Christianity is mostly focused on Christ and how he saved us all, so if you believe there isn't any original sin go right ahead, because now there isn't , believe it or not, christ saved you.
The Bible also tells us that Christ expounded all things (same phrase, even in the Greek) to His disciples. Really? All things? Even the mating habits of sea slugs, the chemical composition of DNA, and the secret to nuclear fusion? Of course not! "All things" has a context. Further, "All things" *is* different from "anything". "All things" would mean "any thing that is potentially a thing" whereas "anything" would mean "any thing that is expressable in words, even if there was no potential or even conceivability as a concept". Again, God can do anything that is possible (meaning there is a potential for a thing). God cannot do that for which there is no possibility (for example, God cannot divide by zero because it is impossible, nor can He make someone a married bachelor). Look the Bible tells us that God cannot sin (which makes sense as God cannot do anything that doesn't conform to His character and nature). Look at it this way, if you try to understand God from a position of what He is and what He can do, He is truly beyond comprehension. However, if you describe Him by what He is NOT and what He CANNOT do, then you have a picture of God that is truly infinite in scope and far more worthy of worship, IMHO. Campbell, do you believe that God can do evil? Yes or no. It is a simple question.
If God can speak a universe into existance, God can do anything. You have to think outside of the box you have created for yourself. Our minds are so limited, we are like ants trying to figure where the sky ends. Gods abilities, are way beyond your simple logic and understanding.
You really need to take the time and read your Bible. Yes Christ expounded all things. And you will find that it Luke Chapter 24 verse 27. Only unlike you, I will not make an untrue blanket statement. 27. And beginning at Moses and all the prophets, HE EXPOUNDED UNTO THEM IN ALL THE SCRIPTURES THE THINGS CONCERNING HIMSELF. God has brought evil on those who oppose Him, and sometimes God has brought evil to me as a correction. And God can do evil, if He desired to. Some people believed that when God destroyed the population of the earth with a flood because He was angry, that was evil. Some might say that was mass murder.
You're grasping at straws, campbell. God cannot create a square circle, because the two are disctinct by definition. God cannot make a married bachelor for the same reason. And your bible makes many guidlines as to the nature of god. God is loving. God is kind. God will let you into heaven if you accept jesus as your savior. Can he say "actually, yer kinda funny lookin', you just turn right around and go the other way?"
yes, we could go on for years pointing out reasons why it's irrational to take the bible literally and will this have any effect on people like campbell? No, that's why I don't bother talking to walls. It's an old pre-medieval book of stories written by man with all mans weaknesses loosely based on some people and events but highly exaggerated in an attempt to prove an existence of God. You may find evidence that Jesus existed but you can never prove his mother was a virgin, you may find evidence that Moses escaped across some water but you will never prove that a supernatural force moved the water for him. What does any of these bible STORIES have to do with the topic of evolution, absolutely nothing but deflect the facts on the subject.
God has the ability to do all of that, yet in the end it is Gods choice, because He also has free will. The question should be, not if He can, but would He? This is not rocket science. I'm not grasping at straws, you have limited yourself by your own imagination. Which is harder to do? To create a universe out of nothing, or create a square circle? If given the choice, which one would you attempt?
Well you might be right about me being a wall, yet a wall that is built on Biblical truth that can be demonstrated to be true, can be a very strong wall. And if the Bible is just a pre-medieval book of stories, why are it's prophecies true? The stories of the Bible are being proven, and what is becoming obvious are those who said those stories were nothing but fables, were wrong. And what they are finding is the Bible stories, as with it's prophecies are all being fulfill literally. And believe me, that has everything to do with Evolution. Because if the Bible is a literal Book of truth, then the story of Creation is literal as well. The Bible tells us that men would not endure sound doctrine, and it warns the believer to beware of science falsly so called. And this warning was given thousands of years before Evolution was even thought of. And the Bible tells us that at the time of the end the Jewish people would return to the land of Israel, and they would retake Jerusalem. And the focus of world attention would finally be over the control of Jerusalem. And that is just the tip of the iceberg. And yes, the Bible was right again.
If a person was mentally abused from childhood and repeatedly told he was worthless and should go kill himself, would it be any surprise that he eventually killed himself? Religion is a path to destruction, it is an excuse to give in to man's weaknesses. It's no surprise to me that billions of brainwashed religious will eventually fulfill their own apocalyptical prophecies. If the writers of the Bible were expounded everything from God then any logical person would wonder why there not even a couple sentences about the 60 million year reign of the dinosaurs on this planet. Walls do not think, they just get in peoples way. Don't be a wall.
