1 - It doesn't matter if he knew or not knew he was writing scripture. But in all probabilities he probably knew it was going to be scripture as when it was written in 63AD, he is referring to both old testament and almost all of the New Testament.
By the time 2 Timothy 3:16 was written, all of the New Testament books had already been written except for 2 Peter, Hebrews, Jude, and the apostle John's writings
Inspiration
I remember in the OT one prophet didn't know what the hell he was saying but still knew he was writing scripture so even understanding (at the time) is not a requirement. He ask God what is the meaning of this and God said to shut up and just write it, to paraphrase it a little.
2 - Of course not. Only place God written directly is in exodus with the 10 commandments, Jesus's speeches in the NT were recorded by the every ones you are trying to degrade. If you can't trust their testimony of what they say, how you trust what they said Jesus said?
The vast majority of the text are by humans (sometimes openly declaring to mouthing for God, but still humans).
3 - The inspiration of the scriptures are actually attributed to God, Holy Spirit and Jesus.
The are many attributes that are assigned to all three. Scroll Down a little to see the list
But again God has signed his code. There are hepatic structures that would only be there if the Old and New testaments where put together. Did you even try to make a fictional genealogy that matches Mathew's hepatic structures like in the video I linked to before?
No human could of done that, go on, give it a try and you will see how hard it is, yet it's in there and linking both OT and NW, and the genealogy of Christ. It's really amazing.
Yes some Christians will be speaking on behalf of God, like when they give prophesy but there have only been 12 disciples and only recorded 19 apostles.
According to 1Cor. 1:1 & 9, to be an Apostle you must have seen the Lord, and been called to be one directly by Him.
Read more: http://wiki.answers.com/Q/How_many_apostles_were_there#ixzz1xKsPe07E
So you know the genealogy recorded has many limitations on it which meant it could only be written by someone not human (inspired), because of how complex it is. Please try an make a fictional geneology in the much easier language of English but still matching the hepatic structures as talked about in the video. Do it now, open up word, make up some shit up of about 20 dead people in the lineage and see if you get even 3 rules mention within hour. (There are actually 70 rules in the text in the greek language which is much more precise than english)
So when you post back, tell me how far you got with your genealogy please. It is an impossible thing to do in your life time, even with super computers. But that will let you know God inspired Paul what to say down to the letter.
I really need to sleep now,
Good night, TheLink,
Cheers
Madfan
Jesus didn't say it directly, but his name is on the book.
All scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness:
2 Timothy 3:16
The link I gave http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flbaJfRwYxM about the Bible Heptadic Structure showing how carefully the text is written. No human and especially no fisherman from 2000 years ago could of written this down in geek. This is a signature from the Creator himself. Why would he sign something about himself unless it is true?
The bible is full of these things which no human without a computer could of even possibly do this. So God has put his signature in the text, does that mean he supports what is written?
Side note: With the same formula you can calculate PI to 4 decimal places with the first verse of genesis, you can get "e" with the other big creation verse which is the first verse of Luke. E wasn't discovered until the 16th century yet it's encoded in the numerical value of the text. God has eternity on his hands so he place these things all throughout the bible. It's amazing to discover these things.
I dont say the bible should be taken literally, it should be taken as plain reading. Palms is poetry, Revelation is prophecy, Matthew, Luke, Mark & John are a historical account, which do contains parables that Jesus spoke, but his genealogy isn't a parable. it records the names of people who lived and died. The Jews were really big on tracking their ancestry until the Romans retook Israel in 73ad
Plus Jesus to fulfill prophecy in the old testament he had to came from the line of David and from a woman not a seed from the man. Hence is ancestry is recorded.
Have you watched the video I gave you and made a fictional family tree with the limitations he gave? Mathew does it.
Have a good weekend.
Cheers
That's because you're indoctrinated and have fallen into the black hole called faith
I could say the same to you, you choose to believe the evolution and a made up story of history.
