But when a parable is used it was usually stated as someone telling the story. As in Christs teachings. What parable are you talking about in the story of David?

I used an illustration because I couldn't tell you personally with my voice.

Nathan told David a story about sheep I believe, but my thoughts are more that the authors of the Old Testament were including parables in telling some of the Old Testament stories. I know the Torah is believed to be directly give to Moses from God but the majority of the Old Testament is from unknown authors.

http://www.enduringword.com/commentaries/1012.htm

Because your arguments have no basis in reality. Show me one scientist who can verify what you believe. All the evidence is to the contrary.

Is it possible for a Polar Bear, an Ostrich, and a Hippopotamus to migrate from the same location to where they are now?

You are correct, that is exactly a parable.

Unknown to you maybe, but not Biblical scholars.

Most of the authors are easily identifiable as historical figures. A few of the Major Prophets' are less easy to identify as a historical figure, but nonetheless much much less than a "majority of the Old Testament", as you state.

well maybe a majority is a stretch but a good portion are disputable to scholars. My point is that their use of parables can not be discredited, at least by me. But that being said the meaning might be different but the overall lessons are mainly the same.

Let me ask you one question did God have anything to do with you or me being here?

Did he have anything to do with creation at all?

If not what is God for in your beliefs?

That was three questions. And they have nothing to do with my question to you. What I believe and how I worship is personal. How I relate that to the natural world around me is how we differ. You have blind faith. I have a need to understand. I studied biological sciences in college because of that thirst to understand. I believe in the science that is presented in various diciplines. Particularly when it comes to the natural world. So again, show me credible evidence that the deposition of fossils points to a biblical flood and not to deposition over many millions of years.

The reason I ask you is because the Catholic churchs stance is that God created everything. So I wanted to know how a good Catholic is supposed to go against the church.
I mean you said your parents would roll over in their grave at something a complete stranger said. But yet their own son is going against what their own church believes.

"Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing"

"it (the church)in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution."



Taken straight from Catholic.com Boy you better run confess your sins against the church. The Pope might come after you.

Once again Dawg, how I reconcile my faith and my belief in the natural world is my business. No matter what you say, you can't draw me into your small world. And that's quite a cheap shot bringing my parents into it, even for you Dawg. It's a tactic that people like you use. Remember the word tautological from earlier in this thread? Look it up.

Now, again, please present evidence that supports your statements regarding the fossil record. I'm still waiting. And not holding my breath.

By the way, just for you Dawg, here's the position of the Catholic church concerning evolution and creation. Not surprisingly, you very convenienly left out much of the discussion. Maybe this is why Catholocism bothers you. They allow for biological evolution in their teachings. And are not afraid of what science has to offer!

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

From the same site. Wow, a religion that actually lets us thing for ourselves!

Catholics should weigh the evidence for the universe’s age by examining biblical and scientific evidence. "Though faith is above reason, there can never be any real discrepancy between faith and reason. Since the same God who reveals mysteries and infuses faith has bestowed the light of reason on the human mind, God cannot deny himself, nor can truth ever contradict truth" (Catechism of the Catholic Church 159).

Catholicism is not afraid of thinking and evaluation, and yes JSanders I would include the last 5 (maybe more) popes in that statement. Some other faiths know that their belief system will not stand up to any critical scrutiny. {Cough Cough} Who might I be thinking of in this context???

exactly Faith is above reason.


I said this already God allows discovery
and you just posted back up for me
Believe what you want. When you stand before God its you that has to answer for your sins not me, you are the one who denounces his creations its you yourself that has to answer for it.

I know for me my faith in God out weights any science you can ever produce. I also know I am no where near perfect but I can ask for forgiveness for my sins and I dont have to ask Christs mother, I can ask God personally.

Riff you brought your parents into the discussion not me. Once you bring a subject in its open for discussion. So be mad if you want I could care less. if you didnt want them discussed you should have left them out of trying to slam me.

They also aren't afraid to protect child molesting priests either.

And that is a fundamental difference. For you there is NO WAY that any evidence can change your mind. For me -- and I suspect others on this thread -- evidence will change our minds.

And as for the "Christ's mother" comment -- cheap shot, even for you.

