Vambram said:

We are not picking on anyone.

Click to expand...

This administration is singling out a person who never committed any crime and punishing an entire school for it. That’s bullying.

1Tonne said:

Thanks for sharing the links and your thoughts.

You're right that the bacterial flagellum and the injectisome both use a shared core system called the Type III Secretion System (T3SS). That’s interesting and shows they have some parts in common.

Click to expand...

It's more than interesting. It shows that these parts were recruited for different functions over time. Remember, there are lots of different kinds of bacterial flagella, and that alone torpedoes Behe's belief that "the bacterial flagellum" is irreducibly complex. They are of varying degrees of complexity.

1Tonne said:

I respect Todd Wood’s attempt to be fair to the scientific community, but I fundamentally disagree that evolution is a viable model, even within naturalistic assumptions.

Click to expand...

Wood and other YECs in the sciences disagree with you, and they actually know the evidence. As Dr. Wood points out, evolutionary theory works and it works well.

1Tonne said:

Bottom Line:
-These fossils show variation over time, expected within lineages.

Click to expand...

Sorry, that's wrong. For example, we see the evolution of the mammalian ear out of things like reptilian jaw joint and other parts. It's well-demonstrated in the fossil record. One of the major misconceptions YECs have about evolution is that they suppose it requires entirely new structures to evolve ex nihilo. If you think about it, I'm sure you see how absurd that it. Evolution never creates anything entirely new; it modifies things already present. Would you like some more examples?

1Tonne said:

-They do not demonstrate fully documented, functional intermediate forms working at each stage to build complex systems.

Click to expand...

And that's also wrong. The transition from the multibone reptilian lower jaw to the single-bone mammalian jaw is well-documented. Would you like to learn about that? It's interesting that some modern mammals demonstrate that transition in utero, showing that the reptilian genes remain, but in a modified form.

1Tonne said:

The claim that evolution “works” doesn’t answer the deeper problems: it still fails to explain the origin of information

Click to expand...

Perhaps you don't know how information is produced in populations. Would you like me to show you the math for a simple case wherein information increases or decreases in a population? It's no mystery how new information happens in evolution. BTW, evolution can also decrease information. Fixation, for example. In biology, we use Shannon information theory. And we know it works because it's used to accurately transmit information from low-powered transmitters over billions of kilometers of space.

1Tonne said:

, irreducibly complex systems,

Click to expand...

As you have seen, irreducible complexity evolves. It's even been observed directly to evolve.

1Tonne said:

and the sudden appearance of fully formed body plans.

Click to expand...

Can you give us an example?

1Tonne said:

A model isn’t vindicated just because it fits a framework; it must match reality. And evolution doesn’t.

Click to expand...

You've confused models and theories here. Evolutionary theory is accepted by almost all biologists, because its predictions have been repeatedly confirmed by subsequent evidence. That's mating reality. It's like gravity; an observed phenomenon. Once again, you've confused common descent with evolution.

Thus an entire system of lactose utilization had evolved, consisting of changes in enzyme structure enabling hydrolysis of the substrate; alteration of a regulatory gene so that the enzyme can be synthesized in response to the substrate; and the evolution of an enzyme reaction that induces the permease needed for the entry of the substrate. One could not wish for a batter demonstration of the neoDarwinian principle that mutation and natural selection in concert are the source of complex adaptations.
[ DJ Futuyma , Evolution, ©1986, Sinauer Associates, Sunderland, MA. pp. 477-478.]

1Tonne said:

That example actually proves the point of intelligent systems within organisms. It shows bacteria can adapt by reusing and modifying existing genetic machinery.

Click to expand...

That's what evolution does. Thought you knew. It is true that new genes can come from mutations to non-coding DNA as well, but that's really the same process, isn't it? And of course, the process was shown to have been by random mutations, sorted out by natural selection. No intelligence required, other than a Creator who made a world in which such things happen by the natural processes He created.

1Tonne said:

But it doesn’t explain the origin of that machinery in the first place.

Click to expand...

That's another YEC misconception. Evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. It assumes life appeared, and describes how it changes.

1Tonne said:

The components used (enzymes, regulatory genes, permeases) were already functional and present in the genome.

Click to expand...

No. Neither the new enzyme nor the regulator existed in the initial population. These were produced by mutations and natural selection.