Noah managed to gather all the animals in the first place
Noah did not gather the animals. The bible said the animals came to him. Read the text to answer your questions. Also a simple answer as to stopping the animals from eating each other is cages. You build walls around them to stop them making a mess in the boat. Really these are simple questions.
how to explain how he had room for the vast number of species, or the lack of a global flood in the geological record.
It is ridiculousness to think Noah carried all the species on land. The Bible said of each "Kind" not of each species.
You do not need to carry all of the current species we have today. The specification of the animals would of happen rapidly after the flood.
Hence you would only need to carry 20000-25000 kinds, otherwise you will need several cargo ships instead of just one cargo chip.
The Bible says "kind" which roughly translate as Phylum. For example: There are currently over 150 species of dogs but you only needed 2 wolfs (M&F) for the kind, from them they specified into the species we have now.
There is alot of evidence for a massive flood. There are huge sedimentary basins are all around the world. Map of sedimentary basins
The Grand Canyon which each of it's layers laid down in water.
The Three Sisters of Australia
Now what is unscientific about a scientist putting to sleep a man, taking a sample of his tissues and cloning him but without the Y gene.
What's unscientific about it is that it is based on a childish myth invented by primitive people to explain their origins, and is no different than any of the other childish origin myths in existence. What's also unscientific about it is that the fossil and genetic record completely refute this childish story.
Again you are trying to attack the creditably of the source but not attacking the data directly. It's based on History, and no matter how much you want to put your fingers in your ears and say "i am hearing you", you still have not refuted this scenario. We humans almost have this technology now, yet you refuse to even admit to yourself that God would have this technology. Grow up and take this subject matter seriously instead of yelling "I dont want to believe it, its Christain voodoo magic" to paraphrase what you are doing.
Again you have refused to talk about what evidence does the fossil record provide with transitional forms? All phylum are fully formed in the fossil record when ever they are found. The extreme lack of any transitional forms screams creationism. The problem is so great for evolutionists that they invented another theory called punctuated equilibrium, where suddenly out of nowhere the species, gaps, evolves without leaving any trace. Hence the lack of fossils now becomes evidence for evolution.
They believe that can happen, and there's a natural progression of species in the fossil and genetic record, and yet they can't believe in evolution as the origin of species. Gee, I wonder why? Could it be their childish Bible stories holding them back?
Again you didn't answer my question, please define your "evolution". Us creationists believe in what operational science can show. We Christains take the Bible as our starting assumptions. You evolutionists believe in things unproven in science like increases in the information of DNA & abiogenesis.
How do you define Evolution? Things changing or things increasing in complexity over time. (note the GTE isn't a guided "force",, but since it "happen", you must explain how it happen.
Do you mean it is increasing in complexity from Bacteria to something which is not a bacteria? Natural Selection, Mutations says that can't happen. Where does this magical information come from? What phenomena produces it?
You just said it earlier, and now you dismiss it as impossible. I'm confused by your logic.
The classic formula for evolution is "Evolution = Natural Selection & Mutations" * time
.
This definition of evolution is called the "Grand Theory of Evolution" (GTE). Thats the type of evolution believed to bring about dinosaurs. That equation uses real phenomenons proven by operational science but both phenomenons work against Evolution. How can a theory with all the sub parts which work agaist it survive?
First there is Natural Selection.
NS does not create anything, by it's very definition, it selects what is already in the gene pool.
This means it removes the variations that the population has. E.g. snow will slow down dear running away from dogs, hence short legged dears die quicker and are selected against. Soon the population will have lost it's short legged variation in the genome. That example showed loss of information not wings growing on their backs.
Another example is if the dear have a deformed leg from birth. It can't run, so it dies quickly.
Second there is Mutations.
Since NS doesn't not provide new characteristics (e.g. wings, or eyes that see x rays, in the population), that means the only game in town for evolutionists to provide the increase in information are mutations. Mutations are mistakes in the copying of the DNA.