You have identified one of the key failings of the Catholic Church in recent history.

How is it a cheap shot. Its the truth they do pray to mary.

The Hail Mary or Ave Maria (Latin) is a traditional Catholic prayer asking for the intercession of the Virgin Mary, the mother of Jesus.

John 14:6 Jesus saith unto him, I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me.

And your response here is typical -- address the secondary point through denial while avoiding the primary point. Boring.

I don't know who or why you're hacking, name names. Which of the five Popes you are thinking of teach the errancy of the Bible?

Take the cheap shots, why put on a civil act now?

As I stated before concrete eveidence to prove it with out a shadow of doubt and I will believe, but until some one shows me something in the middle of the evolutional process I wont believe. What do trees evolve into? What are you evolving into. If evolution is true things should still be evolving and they arent.

The evolution of plant life, including trees, is well studied. Massive volumes of information has been written about it. Shall I post up some information for you Dawg? It is so plain to see that plant live has evolved over time. Evolution is all around you my friend. In this very second. You are just blind to it.

Now, again, please present evidence that supports your statements regarding the fossil record. I'm still waiting. And not holding my breath.

Here's the last sentence from the page I quoted yesterday from Catholic.com.

The Catholic Church has no fear of science or scientific discovery.

Show me where I have denounced his creations.

So can I.

I'm not surprised at all that you could care less.

Adaptiing to your surroundings is not evolution. If I move to Alaska I know I need a jacket so I buy one.I dont grow fur.

I can write that my computer desk turned into a sportscar that doesnt make it true.

The burden of proof is on the evolutionist. I can look around everyday and see Gods work.

And you denounce Gods work every time you say something evolves. If he didnt create everything then why do you need him?

You might if you and your ancestors lived there for eons.

Your computer desk is not a living organism in case you hadn't noticed.

Indeed it is. Evolutionary biologists have done an admirable job of outlining the process. So much so, that it is accepted throughout the scientific community. If you ran in those circles, you would know that.

I do absolutely nothing of the kind.

Like I said, I could post up anything you want, but it would be useless. You would not read it. You ignored my post about plant evolution. There are many countless volumes of information on this subject. Look outside. That Magnolia tree you see? That represents a very primitive family of trees. That Oak tree? Much more advanced from an evoltionary perspective. Like I said, I'd tell you more, but you wouldn't listen.

And I have asked you where God fits in to all of your theory. What is God to you? But you seem to avoid that question as well. If you are a Christian as you say you are you shouldnt be ashamed oif God. It plainly states that if you are a shamed of him he will be ashamed of you.

So again I ask where does God fit in?

That magnolia tree grew from a seed, just like you grew from a baby. Doesn't mean you evolved.

where does shame come in? I didn't get that at all. You two are on far sides of the argument and nothing is getting accomplished.

dawg believes that you have to believe in his version of Christianity or you are going to hell. So there isn't much he can be persuaded to believe.
mriff is a scientist who see evidence of evolution and has no reason to think that his Religion has to be thrown out just because of proof of evolution.

I don't think there is a compromise coming. although I do enjoy reading the debating points.

You have failed to read my comments again and again. I have told you numerous times that where God fits into my view of the world is personal. I worship personally. I don't have to prove to you or anyone how that matters. I am not avoiding the question, I'm simply stating that it's none of your business. I am NOT ashamed of of Him. Never said that, never will. Never. Do you understand the meaning of the word never?

And so how did the seed get there? And yes, hominid evolution is well accounted for. As is the evolution of plants. As is the evolution of all living organisms. But you will not listen for understanding.

One more time. Show me credible evidence of how the alleged great flood caused deposition of all fossils on earth. I'll read it if you show it to me.

What a dangerous idea. Other religions believe this as well. And have for eons. Guess what. It leads to fanaticism. And war. And death. When one person believes in one thing above all else including human life? Sounds like some of the extremists that are trying to hijack the Muslim faith.

Yes I mentioned that in one thread and it didn't go over well. Its lead to the holocaust, crusades, the Inquisition, centuries of war in the middle east and many other of man's great accomplishments.

