to be the Law of Moses. As I said, Jesus never disagreed with the Jews on the scripture and the Jews kept the whole torah in their synagogues, not just sections of it, continuing the example of Moses when he gave it to the priests after he wrote it. I am guessing that you believe in the Documentary Hypothesis and that is why you are trying to attribute the law to other authors. I think the Documentary Hypothesis is as silly as evolution. No evidence for either and much evidence against them.
As for Joshua, as I said above, God commanded Joshua to add to the ‘book of the law of God’ that God had given to Moses (Josh 24:26). You are right that it does not say that Joshua added to the section that Moses wrote(Pentateuch), but it is a reasonable guess that since God had Joshua add to the scripture that he might have added the part about Moses’ death and maybe even the verse about Moses being the most humble man alive. Maybe he didn’t and Moses wrote every word, including a prophecy of his death, but my guess is that Joshua wrote it. I don’t know.
Why do I believe it? I may have some deep biases that I am unaware of, but I think I believe it because that is what the evidence indicates. Moses is the only one declared to be the author of many verses. The Jews have always said the Law of Moses was written by Moses. It is called the Law of Moses throughout the Old Testament. Why would anyone believe otherwise?
As for you next questions, Lev 13:9 is about going to the priests when someone has leprosy.(The Hebrew word may include other diseases as well.) When it was cured, either miraculously or just by the normal recovery, the priest would certify that the person was healed and clean.
Ez 13:18, 20 are a couple of verses condemning idol worship.
As for the English translation, it is not 100% accurate. It is a translation of the very good copies(not 100% accurate) of the 100% accurate originals. It is close enough to get a very good understanding of the truth that God wants us to know…
It is obvious from reading it that it is a straight forward narrative. Hebrew poetry rhymed ideas similar to the way we rhyme sounds. It is obviously not poetry, as you can see in both the Hebrew original and the English translation.
I thought I was done for the day, but just read your comment about the ice cores. There have been a few articles by ICR in the last few months debunking that. Apparently they calibrated the fourier analysis on a starting date given back about 20 years ago and when that date was later changed by the scientific community they forgot that it would change all their ice age dates so that they no longer correlate with the earth’s rotation variations. For someone reading who is unfamiliar with this, they don’t count ice layers to get their dates. After they get down past the recent layers that you can count, the ice is so smashed together that you can’t count anymore. So they come up with some esoteric methods to try to correlate what they see in the ice with assumed weather changes and they disproved their own esoteric methods by changing their estimate of a past event and forgot it messed up their ice core correlations.
I did a quick look at ICR, and could not find this specific problem or references. Could you please provide a reference or link that points to the research you quoted?
Hi jpm,
Here are the links. I forgot that the main ones are from aig. The first is a quick icr summary and the next three go into more detail.
I think it is quite likely you are piloting your Plane-of-Truth without an adequate parachute.
The only relevant body of information regarding “earth’s rotation variations” is the one regarding the Milankovitch Cycles. There are at least 3 separate cycles that create a net affect, with the dominant pattern being 100,000 year modulations: in the last 800,000 years, there have been eight major Ice Ages.
Since we have an ice core database that extends beyond 100,000 years, but not beyond 200,000 years, I am pretty skeptical that the Milankovitch Cycles are causing that much disruption to the data. In fact, what the M. Cycles did was create a net pattern of data that the ice cores recorded and present to scientists.
There was one glaciation in the last 100,000 years, with the glacial buildup … and then inevitable melt down… reflected in the arctic ice cores.
The term “Ice Age” refers to the 800,000 bracket of time when “Glaciation and DeGlaciation” is in a regular cycle.
Within this 800,000 “Age of Ice”, there are Glacial Periods, or AKA: “Last Glacial Maximum”.
Here is a listing of how the terminology can be used:
[1] For the most recent period cooler than present but without significant glaciation, see Little Ice Age.
[2] For the full sequence of geologically recent glacial advances and retreats, see Quaternary glaciation.
(“The Quaternary glaciation, also known as the Pleistocene glaciation or the current ice age, is a series of glacial
events separated by interglacial events during the Quaternary period from 2.58 Ma (million years ago) to present.”)
[3] For the geological epoch often associated with or referred to as “The Ice Age”, see Pleistocene.
(The whole Pleistocene was quite long: 2,588,000 to 11,700 years ago. This definition is based on a very different set of technical premises:
"Within a long-term ice age, individual pulses of cold climate are termed “glacial periods” (or alternatively “glacials” or “glaciations” or colloquially as “ice age”), and intermittent warm periods are called “interglacials”. In the terminology of glaciology, ice age implies the presence of extensive ice sheets in both northern and southern hemispheres. By this definition, we are in an interglacial period—the Holocene—of the ice age. The ice age [using these understandings] began 2.6 million years ago at the start of the Pleistocene epoch, because the Greenland, Arctic, and Antarctic ice sheets still exist." )
[4] For a generic geological period of reduced temperature and increased glaciation, see Ice age
(see the note appended to [3] above).
.
.
.
[5] “Last glacial” redirects here. For the period of maximum glacier extent during this time, see Last Glacial Maximum
(the URL /wiki/Last_glacial_period ).
Let me know when you actually have the article with text saying what you say it said…
Read the links on my last post.
It is customary to produce a quote from the posting you want someone to look at … so we don’t have to go on a wild goose chase.
I’ll give you a chance to do this, so that you can learn from practice.
I could just as easily end up on the wrong post (but that also has links) and wonder what the heck you are talking about.
An explanatory sentence is customary to introduce what it is you think I’m going to find when I go to these unspecified links of an unspecified posting.
Here it is,
Hi jpm,
Here are the links. I forgot that the main ones are from aig. The first is a quick icr summary and the next three go into more detail.
Revisiting an Iconic Argument for Milankovitch Climate Forcing
This paper, the first in a series, demonstrates that much of the Hays et al. paper, as originally presented, is invalid.
Should the “Pacemaker of the Ice Ages” Paper Be Retracted?
Part I of this series presented a number of serious problems with the Pacemaker paper. It is necessary to also understand the Blackman-Tukey (B-T) method.
Should the “Pacemaker of the Ice Ages” Paper Be Retracted? Part 3
Despite its popularity, the Milankovitch hypothesis has many problems that are acknowledged even by secular scientists (Cronin 2010, 130–139).