Most mutations are either mostly neutral or very harmful. To date over 10,000 specific disease-causing mutations of the human genome have been identified.
A classic example of the evolution capability of mutations can be demonstrated by walking into a nuclear power plant's core, and after a couple of minutes you will soon start to turn green and say hulk smask, hulk bash. Oh wait, instead you will get cancer and might die, and your children will die slow horrible deaths as well very young in life with tumors, cancers, etc.., as demonstrated by the Australian army in 1950s when Britain tested nuclear bombs near the Australian army. Of course the British personal were wearing lead protection for the tests.
There have been a handful of beneficial mutations as well. Each known beneficial mutation so far has been the result of a functional structure being broken. Even in this most positive scenario observed, it shows the complete opposite of evolution. Note: Creationists are not against mutations being beneficial and not breaking something in the process, it just that its never been observed.
Now Time is also an enemy to the theory of evolution. There is currently 100-200 mutations for each new generation per human. This is actually a very conservative figure, The problem here is that the mutation rate (at 100 mutations per generation per person) over time in the population is increasing lineally. While Natural Selection is doing it's best to weed out the worst negative mutation, the vast majority are invisible to natural selection. The selection threshold is very high for both Bad and Good mutations.
The problem is that all the mutations are building up and the more mutations you have the worse off you are. Currently it is estimated that the human race would be extinct in 100,000 years but that just asks that question why are we still alive now?
So Natural Selection is fighting Mutations in trying to keep the creature alive and both are working against evolution.
It's funny, you see a bird with teeth and you say "still a bird", and if you see a dinosaur with feathers you will say "still a dinosaur". What you want is every link to be filled in, ad infinitum, while ignoring the clear progression of the fossils we do have.
Are you aware that some reptiles have teeth, some do not. Some mammals have teeth, some do not. Should we be surprised that there are birds with teeth? The Archaeopteryx had fully formed flying feathers (including asymmetric vanes and ventral, reinforcing furrows as in modern flying birds), the classical elliptical wings of modern woodland birds, and a large wishbone for attachment of muscles responsible for the down stroke of the wings. It's brains was essentially that of a flying bird, with a large cerebellum and visual cortex. The fact that it had teeth is irrelevant to it's transitional status. A number of extinct birds had teeth, while many reptiles do not. Furthermore like other birds it's maxilla (upper jaw) and mandible (lower jaw) moved. In most vertebrates, including reptiles only the mandible moves. Finally Archaeopteryx skeletons had pneumatized vertebrae and pelvis, this indicates the presence of both a cervical and abdominal air sac, i.e. at least two of the five sacs present in modern birds. This inturns indicates that the unique lung design was already present in what most evolutionists claim is the earliest bird. A bird's lung is a high performance lung designed to get as much oxygen in the blood and is very different to the bellow lungs of reptiles and mammals.
I would like even just the transitional forms to be presented. [sarcasm] But if you can go even further and do "ad infinitum" with the fossil record then yes please that would be assume and would put those annoying creationists to rest[/sarcasm]. but I feel you wont be able to do that.
Gould's position was one of "punctuated equilibrium", in that species would undergo rapid evolution and then remain fairly static.
Yes, hes the one arguing now the lack of evidence is now evidence.
You mention cells later on. What does the Bible say about them?
The bible never mentions cells.
Please show me the transitional forms between the Phylum. Note: I am not talking about species here like Great Dane and chiwawas, but between the two different phylum. These are not shown in the fossil record. As talked about in above, Archaeopteryx is a fully formed and functional bird, even if it has unusal characteristics like teeth and long tail. It's uniqueness in the fossils show that there is nothing before or after it in the record. Note: there are other birds before it in the fossil record.
Why does modern man arrive so late on the scene?
Mammals and birds, being mobile (especially birds), could escape to higher ground and be the last to succumb to the great flood.
People would cling to rafts, logs etc. until the very end and
then tend to bloat and float and be scavenged by fish, with the bones
breaking down rather quickly, rather than being preserved. This would make human fossils from the Flood exceedingly rare.
