Coral Ridge Ministries and CSI
- Thread starter Nineveh
- Start date
No, you can do it if you wish. I am so blown away by the Answers in Genesis "What happened to the dinosaurs" delusional stuff that I am afraid if I try to talk to this guy I will become as irrational as he on this issue, sorry.
So I will just take my little ol' self out of this discussion.
But I'll bet I can't really stay away.
So I will just take my little ol' self out of this discussion.
But I'll bet I can't really stay away.
aharvey
New member
Ah, I see now. You weren't disagreeing with my statement that creationists will never accept evidence of missing links, no matter how compelling. You wanted to see the specific example that Brother Willi first accused me of faking, and then denied that it showed anything. Well, that makes sense, sort of. If you can't argue the main point, change the subject.
Anyways, here's the first link I provided, from our museum's exhibit on our local fossil whale, Georgiacetus vogtlensis:
Line drawings
After being accused of fraud (comes easily to YECs, doesn't it?), I posted some photographs:
Skull photos
There is much more work on this subject, but I haven't published any of it; I just pulled a few references together. It's not that hard to do unless you're actively trying to avoid the evidence (oh yeah, you are the one who insisted for dozens of posts, no matter what evidence I provided to the contrary, that the Archaeoraptor "fossil" was still in the United States, on display, and being used to indocrinate the public about dino-bird evolution; I guess we've been in this position before). The point I was trying to make was simply that Brother Willi's claim that blowholes were an evolutionary impossibility just didn't make sense; there are lots of known fossil whale skulls with intermediate degrees of nostril location. But I'm sure it won't make the slightest bit of difference to you that "my BOLD CLAIM" turns out to be neither mine to begin with, nor scanty on evidence enough to even be considered bold. And I'm sure you'll second BW's retort that showing intermediate forms doesn't prove that whales actually evolved from a terrestrial ancestor, through intermediate forms, to the present fully aquatic forms. At which point I refer you to my main point above!
Oh, and Jukia's not the only one intrigued by the bodus claims of CSI and Coral Ridge. I just can't seem to get an answer out of DeRosa. And I've posted on two or three threads requests from creationists about how y'all age fossils, and it does indeed appear that you start and end with the bible, so all fossils will be 3,000-4,000 years old, no science needed. That's fine, but then I have to wonder how a "3,000-4,000 year old" fossil bone is evidence for Creation? They're all that old because you assume the Creation. What were you saying before about the evils of using your assumption as evidence for your assumption?
Nineveh
Merely Christian
I've asked Dimo and aharvey, now I'll ask you, please put all of your thoughts in one post or please don't be offended when I don't reply, thank you 
Tell that to Behe.
Would you like to investigate that issue on your own, or would you like me to give you some links?
But apes turn into men, and dinos to birds. I guess you are trying to make evo harder than chuck did, he traces it all back the "primordial soup".
Yes, relatedness, not descent.
Except all 3 of you guys have blown off abiogenesis like it doesn't matter. Somehow life started on earth, either God created everything out of nothing with His power and knowledge or nothing created itself into everything. Unless you have a 3rd option...
Actually I am capable of arriving at my own conclusions when presented the evidence. I don't need the Roman Catholic Church (evo science) to explain the Bible (origins) to me. Forgive my "religious" lingo here but they are so similar it's scarry.
Every news item about creationism getting into a classroom is about creationism being rejected as far as I have read. Both in OH and MT this has happened. Could you please give me some info on where creationism is actually taught in a pullik skool classroom?
Which is what abiogenesis is about. They can't get non life to make itself into life. Kenyon changed his mind on this very topic.
Like I told ahavery, to a pagan, I guess it would appear that what God did as "magic". But for those of us who serve Him, we know it was an awsome display of His power and knowledge.
Strat said it was about 20 years old...
(oh look ma! another pompous evo!)
What I have been saying over and over is, you guys keep talking about how "ignorant" everyone is but the money given to teach science in the classrooms of public education is used to teach evo. For how many years? So if you want to blame someone, don't come to ID's doorstep, look in your own back yard.
Except in reality.
Ok you win the prize for the "biggest blusterer" on this thread. I think you need to find out who Kenyon actually is instead of guessing.
Ok how about a title like Biochemical Predestination?
And it's quite clear from your last 3 paragraphs you are completely clueless about Kenyon.