The Bibles purpose is much more to do about the human condition and our relationship with God than dinosaurs. However, if you do your homework you will discover the Bible does speak of dinosaurs, and it speaks of them as living at the time when the Bible was being written, which should be a heads up even for you. I believe you will find those passages in the Old Testament. And if those who wrote the Bible were just brainwashed religious types, can you explain to me how they knew about the existance of Astroids 1500 years before the world knew such things existed? And according to the Bible a firey Astroid will strike the sea with such force, that it will destroy one third of the ships and one third of the marine life in that sea. And many of the prophecies that were fulfilled often were out of the scope of those writing about them.. Take Jerusalems East Gate prophecy. The prophecy states that when God returns to the earth He will enter threw the porch of the East Gate. Those who wrote that prophecy did not know that the orginal Gate would be buried and one thousand years later another Gate would be built right on top of the Old Gate. In fact the Old Gate would become the foundation for the new Gate. Then the writers tell us that the new Gate would be sealed up and all attempts to walk through it would fail. (They have, and that Gate is still sealed to this very day.) Even the Moslems tried twice in the last century to break the prophecy and twice they failed. Once in 1917 and once in 1967. If the Bible is just a Book of fables, why does it contain this kind of detailed knowledge? Even those who donot support the Bible, cannot break the prophecies.
self affirming hogwash. After 12 million years of living on earth man is bound to witness some impacts and tell stories about it. Do jews occupy Israel by chance as the bible predicted OR do jew have occupation because millions of bible believers wanted them there AS an act of prophecy fulfillment? The religious may very well cause the end of mankind with there sick nonsense, only difference is heaven won't be waiting for any of you.
If a man were anywhere around to observe an Astroid impac, he would not be around to write about it after words. And outside of the Bible, there is no other written Book that even suggest such an event. And when the Jews started to flee to Israel, it had more to do with Hitlers death camps, then Christians wanting them to fulfill Bible prophecy. The fact is, few churches back then even talked about prophecy. What is sad, is the Bible is clearly telling you the truth, and you call it hogwash, but then you point to some old bones in the dirt, and tell me this is how man came to be. And it doesen't matter how many times this evidence has been proven wrong, you just wait for Evolutions next new lie to believe.
What part of evolution is a lie? To believe the bible as factual you'd have to have man, dinosaur and all creatures created at the same time. So do you think man is around 100 million years old? But wait, trilobites existed more than 400 million years before that so that puts man to over 500 million years old. Do you believe that or is carbon dating one big lie too? Come on, where's the common sense at!? Talk about you lies...
Carbon dating? That whole process falls into question after thousands of years forget millions. Carbon dating is not a lie, but it cannot be depended on for accuracy after some thousands of years. Common sense comes in when you have the basic understanding of this. What part of Evolution is a lie? It would take days to begin to explain how much false evidence has been put forward as proof for Evolution. There was the Piltdown man fraud, there was the Orce man fraud, there was The Archaeoraptor Liaoningensis: or the Fake Dinosaur-bird ancestor, which turned out to be a fraud, and a big embarrasment for National Geographic Magazine. There was the Nebraska man fraud, there was the Java man fraud, there was the Neanderthal man fraud. This could go on and on, and the reason for this, is because as soon as they think they found the missing link, the Evolutionist bring out their big brass marching band. Yet as soon as they find out that the evidence in question is a fraud, everything is hushed up, and you never hear any more about it. Which leaves everyone thinking they have the theory nailed down. About every few years they come out with the new missing link, only to find out the link is either another species or a fraud. And this happens over, and over, and over, and almost no one ever questions this, and joe public just believes what ever the news media tells them. Consider the link below. http://www.nwcreation.net/evolutionfraud.html
How is neanderthal a fraud? The debate about neanderthal is not over whether or not they existed, it is merely over how they should be classified and exactly what place they filled in the evolution of primates. Entire villages of neanderthals have been discovered including nearly complete remains of many individuals of both sexes from babies to adolescents to adults. Furthermore, setting aside the debate about the human and pre human archeaological record, it seems apparent that evolution is fact. As evidence for this I present to cases which to me seem impossible to explain without evolution. First, how is it that penicillin is no longer as effective as it once was? The only logical answer that I have heard is that the bacteria has evolved over generations to be more resistant to penicillin. The second case is one that any farmer or gardener can easily understand. Without evolution how is it possible that selective breeding leads to differences in genotypes and phenotypes? The challenge is this: Explain genetic variance across generations without evolution. If someone can do this then I will start to believe that evolution is false.