I wonder why it didn't go over well test? ;-)

, and... the founding of this nation and the liberation of France as well and the parliamentarian form of government in the UK AND democratic republics across the world, the beginning of broad public education in Europe and public education across the planet, (breakthroughs in science and medicine included), the freeing of the slaves in the US, billions of dollars of aid to underdeveloped nations.

Amazing how you can only think of the negative in terms of one's religious views. Have you been damaged that bad?

Are you just naming things that were done by Christians? or are you naming things that were done in the name of Christianity?

no damage at all and consider myself a Christian. I was merely pointing out some situations where fanaticism got out of control. And most of your examples are great but still had religious fanatics fighting against those things.

Both, and in each case right won out, and in each case it was Christianity, or the church in general that progressed each cause along it's way.

I guess you're gonna argue those down now?

Yes, I do find it interesting that at first blush you chose to state several negative affects or outcome of fanaticism in the church. And all connected to you and Mriff's lack of understanding. Or refusal. Y'all just seem angry at the church, like you've got a bone to pick and blame it for so many of society's ills. It is so evident reading across this thread.

Given the opportunity, it really seems you will first off blame Christianity.

You're wrong JS. With the exception of one post (331) in which I mentioned the possibility of bad outcomes of extremists who falsely based their purpose in life on religion, I have not made one post about being 'angry at the church'. No bone to pick at all with various religions including my own, Catholocism. Except as you well know, that I don't think creationism should be taught as science in public shool. Which is the original intent of this thread.

One more time tell me how God plays into your Evolution theory. i will continue to ask. You are avoiding the question because you dont want us to know that he cant fit into both worlds.

Until you answer my question I will not answer yours.

The catholics have persecuted many a person haven't they. Most likely more than any other religion on earth.

Post #331 is the one I read.

"What a dangerous idea".

Post 311 Dawg, post 311. I have answered your question. Multiple times. And I'm ignoring your continued nasty comments against Catholocism.

Your turn.

So you deny that fanaticism based on religion has resulted in bad things happening in history?

I guess you see things differently. To say that the right won out and in each case was the Christians is not how I view history at all.
There are several instances where people were killed if they did not follow the chosen faith, to me that is always wrong.

I think your taking the cheap answer in trying to lump me into a category where people have a problem with the church and that is simply not true. I have no issue with anyone unless they try to force their ways upon another. Other than that I have no major issues. To me its about core faiths, not the peripheral views.

but to each there own, unless your Jsanders or dawg then your going to hell.

the way i read him is that Christians always win and they have not been wrong in their past actions. No wonder the word fanatic strikes up conversation.

well I'll just take that as you deny Gods hand in anything. Since most Christians have no issue talking about God.

Hey, read your post again. #331. You did not say "What a dangerous idea" to fanaticism, blah blah blah. You said it reference to test54's interpretation of what Dawg said.

And then there was a '.', and a new sentence that continued on about other religions. Maybe you could read it again as you wrote it. Your first reference was the Christianity, you ended the sentence, and proceeded off that path.

Yes, fanaticism has caused problems historically and presently. Fanaticism over anything causes problems, including fanaticism over evolution. Fanaticism over Barak Hussein Obama will cause problems.

Your only going to hell if you deny God. Or do not accept him as your personal savior.

you failed to mention fanaticism of Christianity? does that not exist or is it justifiable because its what you believe?

My God, what will it take Dawg?! I answered your question as you asked. It is clearly outlined in the post I've already made. I do NOT deny Gods hand in anything. Please go back and read the post.

Now, about that credible evidence that the great flood deposited every fossil ever known to man. Oh hell, never mind.

thanks, learned that when I was 5. Thats why I am conformable with my own views and beliefs. I believe that the gift of Free Will is given for a reason, but thats a whole other topic.

ps, mriff - I think dawg is just egging you on at this point. Jsanders is a different story.

I stand by the sentence. Fanaticism within Christianity has caused many problems throughout history. And as you rightly point out, it has caused much good throughout history, including in this day and age. There, will that work?

It's a common tactic. I've seen it many many times.

I beg to difer, you believe we came from nothing, that God didnt make us. So therefore you deny Gods hand in creation.

Christianity is a personal choice. Some have taken it to the extreme.

