Blackwater (Xe Services) Blackwater's Secret War in Pakistan
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]:
"Blackwater Hard at Work Stealing Your Tax
Dollars and Murdering for Hire."
Aner, they help to rid the world of bad guys. I hope you recognize
that. They are paid well because their expertise is valuable.
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "An unnamed source says
Blackwater is assassinating people in Pakistan, and Backwater and the military
deny it."
These men are highly skilled and they do a fine job in extremely hazardous
conditions. Liberals (who aren't liberal at all) love to critic them at
every turn.
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "How is it stealing if they are
doing a job."
They are paid well--as they should be. Why do liberals have a problem
with other people making money? It's called covetousness
(Eze 33:31; 2Pe 2:14).
And it's outrageous to call them murderers ("Blackwater Hard at Work Stealing
Your Tax Dollars and Murdering for Hire [Aner].").
"I got paid while working for the military, too."
Outrageous
Our navy seals are considered criminals because they
punched a guy in the nose (who deserved it)! The victims of 9-11 are being
called the real criminals because of US policy--they deserved to die. The
terrorists are now the good guys and the innocent are now the bad guys in our
upside down world! (Isa 5:20).
Thank you for your service, Doc'J.
"You think the guy didn't put up a little bit of a fight when he was
captured? Anyone who thinks that is a complete and utter moron... like the
morons running our military now! [Quote: Resistance to tyrants is
obedience to God." - Thomas Jefferson]."
They are morons. Would you recommend that
men reenlist? You have to be able to trust your Commander in Chief.
Remember that civilian police are supposed to use lethal force only as a last
resort and they also have to deal with issues of due process. Blackwater
operatives are not so hobbled."
I bet that the Obama administration will hobble them
soon enough. The men aren't stupid. The will stop signing up for the
job if they will not be supported legally for their actions. Look what our
own government is doing to the Navy Seals.
[The men aren't stupid.] "[T]hey're mercenaries. Wave enough Long
Green™ under their noses and they'll shoot whoever you tell them to shoot"
Oh please. They aren't perfect but they are fine
people. There is no reason to think of them that way.
Comment [from a Christian]: ["Aner just doesn't like it that Blackwater
rolled into a busy city street and decided to murder 17 innocent Iraqis with
Ak's and RPGs."] Was that in retaliation for the Blackwater bodyguards
that were burned alive, dismembered, and then hung from a bridge in Fallujah in
2004?
Response to comment from a Christian]: "Blackwater didn't murder
anybody. I thought others would notice the sarcasm, as it was laid on pretty
thick. When you are shooting back, you are defending yourself."
Of course. I think we need to give these men the
benefit of the doubt.
Response to comment [from a pagan]: "Yes, I would recommend that they
re-enlist and my Commander in Chief is doing what he can...none of us are
perfect!"
I asked this question of a military member because I respect his opinion.
I wouldn't go to battle under Obama's leadership.
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "No. You have no idea how many
of my buddies quit under Clinton. Of course, a few never got the chance..."
You confirmed my suspicions. I'm so sorry.
I am concerned for our men and women in Iraq and Afghanistan now--Afghanistan
of all places.
Response to comment [from a pagan]: "So if you where a professional in
the military you would get out when ever the commander and chief changed and you
didn't agree on his general policy?"
I would not sign my name on dotted line under the
leadership of Obama, no. I wouldn't trust him to run a lemonade stand.
"It's time to...[finish] the damn thing and come home with our head held high
and not tucked between our legs."
Obama dithers. If you fight a war, you fight it
to win. History has shown armies that are able to move swiftly remain in
control. He is unfit to lead.
Response to comment [from a pagan]: "I don't think you would sign your
name on any dotted line that would require you to stand and fight."
You have the faulty thinking of a pagan and you
don't know me or my fighting experience. It's a foolish comment.
"You want to choke on a leader, try the one that takes a hit on 9-11 from Al
Qaida (in Afghanistan) and wants to send the majority of his armed forces into
the neighboring country?"
You'll need to go back further and recall what lead to
9-11. Bill Clinton took his eye off the ball keeping our country safe.
He had other things on his mind (e.g. Monica Lewinsky scandal). His wife
hates the military. She would not allow uniforms to be worn near her.
The Clinton's did their best to weaken the military (as Obama is repeating all
over again). Bush sent forces in where they were most needed. Who is
Monday morning quarterbacking? You do not have access to the intelligence
that George Bush had. Would you prefer to reopen the Ude Hussein rape
rooms?
"What are your leadership credentials? I mean besides being an armchair
quarterback on Sunday."
Ad hominem. How many years of leadership
experience must one have to know that it is the Commander in Chief's primary
responsibility to secure the nation and the boarder? Nowhere in the
Constitution is he directed to provide healthcare.