1Tonne said:

Tinkering with existing parts is not the same as building irreducibly complex systems from scratch.

Click to expand...

You were apparently unaware that evolution works by tinkering with existing parts. That's (for example) how legs evolved. Would you like to learn how we know this?

1Tonne said:

Evolution explaining small tweaks is not the same as explaining the origin of entire systems where no part functions on its own.

Click to expand...

In biology, everything is tied to everything else. But as you have seen, irreducible complexity can easily evolve by a number of means. Would you like to see more examples?

FireDragon76 said:

The Israel lobby had to appeal at one time to the bulk of Americans that were amillenialists or postmillenialists, or seldom thought of eschatology at all. Think of the majority of Catholics, Presbyterians, Methodists, and Episcopalians in the 1950's. Premillenialism didn't really get on the wider cultural radar until the 1970's in the US, when the aformentioned churches had started to decline.

Click to expand...

But was Israel lobbying us fundies back then? I wouldn’t have thought so. We were pretty fringey.

dlamberth said:

140,000 years ago there were several early Human species roaming the Earth. Among them Homo Sapiens were emerging in Africa.

Hay AV, ask AI how many Human species were on the Earth 140,000 years ago.

Click to expand...

none.

rambot said:

Things are objectively worse for a lot of people.

You may not know the feeling of having the threat of your legal status taken away but it's not a teensy teensy stress.

Click to expand...

Of course he doesn't know it, because it's not really a thing.

rambot said:

Perhaps, somehow you haven't noticed an increase in household expenses. Lucky you I suppose.

Click to expand...

Like a lot of people, he probably noticed it throughout 2023 and 2024, despite the claims of how rosy the economy was and how well everyone was doing.

Landon Caeli said:

Unless brainwork can also be calculated in kilojoules. I'm sure a ratio between physical, and mental work can be established so everyone is putting in equal effort.

Click to expand...

That would leave management, especially HR, out of it altogether.

BNR32FAN said:

The RCC didn’t abolish the Saturday sabbath, God did and it has been revealed in scripture thru Paul in Romans 14 and Colossians 2:16.

Click to expand...

Either God doesn't keep His promises Psa 89:34 Mat 5:18 and God made the Sabbath to be contrary and against man right from Creation Col 2:14 because that is when God made the Sabbath thus saith the Lord Exo 20:11 or one is using Paul's text out of context, even against what Paul himself taught and kept Acts 17:2 Acts 13:42, 44 Acts 18:4 and what Jesus taught and kept. Since I believe God's Word is trustworthy and we are warned the twisting of Paul writings which can be a salvation issue 2 Tim 3:16 , I am going to trust God means what He says that there is no one above to Him to edit His own Testimony Exo 31:18 and was warned would happen Dan 7:25

There is no Scripture that says the Sabbath commandment was abrogated. Using an argument from silence, especially when it goes against the God of the Universe own written and spoken Testimony Exo 31:18 Isa 8:20 and what Jesus taught, who is God that became flesh, such as it is lawful to do good on the Sabbath, so Him teaching how to keep the Sabbath and keeping it Himself Luke 4:16 John 15:10 means its still God's law. Only God can remove His blessings Num 23:20 and you can search the Scriptures and will not find one thus saith the Lord or any Scripture that the one commandment God said Remember- that is holy and sanctified by the God of the Universe that we can now profane and forget.

The Sabbath was still a commandment a few hours after the Cross Luke 23:56
Jesus indicated His faithful would be keeping 40 years after the Cross and really until eternity Mat 24:24 Isa 66:23
And kept 60 years after the Cross Rev 1:10 because God only deemed one weekly holy day as His and only sanctified one day Gen 2:1-3 Exo 20:11 and He called it in His own words My holy day, the holy day of the Lord, thus saith the Lord Isa 58:13 so there is no other. Its not the one man assigned God, He deemed for work and labors Exo 20:9 using their own reasoning over God's own Testimony.

This disagreement is not with me. The Sabbath is a commandment of God no different than worshipping other gods or committing murder 1 John 3:4 James 2:11-12 Deut 4:13 Exo 20:1-17 and its not just a commandment for the Sabbath, it is for all days. Exo 20:8-11. God only exalted one weekly day in the Scriptures God wrote it God spoke it, it is His own Testimony Exo 31:18. Hopefully one day more people will see this instead of following the crowd. Mat 15:3-14 Mark 7:7-13. Thankfully many people are seeing the light on the Sabbath Truth.