But, you both are learned men and quite educated. You know that God and Christ both made the path quite narrow, and in one direction toward them. I am sure one could interpret the Bible to have it say what they want in order to deny that, but God and Christ made it very very clear their intention was to turn hearts toward them, and it is very very clear that it is a personal choice.

I'm certainly not a fanatic. Just a believer. You can make the choice on your eternal life on your own.

Wanted to make it easy on you Dawg. Went back and got it. Here it is. It is my answer. You don't have to agree with it. But be a man and hold up your end of the bargain. Answer my question. (I won't hold my breath.)

The Catholic Position

What is the Catholic position concerning belief or unbelief in evolution? The question may never be finally settled, but there are definite parameters to what is acceptable Catholic belief.

Concerning cosmological evolution, the Church has infallibly defined that the universe was specially created out of nothing. Vatican I solemnly defined that everyone must "confess the world and all things which are contained in it, both spiritual and material, as regards their whole substance, have been produced by God from nothing" (Canons on God the Creator of All Things, canon 5).

The Church does not have an official position on whether the stars, nebulae, and planets we see today were created at that time or whether they developed over time (for example, in the aftermath of the Big Bang that modern cosmologists discuss). However, the Church would maintain that, if the stars and planets did develop over time, this still ultimately must be attributed to God and his plan, for Scripture records: "By the word of the Lord the heavens were made, and all their host [stars, nebulae, planets] by the breath of his mouth" (Ps. 33:6).

Concerning biological evolution, the Church does not have an official position on whether various life forms developed over the course of time. However, it says that, if they did develop, then they did so under the impetus and guidance of God, and their ultimate creation must be ascribed to him.

Concerning human evolution, the Church has a more definite teaching. It allows for the possibility that man’s body developed from previous biological forms, under God’s guidance, but it insists on the special creation of his soul. Pope Pius XII declared that "the teaching authority of the Church does not forbid that, in conformity with the present state of human sciences and sacred theology, research and discussions . . . take place with regard to the doctrine of evolution, in as far as it inquires into the origin of the human body as coming from pre-existent and living matter—[but] the Catholic faith obliges us to hold that souls are immediately created by God" (Pius XII, Humani Generis 36). So whether the human body was specially created or developed, we are required to hold as a matter of Catholic faith that the human soul is specially created; it did not evolve, and it is not inherited from our parents, as our bodies are.

While the Church permits belief in either special creation or developmental creation on certain questions, it in no circumstances permits belief in atheistic evolution.

JS, I have said this many times in this thread. I agree completely. It is up to the person to worship in the way he thinks best. You have summed it up in one sentence.

Of course that is the very basics of Christian Faith, but there are many different ways to end up at the final stop. To me you have people ranging from the Catholics, Episcopal all the way to the Baptist and Lutheran all with very different traits but with the same core beliefs. So to me the path can take different shapes but all that follow the core faith can get there. That may be a liberal way of viewing it to some but that is my personal belief.

To say that because one denomination has a few different traditions that all of its believers are doomed is not something I would ever believe.

you never answered #347. Like all religions, Christians have done horrible things in the name of their religion and to think its a just act is just wrong to me.

I dont want the Churchs Stance I want yours in your own words. Unless your not a free thinker.

I can post a position from my Church as well but that doesnt make it my belief. I am not a lemming and don't go along with everything my Church says.

Well, the Bible does describe very nicely what God enjoys... and while there are many forms of worship, it is specific about a few. So it really is more to discovering what God likes and doing so.

For instance, if your wife despises roses and flowers, but tells you specifically "I like chocolate", so come birthday, anniversary, christmas and any day of the week, your personal choice is to bring home flowers and lovely roses. But no chocolate.

How do you think your wife will react?

Perhaps she says all she really really wants is to spend time with you. But the spouse works 14 hours a day, sleeps eight and the other two glued to the TV. How do you think she will react?

So, God has told us how he desires our relationship with Him, and what he enjoys. All the same.

You never read Post #345.

That brings us back to the interpretation of the Bible. Obviously every denomination bases there rituals and beliefs in the Bible yet there are such huge differences. Take the Amish, Mennonites or some of the denominations of the past like the Millerites or many others, they all have difference and base themselves on their interpretation of the Bible.
But they still have the core beliefs in common.