Response to comment [from a Christian]: "...for Pete's sake take off
your political blinders and stop the kneejerk reactions."
I'd rather have blinders that are right leaning (Eccl
10:2). The faulty thinking (e.g. evolution, etc.) comes from the left.
You would realize that if you believed the Bible. As a reminder, the
theistic evolutionist who calls the creationist a fool has no basis for such a
claim--they are rather Greek in their thinking (1 Cor 1:23). The apostle
Paul had to explain that men are "one blood" to your type (Ac 17:26). Your
new "enlightened view" is the same view as ancient Greece.
God's account of creation is consistent with the fossil
record. "Survival of the fittest" would make God cruel when God is
actually compassionate. The naturalistic view is merciless. Yet, you
claim to believe that God is loving.
Somehow that all works out in your leftist brain.
Response to comment [from a pagan]: "[Navy Seals] when it comes to
being good or bad....some are and some aren't."
How about we stop second-guessing the Navy Seals?
If one happens to punch a guy in the nose who deserves it--so what.
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "Science doesn't have a
political ideology."
Naive.
See:
War of Worldviews
[Evolution] "It may seem cruel, but then again, so
does flooding the entire earth."
You root for the wicked? (Ge 6:5).
"God is merciful. Man is at his better moments."
When you do not believe the Bible, you have no basis for
moral judgment:
"While many evolutionists cry out
that a loving God is inconsistent with this world of
cruelty we inhabit, they conveniently overlook other
things. For example, how does evolution explain mercy,
charity, and caring? If evolution is true, the driving
force of nature is “survival of the fittest.” Those less
able to compete are destined to die. Any attempt to
rescue these “less competitive” people would be to work
against the most fundamental force of nature. The
existence of doctors, hospitals, charitable
organizations, and even a police force is contrary to
raw evolutionary forces.
The evolutionist has no basis for moral judgments. If
man is just the result of millions of years of
evolution, our behavior is based on random chemical
reactions. There is no ultimate moral code. All morality
is relative. So if a person needs money, why is it wrong
to rob someone? According to evolution, the stronger
person should succeed. Might makes right. So, in the
evolutionary view, such violence is a natural, and
necessary, part of the world.
Those who have a worldview
based on the Bible have a consistent basis for acts of
kindness, charity, or caring. We are commanded in
Scripture to love our neighbors as ourselves, to perform
acts of mercy, and to care for the widows and orphans.
If we take evolution to its logical conclusion, we will
conclude that these widows and orphans should die
because they are a drain on the resources of nature.
Only Bible-believers ultimately
offer the world a basis to make moral judgments. Those
who reject the Bible have no basis for morality."
Full text: Where Do Caring and Mercy Come From?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-does-creation-include-suffering
"God stands above nature. What about that is giving
you difficulty?"
A disinterested God? That
is not the God of scripture:
"In John 9 Jesus addressed the
issue of personal suffering. When His disciples assumed
that a man’s blindness was the result of the man’s sin,
Jesus answered, “Neither this man nor his parents
sinned, but that the works of God should be revealed in
him” (John 9:3). Jesus did not consider the man’s
suffering to be wasted or capricious, because God would
be glorified in the man’s life.
The book of Job tells the history of a righteous man who
pleased God but nevertheless suffered the loss of his
wealth, his ten children, and his health. His friends
were sure his sufferings represented judgment for some
secret sins, but God denied this accusation. Many people
have taken comfort simply in knowing that their personal
tragedies did not necessarily represent personal
judgments.
Jesus demonstrated that His love for us is not
incompatible with personal suffering when Lazarus was
sick and about to die. “When Jesus heard that, He said,
‘This sickness is not unto death, but for the glory of
God, that the Son of God may be glorified through it.’
Now Jesus loved Martha and her sister and Lazarus” (John
11:4–5).
Jesus clearly loved Lazarus and his grieving family, but
He was able to see a purpose to suffering that they
could not see. Christ clearly revealed to them that He
had power over death (by raising Lazarus from the dead),
even prior to His crucifixion and resurrection.
Jesus commented on the purpose of tragedy after the
tower of Siloam collapsed, killing eighteen people. “Or
those eighteen on whom the tower in Siloam fell and
killed them, do you think that they were worse sinners
than all other men who dwelt in Jerusalem? I tell you,
no; but unless you repent you will all likewise perish”
(Luke 13:4–5).
These examples show that it is not necessarily an
individual’s sin that leads to suffering, but sin in
general already has. God may use suffering as a reminder
that sin has consequences—and perhaps for other purposes
we do not fully investigate in this chapter. But the
presence of suffering does not mean God does not love
us. Quite the opposite—Christ came and suffered with us
and took that punishment when He didn’t have to.