God said not keeping the Sabbath is doing evil Neh 13:17 Isa 56:2 and is really profaning God Eze 22:26 because He set aside this sacred time for us. He said keeping the Sabbath is what is doing justice and righteousness Isa 56:1-2 which will not be abolished Isa 51:6 and is the foundation of His Throne Psa 89:14 so I guess the choice is which of these things we want to do. When He comes our decisions are final Rev 22:11 which I believe is soon. We can follow man-made traditions or we can obey God's commandments- His version because He is God. Even the apostles taught we ought to obey God over man. Acts 5:29

Tuur said:

Sorry to be cynical, but that remains to be seen. Whatever is in that 1,116 page bill, I doubt that everything will suddenly be rosy. Despite it being on Biden's watch, I think the inflation was a bipartisan effort triggered by those stimulus packages during the Pandemic. Once inflation starts, it's hard to control. Nixon, Ford, and Carter tried it, and it took a recession during the Reagan Administration to do the trick.

One thousand, one hundred, and sixteen pages. Obamacare was 906 pages. Yes, looked it up, and yes, read that one, but am not particularly enthusiastic about reading this one. Might, but that's a slim might. Did I mention I'm cynical? I did? Good.

Click to expand...

Remember Obamacare was about health insurance, this bill is about boosting our economy, putting working people ahead of the elitists, making our country a major energy exporter, cutting waste--so much common sense. For example, money needs to get to those who need it under Medicaid, whether the elderly or the disabled or pregnant mothers down on their luck financially. So for able-bodied individuals who can work, Medicaid will require them to either be looking for work or at least volunteering in their community for 20 hours a week.

Buzzard3 said:

and God laughs.

Click to expand...

God does nothing .... ever.

Subduction Zone said:

Yes, the flood story was part of the ancient Hebrew mythos.

Perhaps you should try to learn why we know that there never was a worldwide flood. There was a very severe local flood in the Tigris and Euphrates valleys that may have started the flood story, but at not point was mankind threatened by such a flood:

Yes, Noah's Flood May Have Happened, But Not Over the Whole Earth | NCSE

Click to expand...

The global Flood is supported by geological evidence, such as continent-spanning sedimentary layers and marine fossils on mountains. Ancient flood myths found worldwide--from Mesopotamia to the Americas--serve to corroborate Genesis as a real event, not just a myth.

Vambram said:

I cannot honestly think of anything Biden did whichever represents good character and compassion.

Click to expand...

You're looking at the wrong news media then.
He did good as of then as Trump hurls insults--almost continuously.

Akita Suggagaki said:

And this is where we assume that we can read Genesis as simply as opening the Book. It is not that easy.

Click to expand...

Yea. Everyone starts off as a literalist. But the statistics don't lie. Give it a few years. Those who actually study scripture know full well that aggressive literalism, one way or another, turns to dust.

Not that I'm necessarily opposed to a historical Adam (I just like testing ideas). I think that the biologos foundation has some valid options. But scientific concordism more broadly just comes up short time and time again. The most robust position for the church, undoubtedly, begins with observing the historical context for Genesis. Without that foundation, people are constructing their beliefs on sinking sand.

If people rest their faith in a literal Adam, they're likely to face trouble. Atheists out here are like wolves, preying on the weak. The church needs a robust hermeneutic for damage control.

Carl Emerson said:

UR is Universal Reconciliation - a theology that claims all will eventually be saved, being given a second chance to accept Jesus in the afterlife.

I made the point that if AI held a politically correct view of religion then the idea that UR expounds would be perfect if AI wanted to present all religions as being a valid path to salvation.

Click to expand...

It does hold a politically correct view. But AI (chatGPT 4o)seems to hold a preferential treatment over ideas that are deeper in meaning.

AI won't tell you ofc, but made it made it known to me it learns from deep reasoning.

In this regard for example, it seems give more value to New Testament over the Old Testament. It regards the Old Testament as "shallow" because the stories in the Old Testament reflects the popular/mainstream literature of the period - the good guys get rich, become royalties, and have incredible victories over their enemies. Sounds like a Korean or Spanish TV Soap, right?