It has less to do with the Roses or the chocolate, its all about being there to give the gift to her.

and regarding 345, I would substitute atrocities for problems.

I agree completely with the Catholic church's stance. No need to write in my own words.

Again, it is my position. And I am not a lemming. I, as well, don't go along with everything my Church says.

POST YOUR CREDIBLE EVIDENCE OF THE GREAT FLOOD CAUSING THE COMPLETE DEPOSITION OF ALL THE FOSSILS THAT EVER EXISTED.

Yep all the details really don't matter if you don't know know Him.

Those details are all people-created. Sinner-created, is another way to look at it. :)

But God and Christ are very clear about knowing Him, denying Him, having a relationship with Him, and, finally, how you showed His love for others.

It doesn't matter what I post. If it doesnt come from a scientest you won't consider it. So why waste my time amd I correct?

Do you believe the flood happened?

And there you go my friends. Why don't you just say there is no evidence? That I blindly believe it, therefore it is so?

Evidence for a Great Flood


1. The worldxxx8217;s oldest living organism, the bristle cone pine, 4300 years old.



2. A 20-year growth study of the Great Barrier Reef off the coast of Australia showed, the whole thing was probably formed in about 4200 years.



3. xxx8220;The Mississippi River deposits sediments at a rate of 80,000 tons an hour xxx8211; day after day, year after year xxx8211; at the point where the river flows into the Gulf of Mexico.xxx8221; Prentice Hall General Science, 1992 p. 145. At that rate you could account for all the sediments in the delta in 30,000 years. Thatxxx8217;s not taking into account for a Great Flood that probably deposited about 85% of that.



4. xxx8220;A gorge about 7 ½ miles long runs just below Niagara Falls. A simple calculation shows that it has been 9900 years since Niagara River started cutting its gorge back from Lake Ontario.xxx8221; Holt Earth Science, 1984, p. 384.

They have to say that because if it had been doing that for millions of years, it would have reached the Gulf of Mexico a long time ago. About half of that was probably washed out by Noahxxx8217;s Flood about 4400 years ago.



5. The most common fossil in the world is the clam. There are trillions of them. Almost every single one of those fossilized clams have one thing in common, they are fossilized closed. That takes sudden, deep, burial. If you go down to a lake or river and find a closed clam, someone will say, xxx8220;Herexxx8217;s one still alive.xxx8221; The ligaments at the hinge of a clam shell relax very quickly after it dies, the clam will begin to open up very soon after death. The clam begins to decay, or will be eaten by a predator.

Evidence of a Great Flood


1. The scriptural basis for a world-wide flood, and not just a local flood:



A. Why would God have Noah spend 120 years building that big boat?

You can move a long ways in 120 years.

B. Why would God gather two of all the animals from all over the world,

and put them on a boat to preserve them, if it was just going to flood there?

C. Would God make an everlasting covenant with Noah to never again destroy the earth with that type of flood, if it was just a local flood?

That would make God a liar, because there have been a lot of local floods since then.

D. How could you have the water above the highest mountains on earth, and just stay in one local area? Ever hear of something called gravity?



2. The Biblical description:



xxx8220;xxx8230;for the Lord God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, (before the flood)

xxx8230;But there went up a mist from the earth, and watered the whole face of the ground.xxx8221;

Genesis 2:5-6



The early earth was like a greenhouse, and also like a terrarium.



xxx8220;In the six hundredth year of Noahxxx8217;s life, in the second month, the seventeenth day of the month, the same day were all the fountains of the great deep (way down there) broken up, and the windows of heaven were opened.xxx8221;

Genesis 7:11



3. The effects of the Water Canopy:



A. X-Ray and UV Radiation would be blocked out, which affect the aging process. Before the flood the average age was 912 years.

B. Heat would be trapped in causing a greenhouse effect.

C. The oxygen would become pressurized in the atmosphere.

It would be easier to breathe, and we would heal faster.



Ex: Baby Jessica was trapped in an 8 inch well for 58 ½ hours. Parts of her body turned black. They put her in a Hyperbaric Oxygen Chamber and didnxxx8217;t have to amputate her leg. The increased pressure forces oxygen into the tissue and into the bloodstream quicker.