In times of suffering, Christians honor the Lord by
trusting Him and knowing that He loves them and has a
purpose for their lives. The presence of suffering in
the world should remind us all that we are sinners in a
sin-cursed world and also prompt us to tell others about
the salvation available in Christ—after all, that would
be the loving thing to do. We can tell people the truth
of how they, too, can be saved from this sin-cursed
world and live eternally with a perfect and good God.
For our light affliction, which is but for a moment, is
working for us a far more exceeding and eternal weight
of glory, while we do not look at the things which are
seen, but at the things which are not seen. For the
things which are seen are temporary, but the things
which are not seen are eternal (2 Corinthians 4:17–18)."
Full text: What about Individual Suffering?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-does-creation-include-suffering
"Nature is not God. God is not nature."
The God of the Bible is active and present in the life of
the believer. God's word is trustworthy.
Response to comment [from a pagan]: "And you think any President could
prevent terrorist/guerrilla attacks on any thing?"
I think strong leadership matters--and so do the
terrorists--which is why in the Iran hostage crisis (1981) the terrorists
released the hostages minutes after Ronald Reagan was sworn into office (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_hostage_crisis).
Terrorists respect strength not impotence (e.g. Jimmy Carter).
[Clinton administration weakening of military] "I know you will not show
any proof of this statement, hell you don't answer 80% of the direct questions
asked of you."
Clinton was a bit preoccupied during the Monica Lewinsky
scandal. I mentioned that earlier. He was more concerned hiding his
adulterous affair than he was ensuring the safety of our nation. Military
funding was also severely cut back during his administration.
Bill Clinton:
•Reduce the size of the force to levels below those
necessary to meet U.S. security commitments
•Weaken the combat readiness of the force
•Relinquish America's lead in military technology Another option would be to
maintain force size and readiness at the expense of modernization (http://www.heritage.org/research/nationalsecurity/em467.cfm).
"And you think the President shouldn't be concerned about those that do not have
health care? How Christian and compassionate of you!"
And theft is ok with you? Ex
20:3-17. How compassionate of you. You are nicer than God.
Government does not have money that it does not first take from someone else.
The left has a hard time understanding this.
"So you feel the President should only involve himself in problems or projects
that are directly from the Constitution? Are you for real?"
No. I think the President of the United States of
America should provide a BMW to every American. It's written in the
"living and breathing Constitution" (that's what the left calls a document that
they hate). Each American should be guaranteed a house, 2.2 dogs (kill the
children) and a white picket fence.
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "If AiG told you that sun rises
in the South would you believe it? Science is politically neutral."
Data is neutral. Interpretation of that data is
motivated by one's worldview. Have you paid attention to the global
warming (political) science in the news lately? I quote Ken Ham because I
know how you love him so.
"As for the lame attempt to try and turn evolutionary theory into some kind of
humanistic philosophy that is equally moronic."
Humanistic philosophy is exactly what you believe in.
Your theistic evolutionary belief comes from man not God. Theistic
evolution and the Bible cannot both be true.
Your view is ancient. It was wrong then and it is
wrong today.
"Evolution in Ancient Times...
...[I]n Acts 17, Paul was preaching to Greek philosophers.
In their culture, they did not have any understanding of the God of creation as
the Jews understood. They believed in many gods, and that the gods, like humans,
had evolved. The Epicureans, for instance, believed man evolved from the dirt
(in fact, they were the atheists of the age).
The Greeks had no understanding of sin or what was necessary to atone for sin.
God’s Word to the Jews had no credibility in this evolution-based culture. Thus
when Paul preached the same basic message Peter gave in Acts 2, the Greeks did
not understand—it was “foolishness” to them.
As you read on in Acts 17, it’s fascinating to see what Paul tried to do in
reaching the Greeks with the gospel. He talked to them about the “unknown God”
(referred to on one of the Greek altars) and proceeded to define the true God of
creation to them.
Paul also explained that all people were of “one blood” (from one man, Adam),
thus laying the foundational history necessary to understand the meaning of the
first man Adam’s sin and the need for salvation for all of us as Adam’s
descendants. 3 He countered their evolutionary beliefs, thus challenging their
entire way of thinking in a very foundational way.
Having done this, Paul then again preached the message of Christ and the
Resurrection. Although some continued to sneer, others were interested to hear
more (their hearts were opened) and some were converted to Christ.
Even though Paul didn’t see 3,000 people saved as Peter did, Paul was
nonetheless very successful (from a human perspective, knowing it is God who
opens people’s hearts to the truth, as 1 Corinthians 2:14 teaches).
Think about what he had to do: Paul had to first change “Greeks” into “Jews.”
In other words, he had to take pagan, evolutionist Greeks and change their whole
way of thinking about life and the universe, and then get them to think like
Jews concerning the true foundation of history recorded in Genesis.