A whole paragraph to say:
"An allele is any one of a number of alternative forms of the
same gene occupying a given locus (position) on a chromosome"
So now, do you have any info specifically about the shift in frequency and how this might (in large populations) aid chuck in the common anscesor ideas?
I'll also add that mutation today usually has undesirable results, not positive ones.
I suggest you get to that Nature article read, and comprehend what it says.
But in reality, one of your evo brothers was trying to pass off his own version of what "junk DNA" is as according to evo science. See he was basically doing the same thing you did with Kenyon, you are guessing in an effort to try to appear wise.
Except for Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system); Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology); Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics);Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory).
It's up to evo who controls it to change it.
So where did the RNA get all that info to build DNA in the right sequence?
Tell that to Behe.
Would you like to investigate that issue on your own, or would you like me to give you some links?
But apes turn into men, and dinos to birds. I guess you are trying to make evo harder than chuck did, he traces it all back the "primordial soup".
Yes, relatedness, not descent.
Except all 3 of you guys have blown off abiogenesis like it doesn't matter. Somehow life started on earth, either God created everything out of nothing with His power and knowledge or nothing created itself into everything. Unless you have a 3rd option...
Actually I am capable of arriving at my own conclusions when presented the evidence. I don't need the Roman Catholic Church (evo science) to explain the Bible (origins) to me. Forgive my "religious" lingo here but they are so similar it's scarry.
Every news item about creationism getting into a classroom is about creationism being rejected as far as I have read. Both in OH and MT this has happened. Could you please give me some info on where creationism is actually taught in a pullik skool classroom?
Which is what abiogenesis is about. They can't get non life to make itself into life. Kenyon changed his mind on this very topic.
Like I told ahavery, to a pagan, I guess it would appear that what God did as "magic". But for those of us who serve Him, we know it was an awsome display of His power and knowledge.
Strat said it was about 20 years old...
(oh look ma! another pompous evo!)
What I have been saying over and over is, you guys keep talking about how "ignorant" everyone is but the money given to teach science in the classrooms of public education is used to teach evo. For how many years? So if you want to blame someone, don't come to ID's doorstep, look in your own back yard.
Except in reality.
Ok you win the prize for the "biggest blusterer" on this thread. I think you need to find out who Kenyon actually is instead of guessing.
Ok how about a title like Biochemical Predestination?
And it's quite clear from your last 3 paragraphs you are completely clueless about Kenyon.
A whole paragraph to say:
"An allele is any one of a number of alternative forms of the
same gene occupying a given locus (position) on a chromosome"
So now, do you have any info specifically about the shift in frequency and how this might (in large populations) aid chuck in the common anscesor ideas?
I'll also add that mutation today usually has undesirable results, not positive ones.
I suggest you get to that Nature article read, and comprehend what it says.
But in reality, one of your evo brothers was trying to pass off his own version of what "junk DNA" is as according to evo science. See he was basically doing the same thing you did with Kenyon, you are guessing in an effort to try to appear wise.
Except for Francis Bacon (father of the scientific method); Sir Charles Bell (first to extensively map the brain and nervous system); Georges Cuvier (founder of comparative anatomy and perhaps paleontology); Jean Henri Fabre (chief founder of modern entomology); Carolus Linnaeus (father of modern taxonomy); Gregor Mendel (father of genetics);Louis Pasteur (formulator of the germ theory).
It's up to evo who controls it to change it.
So where did the RNA get all that info to build DNA in the right sequence?
Nineveh
Merely Christian
It took 3 posts for you to actually read what I asked? Don't ever accuse me of not "understanding" or "listening" to you again.
Did you ask if the people who wanted more evidence than a drawing were creationists? Or are you refereing to brother Willi?
Oh, but let's not forget it is on display in Utah, not the bones but a model. If you want to know why on earth they kept their plastic model, you should ask. And let's not forget to thank Flipper who did your homework to prove your claim. That exhibit will be coming by my part of the world in '05, I hope to catch it
I hope you gave credit for the pics
Well, from what I can see of the animals, it would take a lot more gradual mutation to get out of the water for some of these guys, wherever they breath from
But I will be interested when you publish your work on the (is it land to sea or sea to land theory?) and the following peer review. Thank you for backing up your claim you actually did some work.Try calling, worked for Jukia the first time, when he actually had the time to call
And you are still unwilling.