Why can we find other human-like species before man came around? Why do we share so much genetic information with chimpanzees?
The best-known fossil apemen are the extinct australopithecines (the name means ‘southern ape’).
Teaching about Evolution on page 20 illustrates a series of five skulls:
However, many evolutionists disagree with this picture.
For example, Donald Johanson, the discoverer of ‘Lucy,’ places A. africanus on a side-branch not leading to man.
Anatomist Charles Oxnard performed a detailed analysis of different bones of A. africanus and concluded that it did not walk upright in the human manner and was more distinct from both humans and chimpanzees than these are from each other.
More recently, Oxnard made the following comments about the australopithecines, including ‘Lucy’:
It is now recognized widely that the australopithecines are not structurally closely similar to humans, that they must have been living at least in part in arboreal [tree] environments, and that many of the later specimens were contemporaneous [living at the same time] or almost so with the earlier members of the genus Homo.
see "C.E. Oxnard, The Order of Man (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1984)"
As for common dna with chimpanzees I will quote a website:
chimpanzees share perhaps 95 percent to 99 percent of their genes with humans Gorillas may range from 90 percent to 99 percent. But this is not as impressive as it seems at first. Even mice have 70 percent to 90 percent of their gene structure in common with humans. In 2003, one study calculated only an 86.7% similarity while another, in 2006, revealed a genetic similarity of 94%. The results of the 2006 study created a major problem for evolutionary geneticists who had previously found that the DNA of the Rhesus macaque was 93% similar to human beings. Evolutionists believe that these monkeys branched off from our supposed common ancestor about 25 million years ago while chimpanzees branched off only six million years ago. According to evolutionary theory, this would indicate that human beings diverged from chimpanzees four times faster than from Rhesus monkeys. If the assumptions of evolution were true, we should expect to see a much more significant difference in the DNA of humans and the monkeys.2 Other recent findings add further complications to the similarities in DNA as evidence of evolution. In 2005, scientists discovered that bats and horses shared a higher degree of DNA similarity than cows and horses.3 This counters the naïve view that simple DNA comparisons will indicate degree of similarity in anatomy. All of these recent studies suggest that similarity in DNA is not nearly as significant as once believed.4
The similarity of the DNA isn't a good comparison to the physiological nature of the creature. How can we be 90% mouse or 50% banana?
Are you half banana? or 90% mouse?
There's nothing wrong with it, but it is wrong to ignore the evidence which does exist, and it does not support your childish creation myth
Again please these transitional forms. (not of species but of phylum.) What turned into a bat.? what turned into a platypus? Show me a half bird half dino and not something fully bird.
Your link is full of speculations. e.g.
Another theory holds that the turbulent shores of the ancient coastal waters may have served as a mammoth laboratory
Water is toxic to the chemicals before the cell wall is up.
Scientists have not been able to cause amino acids dissolved in water to join together to form proteins. The energy-requiring chemical reactions that join amino acids are freely reversible and do not occur spontaneously in water.
Wikipedia doesn't talk about the handedness order of the proteins or how intermediate steps still destroy any chains.
RNA, like DNA, will not form outside of already living cells. This site does not describe how and which chemical formed and how it happen, it is just one big propaganda page. Show me in a lab how these chemicals can form.
I have spent too long showing the assumptions in your post, I hope you can see how you are blinded by your belief in evolution when the evidence do not support it. Think about how all the sub components are working against it, how it has never been observed by man's own eyes. Science is about having a theory and testing it out, but evolution is not testable (how do you prove dinosaurs grew wings 120 million years ago in the lab?) and the parts which can be tested actively refuse it, like Natural Selection, Mutations, Gene Duplication, etc... but I know it doesn't matter what I show you as you have chosen to believe in this and no amount of logic will stop you.
I wish you a good weekend.