No wonder only a few were converted at first. Such a change is a dramatic one.
Imagine, for example, trying to change an Aborigine from my homeland into an
American in regard to his whole way of thinking? Such a change would be
extremely difficult, to say the least." Full text: Evolution in Ancient
Times
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/how-use-information-to-witness
"Gravity is not part of out ethical system."
Gravity is given by God. When you jump off a
building :p, you are obeying God's laws of nature. He holds this universe
together by his word (Heb 1:3).
[The evolutionist has no basis for moral judgments. If man
is just the result of millions of years of evolution, our behavior is based on
random chemical reactions.] "Nonsense. If that were the case human
behaviour would be completely, mechanically predictable. I don't know of anyone
who believes that."
The theistic evolutionist throws God in at some point.
How gracious--believing some of what God has to say. Theistic
evolution is nonsense--that is my point. This is why you should believe
the Bible (especially if you claim to be a Christian). God's account of
literal six-day creation makes the most sense if you are willing to believe the
Bible and take a look at the evidence.
"Violence is part of the natural world."
Again, violence entered the world after the fall. If
you believe that God calls: death, disease, suffering and violence "very
good" (Ge 1:31), then God is not good at all. The fossil record agrees
with the Bible.
"Fossils...
...Since dinosaurs, as far as we know, are extinct,
dinosaur fossils are the only things scientists can study. Dinosaur fossil
remains have been found on every continent on earth. Robert Plot described one
of the first dinosaur bones in his book Natural History of Oxford in 1676. The
bone he found has been lost, but it was thought to have been part of a thigh
bone of Megalosaurus.
One of the first complete fossilized dinosaur skeletons ever found was an
Iguanodon. Over 30 individual Iguanodon skeletons were discovered in a Belgium
coal mine in 1878.
One of the first complete skeletons ever assembled for display was a Hadrosaurus.
It was discovered in 1850 in Haddonfield, New Jersey, and is still on display at
the Academy of Natural Sciences in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.
Since scientists study only the fossils of dinosaurs (not living specimens), and
since fossils are the bones of dead things, Christians can use dinosaurs to
explain the origin of death. After God created all things, including dinosaurs,
He called His creation “very good” (Genesis 1:31). Death was not part of the
world until Adam disobeyed God’s command not to eat of the Tree of the Knowledge
of Good and Evil. Once Adam disobeyed, God cursed all of creation (Genesis
3:14–19). Romans 8:22 tell us, “For we know that the whole creation groans and
labors with birth pangs together until now.” Creation now groans under the
Curse, and death affects everything in creation.
The Flood and the Ice Age...
...Christians can also use dinosaurs to discuss the global
Flood that occurred in Noah’s day.
The global Flood may have been one of the reasons dinosaurs went extinct. Before
the Flood, dinosaurs freely roamed the earth. But due to man’s wickedness, God
sent a global Flood that destroyed all life that was not inside the Ark. During
the Flood, many of these animals and humans were buried in sediment that later
hardened, thus giving us many of the fossils scientists study today.
We also need to remember that dinosaurs were on the Ark. The Bible tells us in
Genesis 6:19 and Genesis 7:2–9 that two of every land-dwelling, air-breathing
animal (and seven of some) were on the Ark with Noah, his wife, his sons, and
their wives. So, what happened to these mighty dinosaurs?
After the Flood, these dinosaurs probably went extinct for a vareity of reasons,
just as animals become extinct today. The Flood greatly changed the earth’s
habitat, and it may have changed it so much that many of the dinosaurs could not
successfully survive the harsher environment. The post-Flood Ice Age also
probably contributed to their demise.
Some of the dinosaurs that survived for a while after the Ice Age likely were
referred to as “dragons.” Most of these eventually died out or were killed.
Other reasons for their extinction could be starvation, disease, and hunting
pressure." Full text: Fossils, The Flood and the Ice Age
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/spread-gospel-with-dinosaurs
"Using AiG like this is like using a lifeline on Who Wants To Be A Millionaire
to call the slow kid in the back of the room who smelled like feet and ate
paste."
I know how you love to believe lies. Ken Ham
experienced the same resistance to the truth in Australia.
"...[T]oday in Australia, saying a prayer during a school
assembly or sharing Bible “stories” to start the school day are unheard of. In
addition, evolution is also taught as “fact” throughout the education system...
...The last two generations in Australia have had little
or no knowledge of the Bible. By and large they have been thoroughly
indoctrinated in an atheistic, evolutionary philosophy. Children don’t
automatically go to Sunday school or church programs as they used to. Ministers
of religion are finding it more and more difficult to conduct programs in
schools. And sadly, most church leaders tell their congregations that it’s fine
to believe in millions of years and/or evolutionary ideas, as long as God is
somehow involved.