And unwilling to call the mammoth man in FL. You really should try to get him on here.
If creationism is such an obvious slam dunk, and it must be because all the evolutionists are always so wrong, then he ought to be happy to jump on here and let us understand the real truth.
And unwilling to call the mammoth man in FL. You really should try to get him on here.
If creationism is such an obvious slam dunk, and it must be because all the evolutionists are always so wrong, then he ought to be happy to jump on here and let us understand the real truth.
aharvey
New member
Hmm, "like" implies a metaphor. It's no metaphor. The fact that we don't know exactly how life originated doesn't matter to our understanding of how life evolves. The only reason you claim otherwise is because the beginning is where the evidence is, and always will be, weakest and thus easiest to attack. But scientific theories are not like chains that are only as strong as their weakest link. If they were we'd never get anywhere because all theories start out with, not just weak links, but completely empty holes. So, repeat after me: just because we can't explain everything doesn't mean we can't explain anything.
And most specifically, whether God created life out of nonlife or life originated from nonlife by more mundane natural processes, life still originated from nonliving material. The only reason this would be a serious source of contention for evolutionary biology is if you insist that God created life exactly as specified in the OT, and that you can reliably use the OT to put the age of the universe at less than 10K years. But we don't need to study abiogenesis to test these hypotheses.
Oh, right, I forgot. You need scientists to collect the data, but you don't need them to explain it. Since you don't have training in biology, I can only conclude that you don't need the explanations because you already know what the data means before you even see it. So what do you even need the data for?
Hmm, I'd always assumed that God was a supernatural entity. And I always assumed that magic referred to supernatural occurrences. If magic is really defined as "supernatural things not caused by God" then I retract whatever my original statement was, because I was making the connection based on the idea that a defining feature of both God and magic is the supernatural.
How much of your biological schooling covered evolutionary theory?
Hmm, as a professional scientist, I've seen no evidence of this. I've asked before about this, to no avail. As you seem to know everything about everything, perhaps you can give me examples of creationists doing original, scientifically defensible research being suppressed by the big bad scientific establishment.
Ah, here we go. Nineveh, it's time to calculate your Index of Dogmatism (ID). That is, how arrogantly do you stick to your assertions, not just in the absence of proof, or even evidence, but in the face of incontrovertible evidence to the contrary. You repeatedly make bold claims based on this Nature article. I've repeatedly suggested that you read the actual article, not the press release or creationist distortions. You repeatedly insist that you have read the article. I repeatedly insist that you have only read the press release. First question: do you know the difference between a research article and a press release about that article?
Nineveh
Merely Christian
I find it sorta funny the very beginnings evo are being swept under the rug.
Repeat after me: "non life does not produce life"
Well, actually, I believe God even created the matter, which is another sore spot for evo (I assume that's why the big bang gets lopped off darwin, too).
No, we don't need abiogenesis, evo does. If nature did it all, she sure did cover her tracks well
Repeat after me: "There is no such thing as perpetual motion"
Once again, you want to carry over your misconception to my idea. But, Ill explain it again. It's the facts (I know, you say this makes an evo wince...) I want to know about, not your particular version of a story that can't be proven from the evidence.
I guess to pagans placing their god into a box they can control is a little easier than facing the alternative view... if God really did do what He claims... the rest of what He said is true, too.
You mean how much evo study was crammed down my throat? Enough to make me lose my faith and buy into dawin's daydreams.
How many ID scientists do you work with? Know?
Unless you are implying the "press release" form Nature got the Nature article wrong, what is your point ?
Here, for your convenience is the whole "article":
I added the bold
But anyway, the comparison was between the human 21 and the chimp 22. That's it. Just those two compared yeilded that result. There will be more differences the closer we look. Same building blocks, different information. Same Creator, different kind.servent101
New member
Strathernd
This is a point of view - and what explanations there are made by evolutionists - not cosmology - or other branches of metaphysics that deal with Truth - the simple admission that you do not believe in truth - this is something that is not taught in the metaphysical realm of thought - and as far as evolution - the maze just gets bigger and bigger.