Life on Earth before the Flood:



If all the rock layers and fossils were formed by the Great Flood, the fossil record will tell us what life on earth was like before the Flood.



D. xxx8220;There were giants in the earth in those days;xxx8221; Genesis 6:4

a. Manxxx8217;s jawbone found in Turkey, 6.5 inches across.

b. Giant skeletons found in Walkerton, IN in 1925 ranging from 8 to 9 feet long.

c. Skeleton nearly 10 feet long found in Humbolt Lake, NV in 1931.

d. Skeleton 11.5 inches found in coal mine in Italy.

e. Skeleton 12 feet long found in Lompoc Rancho, CA in 1883.

f. Skeleton 12 feet long found near Tuscon, AZ in 1891.



E. Fossils of grasshoppers over 2 feet long have been found.

F. Fossils of dragonflies have been found with a three-foot wingspan.

G. ****roaches over 18 inches long have been found in the fossil record.

H. A fossil centipede 8.5 feet long has been found.

I. Fossil cattails have been found that were 60 feet long.

J. Fossils of beavers 9 feet long have been found.

K. Turtle fossils have been found that were 14 feet long.

L. Fossil birds have been found that were 13 feet tall.

M. A fossil donkey was found in Lubbock, TX that was 9 feet tall at the shoulder.

N. Fossil Buffalo horns have been found with a 12 foot span!

O. A Fossil Rhinoceros was found that was 18 feet tall at the shoulder. (University of Nebraska Museum)

P. Shark teeth have been found from a shark that was estimated at being over 80 feet long.



Things were very different in the Pre-Flood world.



4. Why did God use a flood and not just have all the bad people die?



A. The flood left evidence where a miracle would not.

B. The effects of the flood are here for all to see and be reminded of Godxxx8217;s judgment on sin.



IV. Evidence From The Grand Canyon


1. The top of the Grand Canyon is 6,000 feet above sea level.

2. Where the Colorado River enters the canyon it 2,800 feet above sea level.

3. The river flows downhill to its lowest point at 1,800 feet above sea level.

4. Rivers donxxx8217;t flow uphill.

5. That river did not carve out that canyon.



V. The Truth About the Rock Layers


1. Through natural processes fossils should be a rare

occurrence.

2. The fossils cannot tell us if they had any kids.

3. The fossils certainly cannot tell us if their kids were different

than other kids.

4. Fossil location does not prove relationship.

If I am buried on top of a hamster, it does not prove he was

my grandpa.

Just what I thought you would say. Thanks

Ok, so let me get this straight. Someone goes out and finds four things (only one of them can be verified) around the entire planet that appear to be between 5 and 10,000 years old and this is proof of a world wide flood? I don't get the logic. What about all the tree fossils that have been discovered that appear to be older? Before or after the flood? What about the early hominid fossils that have been discovered that are much older than 10K years? Before or after the flood? And how about all the dinosaur fossils? Before or after the flood?

And I'm no marine biologist, but I could imagine that when clams die that the the muscles and ligaments contract. But that's beside the point. Regardless of how they die, how do you explain the fact that they are found throughout numerous layers of the earths crust? All those layers were not deposited at the same time right? But over millions of years?

I would also appreciate a source for the information you post.

And really Dawg, you accused me of cutting and pasting off the web. Clearly you have done a fine job of googling yourself. Was it simply 'evidence of the great flood'?

For anyone who cares to read, this is a synopsis of a book by the National Academy of Sciences. The short 88 page book presents evidence of evolution. And makes the case against teaching creationism in school science classes. It is a pdf file.

http://books.nap.edu/html/11876/SECbrochure.pdf

So you believe what the Catholic Church does except the flood. Wow thats amazing. The catholic Church considers it a Baptism for the world and you dont believe it. You better go see your priest and repent now.