After years of subtle indoctrination and with an increasing emphasis on
rejecting a literal Genesis, Australians basically reject the credibility of the
Genesis history, and thus they doubt the reliability of the rest of the Bible.
Whether it’s Australia, America, Great Britain or elsewhere, Western societies
are no longer made up mainly of “Jews” but are more like the pagan Greeks:
increasingly anti-Christian, and holding to a predominantly atheistic,
evolutionary secular philosophy.
Indeed, they are probably even worse than Paul’s opponents 2,000 years ago. The
Greeks at least asked to hear him out; today many secularists try to suppress
Christian teachings. In our modern time, there is a remnant of “Jews” who still
have an understanding of Christian terminology, but this group is quickly
becoming a smaller and smaller minority.
Today’s “Greeks” do not have the foundational knowledge to fully understand the
gospel. They have been led to believe that the Bible is not a credible book; its
history in Genesis (creation in six days and a global Flood) is not seen to be
true because so many people have been indoctrinated to believe in millions of
years and evolution. Thus when an evangelist today preaches the message of the
Cross, like the Greeks in Acts 17, it is foolishness to them." Biblical
Illiteracy
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/how-use-information-to-witness
"ToE doesn't make it any less trustworthy nor does it make His presence any less
real in the hearts of His children. You should stop taking AiG's pap and cut
your teeth on some real science if you want to learn about this world."
You claim to be a Christian. Why do you believe
man's opinion over God's word? Empirical data is neutral. The
interpretation of that data makes a worldview. Yours is not
biblical.
[Interpretation of that data is motivated by one's worldview. "Not
necessarily. People aren't slaves to their beliefs."
Believing the truth is not a chore. It is a joy (Jn
8:32).
[Humanistic philosophy is exactly what you believe in. "How would you know
what I believe?"
Theistic evolution is not biblical. It's is man's
opinion.
"ToE comes from observing the world, which is itself a testament of God.
My faith in God is from Him."
A Christian is called to believe the word of God (Jn 5:47)
in addition to understanding the obvious external evidence for him (Ps 19:1).
[Theistic evolution and the Bible cannot both be true.] "Yes, they can."
Leftists never like to think through issues.
Theistic evolution and the Bible are mutually exclusive.
1.The Bible clearly teaches that God created in six
literal, 24-hour days a few thousand years ago.
2.The context of Genesis 1 clearly shows that the days of creation were literal
days.
3.The genealogies of Genesis 5 and 11 make it clear that the creation days
happened only about 6,000 years ago.
4.Exodus 20:9–11 blocks all attempts to fit millions of years into Genesis 1.
5.Noah’s Flood washes away millions of years.
6.Jesus was a young-earth creationist.
7.Belief in millions of years undermines the Bible’s teaching on death and on
the character of God.
8.The idea of millions of years did not come from the scientific facts.
Why Shouldn’t Christians Accept Millions of Years?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/why-christians-shouldnt-accept-millions
"Evolution is not atheism."
True, but (macro) evolution is unbiblical.
"'One blood' is very much in line with ToE."
“Although racism did not begin with Darwinism, Darwin did
more than any person to popularize it.”
See:
Darwin's Plantation: Evolution's Racist Roots
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/dp
"[Y]our reluctance to abandon this primitive and laughable superstition of
special creation."
Of course we are special. Man was made for God (Pr
16:4; Re 4:11) in his image (Ge 1:26,27; 1Co 11:7) and for his purposes (Ge
2:5,7). Special-creation makes sense and it is what we observe in
science.
"Evolution is given by God."
Micro not macro. "Molecules to man/pond scum to
people" evolution is impossible.
"When a species changes over time in response to pressure from its environment
and competition it is obeying God's laws of nature."
"Not even one mutation has been
observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..."
Full text:
Is There Really a God?
"I am as unimpressed now as the first time."
Your being impressed or not does not make truth any less
true.
"You haven't looked at the evidence..."
Every child in the U.S. is indoctrinated with the theory
of evolution and "millions of years". When people explore both sides of
the issue, I believe that they will see the creation account as given in Genesis
is true.
"...just AiG's distortion of the evidence."
Maybe someday you will agree with young earth creation.
"...try and squeeze it into something that just can't explain it."
There are many fine young earth creation sites.
Their explanations make far more sense if people are willing to take a look at
the evidence.
"You deny that people are tested under the fire of suffering and temptation?"
No. I agree that God can use suffering for good
purposes (Gal. 3:4).
"Perhaps I should submit your name to that fool thread?"
Everyone hates that list around here. I care less about you believing in
young earth creation than you believing in Jesus as the Son of God, which you
say you do. Choleric has nice words to say about you so
I won't argue.
"...the nature of the fossil record"
Evidence for a global flood and the fossil record argue
for young earth creation.
