Pastor Dave

Welcome back

Merry Christmas And Happy New year

Prayers for Bernadette.

Good post DoctorIssachar. I've always disliked the term apologetics for the very reason you pointed out in your opening paragraph. It makes it sound like we are apologizing for our faith. While those of us who are familiar with apologetics know this is not true some people who are not familiar with the term may initially believe that to be the case. I am unfamiliar with the book by Geisler you referenced so I would enjoy hearing more from you about the subject. Particularly what you have gathered from your studies of apologetics.

Yeah, AAG could get pretty brutal from time to time.

I didn't know you went that far back. I don't remember madmerlin33 from then but I do remember dave and dA. I used to argue with those two as much as you and Jonathan used to argue with Dan. LOL

Sorry it took so long for me to get back to you on this. My wife and I were on vacation when I made that last post and I haven't been online much. I'm just starting to catch up with my usual internet activities. This is only my opinion so take it for what it is worth. Yes, I agree that Moses laws were meant for the Hebrews. Noahide law was for the rest of us. I will also agree with him that Jesus gave only those two commandments, with the statement that in those two are the whole of the law. I have to disagree with him about the Old Testament being strictly being about Hebrew covenant. The Ademic covenant and the Noahide covenant apply to all of mankind. The Abrahamic covenant, which was originally for his descendants (the Hebrews) has been opened to Christians through the New Testament. I also have to disagree with him about the New Testament being strictly a covenant for the nation's. In Romans 1:16, Paul (the apostle to the gentiles), said first to the Jew, then to the Greek. It isn't well known but until the council of Nicea the majority of Christian leaders were Jews. It was after Rome took Christianity that Jews became unwelcome in the religion. ( I'm glad to see that is changing among some Christian groups.) However, I do agree with him that Jesus may have intended for there to be a welcoming of the gentiles into the family of YHWH.

On some points I think he is right, however, there are more than two covenants described in The Bible. Certainly the nations were never under Moses law. From my readings however they were under the Noahide laws. Noahide law only had seven commandments. Six of which are very similar to those contained in the ten commandments of Moses. The seventh was a prohibition of eating the flesh of an animal that was still alive.

The pharisees and sadducees were different sects within Judaism. Both held seats within the Sanhedrin. The Sadducees gave authority only to the written word of God. The Pharisees however gave as much authority to oral tradition as they did to the written word. The Sadducees rejected a belief in the resurrection of the dead while the Pharisees did believe in resurrection. The Sadducees believed that the soul perished at death. The pharisees did believe in an afterlife and appropriate rewars or punishments of the individual. Sadducees did not believe in a spiritual realm where as the Pharisees taught of Angels and Demons in an unseen spiritual world. The chief priests and the high priest were Sadducees. The Sadducees also held the majority of seats in the Sanhedrin. They were usually wealthy, while the Pharisees were more representative of the common man. The Sadducees controlled the temple in Jerusalem and the Pharisees generally control the Synagogues. The Sadducees pretty much ceased to exist after the destruction of the temple in Jerusalem. The Pharisees went on to compile the Mishnah, Which laid the ground work for Modern day rabbinic Judaism.

Good point, I agree, right on...

I can appreciate your experiences. In particular the calming vs the yelling preacher. If your experiences with spiritual leaders have not been good then I can understand your reluctance to trust them. But does that really apply to most people?

Hmmmm, Yes! We are in agreement here. I have no problem with the way scientists word their findings as speculation. It is when that speculation becomes seen, no longer as speculation, but rather as fact is where I draw the line. These are the places where I try to see other possibilities. It was possible that someone with a third set of possibilities might have jumped in to the conversation. I have purposely avoided any use of religion in this discussion. I have not brought any Holy book into the conversation. This does not have to be about religion. As a side note on that thought; Why is it that we can have such confidence in a man who has devoted his life to finding the answers in science about scientific things, yet for some reason, some think we should not trust spiritual leaders who have devoted their live to studying spiritual things about spiritual matters?

Who was it that said "Evolutionary theories deal with things we cannot (currently) directly observe." Ah ha, the old double standard. It's ok for you to say it, but if I do I seem to have committed some wrong. Just remember when you point a finger at me you have three pointing back at yourself. Where exactly have I mocked any scientist? I have not mocked any scientist. I have merely tried to show where the average person has misunderstood what the scientists have actually said. The scientist says this is possible. Not that it the only possibility. Just that it is a possibility. The textbook writers then change that, ever so slightly, and it becomes this is likely. The teacher reads this and tells the student that this is probably how it happened. The student then goes about proclaiming this is how it happened. It's like the old telephone game. Slight changes as the story is passed on. Nor have I said that an intelligent force directing the development of life on Earth is the only possibility. Just that it is a possibility.

Free your minds, brothers and sisters.... Free your minds Free your minds Free your minds .... Free your minds from the oppression put upon you by the established purveyors of what passes for knowledge. Free your minds from your years of being herded together in little boxes and told what to think and how to think and when to think about whatever they want you to think about for eight hours a day nine or ten months a year for twelve, fourteen, sixteen, even twenty years or more. See other possibilities.