Cheers
This link gives a great break down of the 2 lines. http://www.apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=6&article=932 also look at the image to see it visually.
The argument of Did God use evolution to create, well I know of a good video to watch about it.
From creation.com (warning an hour long)
The site creation.com as you can guess is my favorite site. Go on and explore that site and see what you think compared to the evidence. They even have a series of videos in the media section.
The reason evolution means God did nothing is because the belief behind evolution means everything does things on their own, and no outside interference.
Dawkins says its deluded too
Classic talk about this doesn't work with the God of the Bible.
I take Genesis to be a observational record not mythology. Noah's arc is the most stable designed for a vessel in water, it's so good that the dimensions are used by super tankers. The Arc was a super tanker.
Are you aware that the lower rib of a Human is the only bone in the body that will regrow back if it is removed proving the protected sheet around the bone isn't destroyed. The concept of God putting to sleep Adam gave the idea to the man who invented anesthesia.
Now what is unscientific about a scientist putting to sleep a man, taking a sample of his tissues and cloning him but without the Y gene. Soon Man will be able to do that.
Yet you think God who is much more advanced and made Adam (think star trek transporter beam) and so has the blueprints already is unscientific???
Also on a theological response, by making Eve from Adam, no one can say females are not humans. People would of tried that if they could.
Define the word evolved please.
- Do you mean that it is changing? Creationist believe that happens. Natural Selection, Mutations & Gene duplication attest to that.
- Do you mean it is increasing in complexity from Bacteria to something which is not a bacteria? Natural Selection, Mutations says that can't happen. Where does this magical information come from? What phenomena produces it?
The word Evolution has several different meanings and some of the meanings creationists agree with, and some others we do not. We creationist agree only that which operation science can prove. Of course once one of the bacteria changes are observed then you will say that is evolution of another type of change. That is the classic Fallacies of Ambiguity. Hence I ask what type of change are you referring too? because in the above example, they are devolving from a functional state to a less functional state. The opposite of the grand theory of evolution. (sometimes the devolving can be an advantage but it does not show evolution)
Is it wrong to point out the major holes in the evidence you proclaim to support your views, do not exist?
We are not talking about fossils inbetween species here, We are talking between 2 totally different creatures.
These things lived from 100s of millions of years, we would have millions of these fossils yet there is linking between the phylum.
As Charles himself said which is still true to this day:
Charles Darwin:
Why is not every geological formation and every stratum full of such intermediate links? Geology assuredly does not reveal any such finely-graduated organic chain; and this is the most obvious and serious objection which can be urged against the theory.
C. Darwin, Origin of Species, 6th ed. 1872 (London: John Murray, 1902), p. 413
Gould said:
The extreme rarity of transitional forms in the fossil record persists as the trade secret of paleontology.
S.J. Gould, Evolution’s Erratic Pace, Natural History 86(5):14, 1977.
Could you clearify what you mean by
Of course your ancient religious text makes no mention of this kind of "design", and includes ridiculous stories which contradict it
Of course the Bible will say that didn't happen because evolution is a made up story, it didn't happen. Operation Science says it can't happen. The fossil record doesn't say it happen despite how much you pray it does.
Where are the links between these phylum? If it is so clear to you, (but not the experts) show me the transition fossil showing the half bird half dino, half reptile half tutose (showing the ribs being inverted to match), half whale half Pakicetus.
These are basic questions and if you declare this story to be correct, then you can show it in the fossil record. Yet the record only shows fully show creatures and not transitional between the phylum.
As a basic question, tell me how did the first cell came about? Operational science in 1864 by Louis Pasteur has proven cells only come from other cells. The "simple" cell in it's extreme complexities greater than a space shuttle of anything else man has every made or designed is self evident of design so much that you will have to be willfully blind to not see it. Most atheists I know choose to still believe by faith despite the evidence in ridiculousness probabilities just to avoid the logical conclusion.