See:
In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood
The Fossil Record
http://www.answersingenesis.org/get-answers/topic/fossils
"Science is not about teaching morality. It is about explaining nature."
Agreed. But people use science to promote their
worldview.
"If a scientist made his case for ToE with such shoddy information and research
he would rightly be a complete laughingstock. What makes you think you should
get a special pass?"
I don't think that any young earth creationist claims to
know everything. But they do know that God created man and the Bible is
true. It's ok to start with God's account as given in Genesis and explain
the natural word from that point. Otherwise, science is god--God is not
God. Young earth creationists change their theories with new information
just as any other scientist.
See:
Can creationists be “real” scientists?
[I know how you love to believe lies.] "I know how you like to have sex
with small furry animals."
How Granitesk of you.
"I just don't believe your personal interpretation of scripture over the
testimony of science on material things."
Truth is truth independent of me.
"A worldview is not just a reaction to empirical data."
There is more to it, no doubt (Jn 3:19).
"YEC is not biblical."
If a person reads the book of Genesis as it should be
read, a six-day creation makes the most sense. To attempt to spiritualize
the book is to do it a disservice.
See:
Hierarchy of Hermeneutics
[Believing the truth is not a chore. It is a joy (Jn 8:32).] "Then why are
you squeezing your eyes shut so hard?"
If we believe man's opinion over God's word, we will be
easily deceived (Col 2:4).
"YEC is not biblical."
Jesus was (and is) a young earth creationist (Jn 5:47).
He is not going to contradict himself (Heb. 11:3).
"An earth that is billions of years old is the conclusion of multiple,
converging lines of evidence from many different fields."
Everyone in the world may agree with you but that does not
make your position true. God's view is correct (Ge 1:1). He created
the world and told us about it.
"Just saying it isn't so doesn't prove anything other than that you have a weak
brain and no real interest in facts."
A weak brain does not believe God (Pr
18:2).
"...[J]ust saying that Genesis obviously shows a young earth doesn't mean
anything unless you can actually back it up?"
Reading Genesis as it is is all of the backup one needs
(Jn 5:47).
"There is no such thing as macro/micro evolution. It's all just evolution...If
evolution can happen at all there is nothing to stop those changes from
accumulating."
A mouse changing its coat color is quite different from
molecules to man evolution.
"Even if racists used Darwin's ideas to justify their racism that doesn't make
them any less true."
It demonstrates faulty thinking.
"Not even one mutation has been observed that adds a little information to the
genome [Ibid., 159–160]..." Full text: Is There Really a God?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...od#fnList_1_20] "That's just plain
false. You've been called on that before, but you keep bringing it up."
The fact remains: "Not even one mutation has been
observed that adds a little information to the genome [Ibid., 159–160]..."
Full text: Is There Really a God?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/arti...od#fnList_1_20]
"The truth of an old earth and the evolution of life stand on their own
scientific merits..."
The ancient Greeks were wrong and those who still believe
their view are wrong. God can be believed in his word. The world
really was created in six literal days. There really was a worldwide
flood. Men really can respect God for destroying the wicked. He did
it then by water (Gen. 6–8). He will do it again
by fire (2 Pe 3:10). Getting in the boat then was a good idea.
Getting in Christ today is still a good idea.
"Nobody would look at the fossil record without previous bias and see it as the
result of one catastrophic event..."
God gave science. He gave an account of creation.
What scientists observe in nature confirms it.
"The logical contortions and scientific gymnastics that YECers attempt in order
to make their case are plainly absurd and plainly go well beyond the evidence
itself-- relying entirely on the strength of their presuppositions."
People can read the Bible a thousand times and still learn
something new. Scientists can observe the natural world and still learn
something new. Young earth creationists must theorize like the secular
scientist. They just happen to believe the Bible.
"The evidence of geology, our knowledge of physics, astronomy, biology, and even
chemistry all point to an old earth."
Again, empirical data is the same. It is the
interpretation of that data which creates a worldview. Evolution and
"millions of years"--man's view. Creation and a young earth--God's view.
"...for those of who believe in a world beyond this one, an eternal reality,
that is where faith and God's Word come into play."
Either we believe the Bible or we don't. Having
faith in evolution and millions of years is still faith--it is just misplaced
faith because it is incorrect (Jn 5:47).
"Just responding in kind. I don't like being told what I like to do or
believe."
I know.
I am referring to theistic evolutionists in general. I realize that people
think all kinds of different things.
"[D]on't tell me how to read scripture. Particularly if your recommended
methodology involves a lobotomy."