Let's see if I can show this with dogs. My son has a mating pair of red Alaskan malamutes. They have produced two liters. One half of the puppies have been white. White Alaskan malamutes are the least common color. They kept one of the white females. She was bred to a white male. Two liters from her so far. All white puppies. One of the females from her first liter was bred back to a red and only produced one red puppy. But there was an intelligent force (my son ) driving the change.

Some areas of cosmology are as speculative as some areas of evolution.

Yeah I had to look it up. I was thinking 12.6 but maybe that's just what it was estimated to be when I was younger. I haven't found any supporting evidence as of yet. Gotta be careful which students are helping you. LOL

Sorry mererdog, I almost skipped over you. Are you trying to bring cosmology into the conversation?

Not sure what that has to do with evolution. Ok, so what were they when you got through? They were sill flies weren't they? In fact they were still fruit flies weren't they? All that proves is micro evolution. No change of family. You are trying to infer that macro evolution is true because micro evolution is true. Darwin's Finches. Thank you for bringing them up. For all of the changes that Darwin's Finches have developed one thing remains the same.... they are still birds, in fact they are all still Finches. Micro not macro. Look Geordon no wiki since you asked so nicely. This isn't university and I'm not interested in a grade. The information is generally reliable and easily linked to. Perhaps I should start using Ecyclopedia Britannica which was an acceptable research tool when is still took up a whole shelf on the bookcase. Oh, since we are giving credentials now, good for you going for a Masters. That gives me an idea of how much time you've spent being indoctrinated by the very ones who would have us believe that micro evolution somehow proves macro evolution. So let me give you my credentials. I haven't done this since the last time I let myself get into this conversation. I've had the opportunity to take a few IQ tests over the last half a century. My lowest score was a 120 ... in the 5th grade. I got stuck with the gifted tag the rest of my primary education. My highest was a 159 in my mid 30s. But let's throw those 2 out since neither of them were Stanford-Binet or Wechsler tests since those are the 2 most reognized tests. Instead let's look at the 3 Stanford-Binet scores I received. I offer you a 137 a 135 and a 139, giving me an average of 137. At 140 - 145 they hang a new tag on you ..... Genius. So, while i may not be a genius I'm a lot closer than most. Here is a interesting piece that suggests that the average IQ of someone with a PHD is around 125. reducing the average PhD to their actual IQ which is around 125 (still very high!). Yeah, and we've genetically modified corn, soy and wheat too. But here we have an intelligent force guiding those changes.

I said I'd get back to you von . I've made my opening statement, I still have a little real keyboard time so let's see where I can go with your post. lol haha Really von? Are you trying to give evolution a little extra time to work? The last time I checked (just now ) the universe was only about 13.8 billion years old. I will give you the last part, ... We haven't had enough time to reconstruct the whole thing. Yes!!! Allowing young people to explore all of the possibilities might move things along at a faster rate. As to fact that not all physical evidence survives, this is true. Never the less, shouldn't at least a few of the fossils show that intermediate stage when an animal family creates a new and different family of animal? The last time I had this discussion on these boards (probably more than 10 yrs ago) a term was thrown out that I had never heard before. Punctuated equilibrium. I had really expected some one to have brought it up by now. perhaps it has fallen out of favor in the evolution arena. Ah well, I will. Punctuated equilibrium is a theory that was used by the evolutionist to explain why these intermediate fossils are not found. Punctuated equilibrium says that there are long periods where there are only small micro evolutionary changes to the gene pool. Then, solar radiation, x-rays from a quasar ... whatever... cause puncuations of rapid mutations causing macro evolution for a brief period of time which then settle into the "new" family of animals and begin the micro evolutionary stage again. Because of the brevity of the time period that macro evolution occurred there wasn't enough chances for them to find the right conditions to fossilize. That's one possibility I suppose. If that's what they choose to believe. That's all cool stuff but I'm not sure how it ties in. Unless you're trying to bring cosmology into the discussion too. Agreed Agreed I know a few of those people too.

Wow! Now I remember why I've stayed out of these type discussions for the most part. Such excitement over a difference in theory. Yet I still don't think everyone understands the difference between micro evolution and macro evolution. Let me elaborate on the difference, as I understand it. Micro evolution says that a species can change over time but that species remains in the same family of animal. This can be tested and observed. Macro evolution says that a species can change, over long periods time, into a completely different family of animal. This can not be observed nor can it be tested. IMO, micro evolution is proven beyond a shadow of a doubt. It is seen in every domesticated breed of animal man has to offer. From Bull Mastiff to teacup Poodle , Siamese to Mexican hairless cats, from Rhode Island reds to black sex link chickens, From White faced Hereford Bull to the Brahma Bull with the camel looking hump. It can be tested and observed. It has been tested and observed. Again .... IMO, The is no evidence that any animal has changed families. Macro evolution can not be proven. It can not be tested. It has not been reproduced. It can not be observed. It is but one possible explanation for how the various families of animals came to be. I choose to believe a different explanation. I choose to believe that life was put here on Earth by an intelligent force. I believe that intelligent force has been influencing the development of life on earth since life began. I'm not telling anyone they have to agree with me. You choose what you believe. I am just trying to open your mind to another possibility.

Selective breeding. Btw all races of people are one species.