The fossils show a clear example of creation. Every kind (phylum) shows up in the fossil record perfectly without intermediates. There are no half trilobyte to bateria, fish to amphibians, amphibians to reptile, reptiles to dinosour. The 55 kinds of dinosours (out of over a 1000 species) all appear fully formed. Dinosours to Birds. Archaeopteryx is a perching bird (a strange bird with teeth but still fully a bird). Monkeys to Humans, want me to list the number of hoaxs over the years? Neanderthal Man, Peeking Man, Java Man (Now called Homo Erectus), Nebraska Man, Piltdown Man, Cro magnon man, Lucy.
If evolution is true, we would expect to see millions of transitional fossils in the record, yet we dont any linking between the major phylum.
Do you know about all the hoaxs of what I just listed above for humans? Tell me which one you came from
Cheers
Chris
Well since I am a programmer and not a geologist I cant test them, But I can point to some examples.
For example of a large deposit of coal see the south of Australia http://creation.com/coal-memorial-to-the-flood
This coal seam is 300kms by 300kms and up to 700m down. It's a vast deposit of coal which is highly unlikely if you expect a mash to sink just right.
Now the story of standard geology would say that animal after animal decided to walk into a black lake and have a swin until they drowned in massive numbers. (Where are the bones in the oil?). After that, for some strange reason the lake of oil is then covered with dirt without being washed away. The depth of these oil fields varies through out the world, some being 300ft and others 5700ft (1700meters) below the ground and the deepest going just below 12Kms. So you would need 12Kms of dirt to pile up (how many trillions/billions of years is that at current rates?) after 100 million years of dead things rotting away.
Now as far fetch as the idea of dead things turning into oil 12KMs down in the Earth, this is another possibility.
What if the oil is not made from dead things but are natural geochemistry in the ground.
Lets see if there is any other forms of naturally occurring hydrocarbons in the universe. There is methane & ethane on Titan, Uranus, Neptune, (Jupiter & Saturn I think as well).
So we know Hydrocarbons are on other planets & moons and you don't believe there were dinosaurs & plant life on Titan, Jupiter, etc... Why can't this chemistry be natural to the planet Earth as well?
Can you explain how oil is 12kms below the Earth surface? or how billions of animals would choose to die in the same place over and over and sudenly get covered up by sedimentary rock (water washed over it) ?
So Flood geology can explain some of the evidences found in the natural world. (note chemistry of where oil fields are being natural to earth isn't actually flood related, but the coal seams can be). I havn't read about of bones or tree trunks being buried in oil fields, but wouldn't millions of bones be in there? But there are many examples of tree trunks being petrified in coal indicating the coal in the vast coal seams are young i.e. buried all at once in a very rapid about of time
Reading that link you gave, it sounds like the ICR are kind of like assholes and they are struggling to understand everything.
Also the author of that article is still believing that the Grand Canyon took millions of years to form where it would of been very quickly created in weeks after the dam broke open. (Dam of water happen after the flood), Mt St Helens within 24 hours in 1980 carved a canyon 1/40th the size of the grand canyon.
Slashdot limited my replies for 24 hours so sorry for the delay.
There are 2 different and both correct genealogies of Jesus in the NT. One goes through the legal father and the other through the biological mother. Since there was a cause put on the male line Jesus could not be biologically born from the male decent, hence virgin birth. by being born as Joesph as his legal father, he gains the legal right to be a king of david, and yet still remain free of the cursed blood line.
With these concepts in view, most conservative Bible scholars assume Luke is recording Mary’s genealogy and Matthew is recording Joseph’s. Matthew is following the line of Joseph (Jesus’ legal father), through David’s son Solomon, while Luke is following the line of Mary (Jesus’ blood relative), though David’s son Nathan. There was no Greek word for “son-in-law,” and Joseph would have been considered a son of Heli through marrying Heli's daughter Mary. Through either line, Jesus is a descendant of David and therefore eligible to be the Messiah. Tracing a genealogy through the mother’s side is unusual, but so was the virgin birth. Luke’s explanation is that Jesus was the son of Joseph, “so it was thought” (Luke 3:23).