We are in many ways comparable to bugs - ever try to explain yourself to a ladybug? - is the bug able to understand you? - Possibly in some small way - and likewise we are in some small way able to understand God. The Truth is that in this human form - we are not able to do much in the way of ascertaining Truth - but we can become children of God - and the liberty that we have to deduce and logically reason - if tempered with Godly wisdom - love, compassion etc. then we are promised son ship and daughter ship as children of God - this though for a great many of us had to be acquired at the price of killing a Perfect Man - Jesus - so that we would somehow take to the pursuit of God conscious matters, and at the request of the Lord – in whom God is well pleased, God continually overlooks our debase nature and does not destroy us utterly, but blesses us with kindness and mercy.
Eventually we will find the God that we seek in earnest – and in truth. Realizing our limitations is a step towards the finding of the Truth. Sometimes we have to look at what is here, and let that speak to our heart.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
This is a point of view - and what explanations there are made by evolutionists - not cosmology - or other branches of metaphysics that deal with Truth - the simple admission that you do not believe in truth - this is something that is not taught in the metaphysical realm of thought - and as far as evolution - the maze just gets bigger and bigger.
We are in many ways comparable to bugs - ever try to explain yourself to a ladybug? - is the bug able to understand you? - Possibly in some small way - and likewise we are in some small way able to understand God. The Truth is that in this human form - we are not able to do much in the way of ascertaining Truth - but we can become children of God - and the liberty that we have to deduce and logically reason - if tempered with Godly wisdom - love, compassion etc. then we are promised son ship and daughter ship as children of God - this though for a great many of us had to be acquired at the price of killing a Perfect Man - Jesus - so that we would somehow take to the pursuit of God conscious matters, and at the request of the Lord – in whom God is well pleased, God continually overlooks our debase nature and does not destroy us utterly, but blesses us with kindness and mercy.
Eventually we will find the God that we seek in earnest – and in truth. Realizing our limitations is a step towards the finding of the Truth. Sometimes we have to look at what is here, and let that speak to our heart.
With Christ's Love
Servent101
aharvey
New member
Yeah, the theory of gravity is much more honest about dealing with the origins of gravity. And cell theory, yeah, that one also handles the origin of cells really well. And the heliocentric theory, I've always been impressed about how well it handles the origin of the sun and solar system. You're right; evolutionary theory really is unique in this respect; it purports to explain how life diversified without explaining exactly how life originated. And it calls itself a scientific theory!
You know this because...?
Sorry, it's no sore point with evolutionary theory, no matter how hard you want it to be. God creating the matter doesn't change your belief that God created life from --- what was that again? You know, making no assumption about God's role is not the same as assuming that God had no role.
Oh, right, I forgot. You need scientists to collect the facts, but you don't need them to explain it. Since you don't have training in biology, I can only conclude that you don't need the explanations because you already know what the facts mean before you even see it. So what do you even need the facts for?
Show me a single theory that can be "proven from the evidence."
Nineveh, you are showing signs of greater dishonesty than the scientists you casually accuse of the same. If I call you a liar, will that inspire you to show me where I said that facts or evidence make "evos" wince?
You work so hard to avoid such simple points. If something was done magically, that means the supernatural was involved. If God did something that is impossible with natural processes, that means the supernatural was involved. Why do you make any more out of this than that?
Well, that's not really an answer, but anyways, from what I've seen of the trivial amount of evolutionary theory taught in pre-college biology classes, though, your faith must have been pretty darn weak!
That's not really an answer either. I know and work with even fewer astrologers than I do ID scientists; does that mean astrologers are under even more unjust oppression from the scientific establishment than are ID scientists? Come on, give me some real insight here.
Originally posted by Nineveh
Unless you are implying the "press release" form Nature got the Nature article wrong, what is your point ?
Here, for your convenience is the whole "article":
[refer to her post to see the abstract of the "whole article"]
I added the bold
My point is that you make strong claims from a press release, insist it's the whole article, refuse to consider that it may not be the whole article, chastise other people for not reading the whole article when you yourself have only read the press release, and only now are starting to try to give yourself some wiggle room in case it turns out that you in fact might be wrong and have in fact conflated the article with its press release. Given your dogmatism on this relatively minor point (and we could repeat this whole description with the Archaeoraptor fiasco), it's hard to imagine how anyone could ever persuade you that you might not be absolutely correct on more important issues.
So, just for the record. Your most recent "whole Nature article" is in fact merely the abstract of a major research report that is found on pages 382-388 of the May 27, 2004 issue of Nature. When I specifically suggested that you needed to read the whole article, I did not mean just the abstract; indeed, I'd say only a fool would think that "read the whole article" specifically means "read the abstract." But I don't think you made this mistake. I think you simply shut your mind down on this point: "I did read the whole article, and that's that!" Dogmatism in spades.