I'm not sure how you understand scripture. My
point is, if we allegorize, spiritualize or explain Genesis away, we run into
trouble:
"G. H. Pember’s struggle with long geologic ages,
recounted in Earth’s Earliest Ages, has been the struggle of many Christians
ever since the idea of millions of years for the fossil record became popular in
the early nineteenth century. Many respected Christian leaders of today wrestle
with this same issue.
Reading Pember’s struggle helps us understand the implications of the gap
theory. Pember, like today’s conservative Christians, defended the authority of
Scripture. He was adamant that one had to start from Scripture alone and not
bring preconceived ideas to Scripture. He boldly chastened people who came to
the Bible “filled with myths, philosophies, and prejudices, which they could not
altogether throw off, but retained, in part at least, and mingled—quite
unwillingly, perhaps—with the truth of God” (p. 5). He describes how the church
is weakened when man’s philosophies are used to interpret God’s Word: “For, by
skillfully blending their own systems with the truths of Scripture, they so
bewildered the minds of the multitude that but few retained the power of
distinguishing the revelation of God from the craftily interwoven teachings of
men” (p. 7). He also said, “And the result is that inconsistent and unsound
interpretations have been handed down from generation to generation, and
received as if they were integral parts of the Scriptures themselves; while any
texts which seemed violently opposed were allegorized, spiritualized, or
explained away, till they ceased to be troublesome, or perchance, were even made
subservient” (p. 8).
He then warns Christians, “For, if we be observant and honest, we must often
ourselves feel the difficulty of approaching the sacred writings without bias,
seeing that we bring with us a number of stereotyped ideas, which we have
received as absolutely certain, and never think of testing, but only seek to
confirm” (p. 8).
What happened to Pember should warn us that no matter how great a theologian we
may be or how respected and knowledgeable a Christian leader, we, as finite,
sinful human beings, cannot easily empty ourselves of preconceived ideas. Pember
did exactly what he preached against, without realizing it. Such is the
ingrained nature of the long-ages issue. He did not want to question Scripture
(he accepted the six literal days of creation), but he did not question the long
ages, either. So Pember struggled with what to do. Many of today’s respected
Christian leaders show the same struggle in their commentaries as they then
capitulate to progressive creation or even theistic evolution.11
Pember said, “For, as the fossil remains clearly show not only were disease and
death—inseparable companions of sin—then prevalent among the living creatures of
the earth, but even ferocity and slaughter.” He, therefore, recognized that a
fossil record of death, decay, and disease before sin was totally inconsistent
with the Bible’s teaching. And he understood that there could be no carnivores
before sin: “On the Sixth Day God pronounced every thing which He had made to be
very good, a declaration which would seem altogether inconsistent with the
present condition of the animal as well as the vegetable kingdom. Again: He gave
the green herb alone for food ‘to every beast of the field, and to every fowl of
the air, and to every thing that creepeth upon the earth.’ There were,
therefore, no carnivora in the sinless world” (p. 35).
Pember taught from Isaiah that the earth will be restored to what it was like at
first—no more death, disease, or carnivorous activity. However, because he had
accepted the long ages for the fossil record, what was he to do with all this
death, disease, and destruction in the record? He responded, “Since, then, the
fossil remains are those of creatures anterior to Adam, and yet show evident
tokens of disease, death, and mutual destruction, they must have belonged to
another world, and have a sin-stained history of their own” (p. 35).
Thus, in trying to reconcile the long ages with Scripture, Pember justified the
gap theory by saying, “There is room for any length of time between the first
and second verses of the Bible. And again; since we have no inspired account of
geological formations, we are at liberty to believe that they were developed
just in the order which we find them. The whole process took place in pre-Adamite
times, in connection, perhaps, with another race of beings, and, consequently,
does not at present concern us” (p. 28).
With this background, let us consider this gap theory in detail. Basically, this
theory incorporates three strands of thought:
1.A literal view of Genesis.
2.Belief in an extremely long but unidentified age for the earth.
3.An obligation to fit the origin of most of the geologic strata and other
geologic evidence between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2. (Gap theorists oppose evolution
but believe in an ancient origin of the universe...)" Full text: A
Testimony of Struggle What About the Gap & Ruin-Reconstruction Theories?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/gap-ruin-reconstruction-theories
"[T]o attempt to tie it to bad science is a disservice. One which is doomed
to backfire. The facts of evolution and an old earth are becoming increasingly
hard to deny and your attempts to do so call into question the validity of
Christianity in a great many minds."
Evidence unfolds for young earth creation all of the
time. Young earth creationists are confidence that they have the truth on
their side (Ro 1:16).
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "There is nothing in
scripture to indicate that Christ intended for His Word to be taken as a science
text. Nothing. You are interpreting."
The Bible is not a science book but is scientifically
accurate. Are you suggesting it is inaccurate?
"God's Word is not trivial. It is not about material things."