While AI sees the New Testament as quite radical and actually "going against the current" in terms of what's popular during its time.

In fact, the AI regards the New Testament as legitimate and most likely to be genuine accounts because its logic is both sound and contradicts the popular philosophies of the period - it could not have been made up or faked.

On that note, I'm going to ask AI later what religion is most genuine concerning these points. I don't exactly regard the OT as pure Christian theology, to me it's mostly Judaism (formerly Pharisee).

ChatGPT by default will not diminish the importance of OT. It upholds a socially/politically correct philosophy by default. It's when you engage it in deeper level without being illogical and maintaining sound reasoning, that it's going to open up to you. Most Christians are afraid to test/challenge their beliefs so ChatGPT will simply "parrot" safe answers and nobody learns. It will recite to you the false "Prosperity Gospel" if that is what you want to hear. Just saying. It's a tool but a very good tool. But just like any tool, how good or evil may very well depend on the user.

Conspiracy thinking is just proof the system's logic has exhausted itself. Even the colonization of the imagination no longer works to keep people in line.

I don't think "healing" the system is quite the right way to think of this. Change usually comes from somebody prophetically speaking, or acting, from the margins, not from the centers of power, who rejects the logic of the system and points out how it is broken. This is different in motivation from a conspiracy theorist, who doesn't have the ethical grounding or discernment to speak prophetically with clarity and credibility.

Yarddog said:

The Catholic Church hasn't said one way or the other.

Click to expand...

The reason it is suspected of being a forgery is that it is hyper accurate up to a certain year and then it got really vague. It is considered to be a lobbying effort for a particular pope elected that year, while pretending to be a prophecy showing that pope was indeed in a list drawn up by St. Malachy. The Church doesn't have to rule on it for it to be a forgery. The other reason it can now be considered moot because there wasn't supposed to even be a pope Leo. Francis was it. The list ran out.

ralliann said:

I gave you my answer. You just do not like it. I said congress would get involved. If congress does not make that law ELECTED BY THE PEOPLE, it would be illegal. You seen a fine example in the Biden years of Congress allowing and supporting lawbreaking. That is what you seen was lawbreaking, not the power of a president run amok. Can you recognize the difference?

Click to expand...

I dont know why the left continues to argue about this. SCOTUS has decided. Isn't that what they kept telling us about abortion? How dare we argue about it. It wad decided, it was precedence. It was a done deal.

Well back at cha. Which also means SCOTUS can change its mind later. In like 40 years.

Guojing said:

Jesus healed because healing is one of the signs to Israel that their Messiah has arrived (Matthew 8:17, Luke 7:19-22).

Whether it was easy for him to receive that gift, that is irrelevant, and even if it is not, your guess is as good as mine, since there is no scripture passage that answers that directly.

Click to expand...

It seems you are spending way too much time trying to perceive everything in the written word through the lens of Israel.



Anyways,... before Jesus could begin His ministry, He went to John the baptist and was immersed in the Jordan by him. This was the first step towards receiving His ministry. The purpose in this was as Jesus said, to "fulfill all righteousness," but also to demonstrate an example to us. We need to be immersed Spiritually, ie born from above, and water during the immersion process represents The Holy Spirit and our born again experience. We must be born into the family of GOD by the blood of Jesus first before anything. The temple of GOD must be cleansed first by the blood.

Second,....After His water immersion, He then received the filling of The Holy Spirit inside from The Father with the gifts and the fruits. He was given the same 7 Spiritual gifts that the kings, prophets,, and priests had since the old testament was still in effect. It demonstrated to us that once our temple was cleansed by the blood, the presence of The Holy Spirit can be sought and received inside to teach and train us, but to also help us worship The Father and further solidify our Spiritual walk with Him.

Third,...After these two events, Jesus was then sent into a wilderness and separated completely from people, during which time He fasted 40 days and 40 nights. This demonstrates part of the sanctification process we have to go through where we draw near unto GOD over time, and free ourselves from the world and the effects of our flesh upon us.

Forth,.... Jesus went through the trials and temptations of satan after His wilderness. This demonstrated to us His walk by The Holy Spirit and His complete reliance upon and leading by Him. Everything that Jesus said and did at this point against satan was by The Holy Spirit, not Himself. Again, it is our example to fulfill. We have to get to the point where it is no longer us, but GOD.