Since I doubt you will ever read the article itself, I'll just go ahead and ask a couple of questions based on how your reading of the abstract leads to claims about how damaging this study is to evolutionary theory. Do you know how many base pairs are in 33.3 megabases? 68,000 insertions and deletions sounds like a lot, but out of 33.3 megabases? And the vast majority of these 68,000 indels are less than 20 bp (out of 33.3 megabases). Proportionally minute. But since this study somehow damages evolutionary theory, you must have some sort of estimate of how similar this chromosome should be in chimps and humans if we share a (not immediate!) common ancestor. Mind sharing what that value is? If none exists, how can the data in the Nature paper affect evolutionary theory one way or the other? And your statement that this is only one chromosome; the more chromosomes we look at, the further apart we'll be, is misleading to say the least. Yes, it is very likely (I'd say it's a certainty) that the more chromosomes we compare, the greater the absolute number of differences we will find. The only alternative is that all remaining chromosomes are absolutely identical between chimps and humans, and who would be stupid enough to suggest that evolutionary theory predicts that?
Nineveh
Merely Christian
Ok, well back to where darwin begins... got any guesses better than chemicals + accidents?
If you really wanna know, ask Dean Kenyon.
Nice try, but where does chuck get his "essoteric soup"? Or are you saying the big bang is part of the evo story line?
No, really, I can survive without the evo dreamwork attached to the evidence
Post 392: "And I'll bet you use the word "proof" just because you know it annoys scientists." Unless you wanna get technical about it.
God is not a "magical being", He is a knowledgeable and Powerful Being. What's "magical" is two left handed amino acids getting together in the right order to be useful all on their own. So it boils down to who do you trust? Creator God or "mother nature"?
It was. It was the faith of an innocent child that was destroyed.
Well, you make a claim "being on the inside" so I was just wondering if you actually knew any people you were making this claim about.
Maybe you should stick to your and my convo instead of getting into others? My point has always and will remain the same: The closer we look the more differences we will see. john was trying to tell me that article wasn't really about what it really is about. So once again, I guess your brother gets by with error, sorta like Dimo did. So much for "peer correction".
I can only post what is on the web site. I posted the whole article from Nature, then at your insistance I read the link marked "article" at the bottom of the page. I posted the whole paragraph. It said the same thing. They still only compared 2 chromosomes and their finding? "more complex than originally hypothesized".
"Science Update" from Nature.
At the bottom link marked Article to the "Nature Publishing Group".
Well, it seems from what they wrote they were even further apart than hypothesized. But thanks for agreeing with me, anyway. Wanna correct john now?
aharvey
New member
Originally posted by Nineveh
Post 392: "And I'll bet you use the word "proof" just because you know it annoys scientists." Unless you wanna get technical about it.
Nice try. You know as well as I do that "proof" is very different from "evidence." This has been said many, many times on this forum. Even the most selective reader couldn't have missed it. I've corrected you on this very point several times, and yet you still insist on using the word "proof" (but only, of course, when it comes to evolutionary ideas, never your own!), which is why I eventually concluded that you continue to use the word "proof" just because it annoys scientists. And so now you are saying that this is your basis for claiming that I said that "evidence or facts make evos wince"? So far, sounds more intentionally misleading than I'd previously thought!
Okay, God's smart and powerful, I never said otherwise. Is God supernatural?
Well, let's see, you claimed that poor creationist/ID scientists are being oppressed by the mainstream scientific establishment. So in fact, Nin, I was asking you if you actually knew any people you were making this claim about.
Sorry, Nin, you haven't read the article, so you really aren't in a position to say what it is about. And if your point is really nothing more that "the closer we look the more differences we will see," then perhaps john2001 simply misunderstood the pointlessness of that "point." It's a certainty that the more chromosomes we compare, the greater the absolute number of differences we will find. The only alternative is that all remaining chromosomes are absolutely identical between chimps and humans, and who would be stupid enough to suggest that evolutionary theory predicts that?