As for the complexity and master piece involved in the genology in Mathews (written by a fisherman) see this video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=flbaJfRwYxM and part 2
Side Note: Chuck Missler is the reason why I am a YEC. He shows with his videos and radio shows the extreme complexities in the bible and the how it is a master piece.
That verse could equally be talking about "God created the heavens and the earth" vs "God didn't".
That is exactly what creation vs evolution is about. God vs No God. There is no need to believe in God if you believe God did nothing. It's all 1 big package.
the good news is that Jesus came to earth, died for our sins to take the punishment of sin, and rose again on the 3rd day. If you say God didn't create everything and death happen before man got cursed then the payment of sin by Jesus is meaningless. Death is the punishment of sin. Because of sin, death came to our world. Therefor there had to of been no death before otherwise Jesus paid for something he did not had too. Genesis is a foundation of the bible, otherwise there is no context for the events that happen in history.
Cheers
Chris
Unless somehow the speed of light is magnitudes different at that part of the universe AND the other measurement methods are wrong
The distance is not in question. Again the time passes differently depending where you are. This exposition could of well of happen 169,000 years ago over there. That is not an issue when the time passed at different speeds according to the how deep in the well you are (where earth is the last out of the well).
The simulation comment is missing the point, that could be analogy to God's perspective sinces hes outside of time altogether, but this is irrelevant. We are talking about time from Earth's point. So a super nova going off 169,000 years ago would of happen on day 4 on earth while earth was still frozen in time because it was still in the white hole (black hole of the universe being stretch out).
There is not much point trying to figure out how old the universe is from the perspective of outside the universe.
I agree, this scenerio isn't that though.
FWIW I'm a Christian and in my opinion Christians who get too obsessed with creationism are actually getting close to heresy.
I take the opposite view, Christians who roll over and let people contradict the bible based purely on philosophical grounds are not doing their duty to spread the message of the gospel. Christains who agree with evolution (and big bang) are actually false teachers and God hates them, will be judge. (still saved but they wont be a happy according to judgment)
To be a Christian, believing and following Jesus is core/mandatory.
Then why not believe what he says. He gives his genology all the way back to Adam in Genesis. Hes either 100% correct and God created Adam or hes a lier so why follow him. This is why I am passionate about creationism. By rejecting Genesis, you and start to throw away any book in the bible.
As in II Peter 3: 3-5
3 Knowing this first, that there shall come in the last days scoffers, walking after their own lusts, 4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation. 5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water: 6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished
This talks about the creation vs evolution debate in our current times.
Therefore creationism (and many of the other things Christians foolishly fixate on) is not core. So any Christian claiming that it's a mandatory/core part of Christianity, would be spreading heresy. And distracting people from the things Jesus cared/taught about.
Although it's not a "core" of christianity, you will have to be schizophrenic to believe old ages and the bible at the same time. Why follow Jesus if Adam wasn't real. The genology in Mathew is incredibly complex. I'll try to find a link about it's detail
Cheers
Chris.
The funnel shape fibre optic cable helps to filter the light bounding in the back of the eye, to quote the book "refuting evolution 2" which i have infront of me (no1 is better imo) on page 118:
One reason is that the images can be distorted by light "noise" i.e. light that is reflected several times within the eye instead of coming directly through the pupil. But the Muller cells transmit the direct light strongly to the rods and cones, while the noise leaks out. This makes the images sharper.
It then goes on to talk about how chromatic aberrations, which is the different colors splitting apart because of the lens of the eye and how the muller cells wide tops allow them to collect any separated colors and refocus them ensuring the colors are in focus. Apparently expensive cameras have multiple lens to help correct this
Cheers
Chris.
Thus spake the master programmer: "After three days without programming, life becomes meaningless." -- Geoffrey James, "The Tao of Programming"
.jpg){kind=link}