Campbell: Carbon dating is more reliable than you'd like to give credit for. It can measure accurately up to 60,000 years ago. BUT...there are many other radiometric dating techniques and isotopes. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Modern_dating_techniques Common sense does nothing for understanding history and prehistory. You must have the evidence. Yes, there have been "frauds." Most were not frauds, but merely mistakes. The scientific community doesn't accept falsification of data, and when they were found to be fake, they were exposed as such. That is the nature of the search for truth. The fact that there were frauds does nothing to disprove evolution, because those examples are a raindrop in the ocean. There are plenty of fossilized examples of evolution, and I've shown them to you before. And you've refused to respond to those posts before. But be that as it may, there are plenty of non-fossil examples of evidence for evolution. I can explain to you, as I have so many times, why, biochemically, evolution is and must be happening. :banghead: Your wall is balanced on a single brick, which is blind, ignorant, unthinking faith, and you are clinging to that brick like a sailor in a gale.
Neanderthal: Still synonymous with brutishness, the first Neanderthal remains were found in France in 1908. Considered to be ignorant, ape-like, stooped and knuckle dragging. Much of the evidence now suggests that NEANDERTHAL WAS JUST AS HUMAN AS US, and his stooped appearence was because of rickets and arthritis. Neanderthals are NOW RECOGNIZED AS SKILLED HUNTERS, BELIEVERS IN AN AFTER-LIFE, AND EVEN SKILLED SURGEONS, as seen in one skeleton whos withered right arm had been amputated above the elbow. (SOURCE: "Upgrading Neanderthal Man," Time Magazine, May 17, 1971, Vol. 97, No. 20) The Body being more resistant to penicillin, or selective breeding is a long way from Apes to man. The body itself has a natural defense mechanism. This does not prove Evolution. And if Evolution were true, then in the fossil record there should be great numbers of trans species to be found. Even Darwin believed they would find them in great numbers. WELL, HE BELIEVED THAT WOULD HAPPEN, IF HIS THEORY WAS TRUE. And has that happened? NO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neanderthal. For every quote you find saying neanderthals are humans, I'll bet I can find ten saying they aren't. Your quote is one paragraph from a news magazine from the early '70s. Evidence before and since then has shown the two are distinct. The body's resistance to penicillin isn't in question. Bacteria's resistance is. Evolution does not mean from ape to man, although that's what all the religious fundamentalists get all excited about. Evolution encompasses the range of speciation and intra-species change that has occured since the beginning of life on this planet. Bacteria's RECENT resistance to penicillin, along with other antibiotics, is an example of that. Is there a source for that quote? 'Cause the one on Wikipedia says "the extreme imperfection of the geological record," combined with the short duration and narrow geographical range of transitional species, made it unlikely that many such fossils would be found. There have been transitional species. Archaeopteryx is a good one. In fact, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_transitional_fossils Have fun.
Wait one minute here. It was you who said carbon dating could be believed after 500 million years on post 124. And I said carbon dating falls into question after some thousands of years on post 125. And now you are telling me carbon dating is more reliable than I believe? And now you have jumped from 500 million years, to now only 60,000 years. I'm sorry, but what I said was right on. Your the one jumping from 500 million years to 60,000 years, not me. My wall does not balance on one brick alone, and I have given you a number of examples of Biblical truth found in fulfilled prophecies, to new above ground and underwater finds, and all of this supporting the Bible. Yet it appears you have boiled them all down to one brick. I would suggest, that only a blind man could do that. P.S. I don't rufuse to to respond, but often I am one person against 10 and time works against me. You are right about the scientific community not accepting falsification, yet when they discover they have made a mistake often it is not spoken of with the same enthusiasm as when they first thought they had the missing link, which often leaves joe public in the dark. And some times, for decades.
Actually, if you look at who posted that, it's relaxxx. Carbon dating often gets confused with radioactive dating in general, and is often used as an all-encompassing term. So you're still wrong, unless by some thousands, you meant 60,000. That's not a big conspiracy, that's just the nature of things. If it's a big find, it's big news, a big breakthrough. If it's found to be fake, it's just back to where we were before. That's not exciting.