Well, did it ever occur to you that maybe the actual article is not on the web site! If you ever read the actual article, let me know. But, since I doubt you will ever read the article itself, I'll just go ahead and ask again a couple of questions based on how your reading of the abstract leads to claims about how damaging this study is to evolutionary theory. Do you know how many base pairs are in 33.3 megabases? 68,000 insertions and deletions sounds like a lot, but out of 33.3 megabases? And the vast majority of these 68,000 indels are less than 20 bp (out of 33.3 megabases). Proportionally minute. But since this study somehow damages evolutionary theory, you must have some sort of estimate of how similar this chromosome should be in chimps and humans if we share a (not immediate!) common ancestor. Mind sharing what that value is? If none exists, how can the data in the Nature paper affect evolutionary theory one way or the other?
Servent101 posted:
This is a point of view - and what explanations there are made by evolutionists - not cosmology - or other branches of metaphysics that deal with Truth - the simple admission that you do not believe in truth - this is something that is not taught in the metaphysical realm of thought - and as far as evolution - the maze just gets bigger and bigger.
Dimo:
I think Jacob Bronowski said it best in "The Ascent of Man", and I am paraphrasing here; "The earlier twentieth century scientists started thier investigations with the idea that science would eventually lead to a more precise understanding of the physical universe. What they found was that human knowledge will never become absolute. Those who believe that knowledge is absolute, are in danger of becoming like Hitler."
I do not think that Aharvey believes that knowledge is absolute.
Servent 101 posted:
We are in many ways comparable to bugs - ever try to explain yourself to a ladybug? - is the bug able to understand you? - Possibly in some small way - and likewise we are in some small way able to understand God. The Truth is that in this human form - we are not able to do much in the way of ascertaining Truth - but we can become children of God - and the liberty that we have to deduce and logically reason - if tempered with Godly wisdom - love, compassion etc. then we are promised son ship and daughter ship as children of God - this though for a great many of us had to be acquired at the price of killing a Perfect Man - Jesus - so that we would somehow take to the pursuit of God conscious matters, and at the request of the Lord – in whom God is well pleased, God continually overlooks our debase nature and does not destroy us utterly, but blesses us with kindness and mercy.
Dimo:
Did you get this idea from the "Mothman Prophecy"?
I do agree with this to a degree. However, this does not mean that the "ladybug" would not benefit from trying to understand it's environment better.
Servent101 posted:
Eventually we will find the God that we seek in earnest – and in truth. Realizing our limitations is a step towards the finding of the Truth. Sometimes we have to look at what is here, and let that speak to our heart.
Dimo:
Yes, but for it to be "in earnest" it cannot be forced upon an individual, by science, government, rhetoric, or fear.
This is a point of view - and what explanations there are made by evolutionists - not cosmology - or other branches of metaphysics that deal with Truth - the simple admission that you do not believe in truth - this is something that is not taught in the metaphysical realm of thought - and as far as evolution - the maze just gets bigger and bigger.
Dimo:
I think Jacob Bronowski said it best in "The Ascent of Man", and I am paraphrasing here; "The earlier twentieth century scientists started thier investigations with the idea that science would eventually lead to a more precise understanding of the physical universe. What they found was that human knowledge will never become absolute. Those who believe that knowledge is absolute, are in danger of becoming like Hitler."
I do not think that Aharvey believes that knowledge is absolute.
Servent 101 posted:
We are in many ways comparable to bugs - ever try to explain yourself to a ladybug? - is the bug able to understand you? - Possibly in some small way - and likewise we are in some small way able to understand God. The Truth is that in this human form - we are not able to do much in the way of ascertaining Truth - but we can become children of God - and the liberty that we have to deduce and logically reason - if tempered with Godly wisdom - love, compassion etc. then we are promised son ship and daughter ship as children of God - this though for a great many of us had to be acquired at the price of killing a Perfect Man - Jesus - so that we would somehow take to the pursuit of God conscious matters, and at the request of the Lord – in whom God is well pleased, God continually overlooks our debase nature and does not destroy us utterly, but blesses us with kindness and mercy.
Dimo:
Did you get this idea from the "Mothman Prophecy"?
I do agree with this to a degree. However, this does not mean that the "ladybug" would not benefit from trying to understand it's environment better.
Servent101 posted:
Eventually we will find the God that we seek in earnest – and in truth. Realizing our limitations is a step towards the finding of the Truth. Sometimes we have to look at what is here, and let that speak to our heart.
Dimo:
Yes, but for it to be "in earnest" it cannot be forced upon an individual, by science, government, rhetoric, or fear.