The creation account is not trivial. That is why
God gave it. That is why Satan undermines it. What is so difficult
to understand when reading the book of Genesis? It is probably the most
concise and straight forward book ever written.
[A mouse changing its coat color is quite different from molecules to man
evolution.] "No it isn't."
Creation scientists do not argue against micro
evolution. They argue against macro evolution. And yes, there is a
big difference. The mantis shrimp, the giraffe, the duck-billed platypus,
the woodpecker, etc.--these creatures did not "evolve". They were created.
This should be obvious with just a little research. Not to mention, the
fossil record does not contain transitional forms as evolutionists would expect
to find. Evolutionists have zero proof--nice theory--but no proof.
You would think after unearthing thousands of fossils, you would find at least
one transitional form. In all this time how many have scientists
found?--three?, two?, one?--no--zero.
[Creation and a young earth--God's view.] "So you're speaking for God
now?"
Where I quote scripture, I speak with all authority.
Jesus was a creationist (Jn 5:47). The apostle Paul was a creationist (Ro
5:12). I am in good company.
Response to comment [from a pagan]: [Navy Seals] "When it comes to
being good or bad...some are and some aren't"...Fact!"
I'm going to trust a Navy Seal before a pagan (but
that's just me).
Response to comment [from a pagan]: "You have any idea how many Seals
are pagans?"
You won't find too many Navy Seal pagans. Again,
this is what we call snot-nosed little brats when they misbehave: "You
pagan, heathen." (Greg Koukl) Yet, you willingly identify yourself as
such. That's just funny.
To each his own.
Response to comment [from a "Christian"]: "I am saying, not suggesting,
that it was never meant to be a scientific description of the world..."
The book of Genesis explains our origins (Ge 1-3).
[Jesus was a creationist (Jn 5:47). The apostle Paul was a creationist (Ro
5:12). I am in good company.] "You are a buffoon speaking from complete
ignorance. You are in bad company, till the day you die."
[The book of Genesis explains our origins (Ge 1-3).] "In spiritual terms."
No, in literal terms (six-day creation week) that a
child can understand. Why don't you join in at the
origins debate? Do tell, how did life begin according to PlastikBuddah?
Response to comment [from a pagan]: [Navy Seal pagans] "Please show
your proof for this statement!"
Why don't you ask a Navy Seal if he's a dirty, pagan,
heathen?
See what happens.
"You really don't know what you're talking about."
Navy Seal-envy (Eccl 4:4).
Response to comment [from an atheist]: "[T]hat the world would be much
more peaceful if the US simply exterminated the 1 billion + Muslims infesting
the place. What does that tell you about them, that they (and I) consider
about one-sixth of the human population to be no more than vermin?"
So you don't like them. There is a Jewish saying:
If you know a man is coming to kill you, wake up and hour earlier and kill him
first. There certainly is a time for war (Eccl 3:8).
Response to comment [from an atheist]: [Jewish saying] "An apt saying,
coming as it does from another tribe of barbarians."
You see Jews and their enemies as the same?
[Time for war (Ec 3:8).] "So, you agree that they are vermin who need
exterminating?"
I agree that we must engage in war to fight evil.
But we are also called to love our enemy (Lk 6:27). That means, we must
share the gospel--even with people who want to kill us. It helps to
remember that we, too were separated from God once because of our sin (1Co
6:9,10; Ga 5:19-21; Eph 5:5; Re 21:27) and no man is without sin (1Ki
8:46; Ec 7:20). It is God's desire to save people (2 Pe 3:9).
Response to comment [from an atheist]: "The most likely thing is that
the enemy has already heard the gospel and ignored it..."
You've heard the gospel and have ignored it.
Should we destroy you?
Sometimes we have to put up with tedious people (Ps. 1:4). Each of us has
the potential to be righteous or wicked. Considering it is eternity that
we are talking about, each person should get every chance (Lk 19:19). I am
sure that God does all that he can for each of us (Eph 2:4).
[We were separated from God/recall our own sin (Ro 6:21).]
"What does this help?"
God loved us when we were unlovable (Ro 5:8). I
don't know about you, but I need his mercy (Ps 51:2).
"Only those who want to be saved can be saved. And those who adhere to
Islam obviously don't."
They are deceived. In our pride, we tend to think
that others can be deceived--but not us. It's not true. Each of us
can be deceived. Satan has been around for a long time. He's a whole
lot smarter than we give him credit for. His tricks are so simple but they
still work (Gen. 3:4).
"[Y]ou keep wanting to give folks chances to repent, instead of just slaying
them outright."
I wouldn't wish hell on anyone. God is in the
saving business. Why would my will be different than his will? (2 Pe 3:9).
The Prince and the Clowns: An exploratory tale
Tracy
Beanz
Blackwater Hard at Work
Stealing Your Tax Dollars and Murdering for Hire