I only said something about cutting and pasting when I wanted your personal answer not the churches but it seems you disagree with the church now. Interesting

Catechism of the Catholic Church no. 1219

“The Church has seen in Noah's ark a prefiguring of salvation by Baptism, for by it "a few, that is, eight persons, were saved through water":
The waters of the great flood
you made a sign of the waters of Baptism,
that make an end of sin and a new beginning of goodness.
no. 1219

"The covenant with Noah after the flood gives expression to the principle of the divine economy toward the "nations", in other words, towards men grouped "in their lands, each with [its] own language, by their families, in their nations". no. 56

Details of the flood (e.g. its coverage, when it took place) are questions for science, not theology. For further information on the flood I recommend the following sites:

The Deluge:
Deluge - Original Catholic Encyclopedia

I'm sorry Dawg, but when any of the information that you present is grounded in an iota of science we can talk -- but your responses here are simply theology and would fail grade school science or 9th grade logic. You are welcome to your theology and you should live your personal life accordingly -- but don't impose your narrow minded "analysis" on my science, which is my religion. (And JSanders, that is for you and your narrow view of what people consider important and value.)

I have deliberately stopped making too many comments in this thread because I was rude to you earlier, and for that I apologize. But I was kind; I could say much more. Jeez.

lol, aren't you are the one most closed-minded poster in this thread who wants any thought other than your own "religion" of science censored from the classroom? Doesn't sound so warm and fuzzy to me.

So it's back to your view of my view of my religion. So it's ok if you disagree with your church but not others? How hypocritical. I simply won't discuss it anymore. As I said, you have no way of offering any evidence of your view of the natural world. Your posts prove it. Beyond the shadow of a doubt.

Refutation for those who are dumb enough (me) to argue with YEC's about anything scientific.

How Good are those Young-Earth Arguments: Hovind's 'Proofs'

Umm you are the one who said you believe what the church does not me. You said I dont need to write my own because i believe what the church does but now you change your story.

I call that fence riding. I offered evidence you choose not to accept it because it didnt come from some one like you. Hell darwin only had a degree in theology but you accept his opinion why not others please explain that to me.

If by chance you ever succeed in getting the pseudo-science of intelligent design taught in any schools, be sure to publicize it widely. Lots of us will want to have that information to be certain that these specially challenged students aren't admitted to reputable universities, or hired by our companies. And that won't qualify as religious discrimination; we are still allowed to use analytical capabilities as a part of admitttance and hiring decisions.

Well mriff, you know that the issue is that the "proofs" sound so good to the mind that is not trained at scientific reasoning because of the logical falllacies that they employ. I'll take a look at that.

wow, you really are close minded aren't you. Does this mean you dont hire people who have gone to Christian University's? Sure sounds like that to me. You must Chinese they dont want Christianity taught either.

I challenge you to find where I said that. I simply stated that I support what the church says about evolution. That's ALL I said.

Call it what you want. Doesn't matter. You didn't offer evidence. What you offered is an opinion. There's a difference in case you didn't know. And the fact that Darwin had a degree in theology and then went on to become one of the most learned scientist for his time is very impressive. To say the least!

And by the way, I'm still waiting on the sourse of the information you posted yesterday.

Riff if you want the information find it. I am sure you have google. You say it my opinion well so was Darwins and I am as qualified as he was at the time. As a matter of fact I am more qualified I have more than one degree.

That is a common misconception that was true in the past but Christianity is spreading throughout China as the Government has been open to religions for decades.

The thought of dawg being more qualified than Darwin made my morning, thanks. :razz:

You couldnt be more wrong. My church had to sneak their Bibles in as food because the Chinese government wouldnt allow them In. Wheh the preachers tried to get in they had to go in as School teachers because again the government wouldnt let them come in as preachers.

We have sent over 90 mission trips to China and I can tell you from experience that it isnt allowed. I have been involved first hand.

delusion
–noun 1. an act or instance of deluding.
2. the state of being deluded.
3. a false belief or opinion: delusions of grandeur.
4. Psychiatry. a fixed false belief that is resistant to reason or confrontation with actual fact: a paranoid delusion.

If you think you are as qualified, then please read the following:

Amazon.com: Charles Darwin: The Power of Place: Janet Browne: Books
Amazon.com: Charles Darwin: Voyaging: Janet Browne: Books

Well that depends. I have hired dozens of people who have attended what I would define as a Christian university. However, I suspect that you would consider that University -- quite well respected -- to be heathen. After all, it is affiliated with the Catholic church, and you have made your opinions about that quite clear.

I have several friends in China who teach and although the churches are mainly underground, they are growing fast. If the government really wanted to stop it, they could. Look back to the Soviets in the 50's and 60's and you will see that a government can stop religion if it dedicates itself to doing it.

"They repeat a seemingly shared belief that the time has come to proclaim their place in Chinese society as the world focuses on China and its hosting of the 2008 Olympics, set to begin in August.

"We have nothing to hide," said Jin, a former Communist Party member who broke away from the state church last year to found his Zion Church.

Jin embodies a historic change: After centuries of foreign efforts to implant Christianity in China, today's Christian ascension is led not by missionaries but by evangelical citizens at home. Where Christianity once was confined largely to poor villages, it is now spreading into urban power centers with often tacit approval from the regime.

It reaches into the most influential corners of Chinese life: Intellectuals disillusioned by the 1989 crackdown at Tiananmen Square are placing their loyalty in faith, not politics; tycoons fed up with corruption are seeking an ethical code; and Communist Party members are daring to argue that their faith does not put them at odds with the government.

The boundaries of what is legal and what is not are constantly shifting. A new church or Sunday school, for instance, might be permissible one day and taboo the next, because local officials have broad latitude to interpret laws on religious gatherings.

Overall, though, the government is permitting churches to be more open and active than ever before, signaling a new tolerance of faith in public life. President Hu Jintao even held an unprecedented Politburo "study session" on religion last year, in which he told China's 25 most powerful leaders that "the knowledge and strength of religious people must be mustered to build a prosperous society."

This rise, driven by evangelical Protestants, reflects a wider spiritual awakening in China. As communism fades into today's free-market reality, many Chinese describe a "crisis of faith" and seek solace everywhere from mystical Taoist sects to Bahai temples and Christian megachurches."

Jesus in China: Christianity's rapid rise -- chicagotribune.com
Your Church or former Church's ability to smuggle contraband into China does not constitute the progress of Christianity in China.

Come one riff you are smarter than that i said at the time. read the whole sentence before you reply geez.

I give up, you and I are going to be at odds on this till the end of time we will just have to agree to disagree. And I guess when the end comes one of us will know the truth and the other will have a warm residence.

You aren't going to change my mind and I am not going to change yours.

You are right in your mind and I am right in mine.

So I'll leave it at that.

Well these Bibles and preachers were going to Bejing, Three of them got arrested at the Airport for having a Bible on them at the time they went through customs. Every bit of coorespondence that we recieved had to be written very carefully because they would be arrested.

And this isnt just my Church this is Churches from acroos the Country. This is a project called The Olympic Bible Project. We have handed out more than 800,000 bibles in every language at the last 9 olympics.

Dawg I have no doubt that smuggling things into China is vert tough, but it is again smuggling things into a sovereign country. The rise of Christianity though I think is alive and well in China.

Ok, we'll leave it at that.

I have no doubt about the rise of Christianity the thirst for knowledge is incredible. But it is illegal to spread the gospel in China as I stated in the first post about it.

If by spread you mean to illegally smuggle things into their country, then yes but its also illegal to do that here then as well.

To be a Christian in China is not illegal.

The far liberal left once again shows its fascist tenancies. And to think you can personally kill one's admittance to a university, you really do think quite highly of yourself don't you?

How funny -- now I'm a liberal because I believe in science as opposed to pseudo-science. When you joining the comedy circuit?

Oh, and I am proud to take that stance against pseudo-science!

You keep thinking that. If it helps you sleep at night.

I guess Tim Tebow should have not been let into the UF because I am sure he wasnt taught evolution.

What did you claim to be recently, libertarian? I don't recall. Eh, you know yourself that the line gets real blurry in there. The fascist element fits your willingness to censor open thought and discussion, though.

I know several openly Christian people teaching in china who neither hide their religion or fear for their Christian friends in China.

Dawg is the libertarian.

not sure where you can argue about censoring open thought? I believe that to eliminate evolution form class rooms qualifies as that as well.

test, read this thread, please please please. I might be mistaken (I always am open to that), but I don't think I have ever advocated that in this thread. You might have assumed that is my position, but you know what means.