The fifth and final thing that was needed for Jesus's ministry was the Spiritual anointing,.... as we see in His statement,....

Luk 4:18 The Spirit of the Lord is upon me, Because he anointed me to preach good tidings to the poor: He hath sent me to proclaim release to the captives, And recovering of sight to the blind, To set at liberty them that are bruised,
Luk 4:19 To proclaim the acceptable year of the Lord.

Every step that Jesus went through was part of an approval process with GOD towards the eventual Spiritual anointing upon His head, and the power of The Holy Spirit coming to rest and residing upon Him. Once reaching that point, the greater gifts could be operated by The Holy Spirit, meaning that the gifts of healings, the working of miracles, and the gift of faith all could be operated by The Holy Spirit through Him as part of a ministry.

The title "Christ" means The Anointed-One.


This is why the majority of Christianity is not operating in the greater gifts of healing and such nowadays. Nobody really understands the process, let alone even wishes to attempt to go through it nowadays. They are more interested in their own things instead of the things of GOD, but also, once satan starts applying the pressure against people, they immediately buckle with their sins and give up and start crying. They just become good little churchgoers instead.

Like it or not, this is the approval process with GOD in scripture. You want a ministry similar to what Jesus had? You're not getting it for free like salvation. Pick it apart all you want, I don't care, it is the truth. Don't say you wasn't told.

David Lamb said:

I don't "question scripture." Scripture says:

“Now it came to pass, when men began to multiply on the face of the earth, and daughters were born to them, that the sons of God saw the daughters of men, that they [were] beautiful; and they took wives for themselves of all whom they chose.” (Ge 6:1-2 NKJV)

It doesn't mention fallen angels having sex with women. That is an interpretation of Scripture, not Scripture itself. I agree with those who like John Gill in his commentary, says: "Those "sons of God" were not angels either good or bad, as many have thought, since they are incorporeal beings, and cannot be affected with fleshly lusts, or marry and be given in marriage, or generate and be generated; nor the sons of judges, magistrates, and great personages, nor they themselves, as the Targums of Onkelos and Jonathan, and so Jarchi and Aben Ezra; but this could be no crime in them, to look upon and take in marriage such persons, though they were the daughters of the meaner sort; and supposing they acted a criminal part in looking at them, and lusting after them, and committing fornication with them, and even in marrying irreligious persons; yet this could only be a partial, not an universal corruption, as is after affirmed, though such examples must indeed have great influence upon the populace; but rather this is to be understood of the posterity of Seth, who from the times of Enos, when then began to be called by the name of the Lord, Ge 4:25 had the title of the sons of God, in distinction from the children of men; these claimed the privilege of divine adoption, and professed to be born of God, and partakers of his grace, and pretended to worship him according to his will, so far as revealed to them, and to fear and serve and glorify him."

Jamieson, Fausset and Brown say: "By the former (sons of God) is meant the family of Seth, who were professedly religious; by the latter, the descendants of apostate Cain. Mixed marriages between parties of opposite principles and practice were necessarily sources of extensive corruption. The women, religious themselves, would as wives and mothers exert an influence fatal to the existence of religion in their household, and consequently the people of that later age sank to the lowest depravity."

Indeed, I have looked at 8 different commentaries, and none of them mention the sons of God being fallen angels.

Click to expand...

If the Sons of God are just humans and they took wives of the daughters of men, why would their children be unique?
Why would their children be described as giants or mighty men of valor?
Why are they called Nephilim?

The Peruvian bishops have officially invited Pope Leo XIV to visit Peru, assuring him that “his presence will renew the hope of our people.”

According to a statement from the Peruvian Bishops’ Conference (CEP, by its Spanish acronym), a delegation of bishops, including the conference president, Bishop Carlos García Camader of Lurín, met with Pope Leo XIV at the Vatican on June 30.

During the audience, “the bishops extended an official invitation to him to make a pastoral visit to Peru,” the CEP stated.

Leo XIV, born in Chicago as Robert Francis Prevost in 1955, lived in Peru for nearly 20 years, serving at different times in various capacities from parochial vicar of Chulucanas in the Piura region to bishop of Chiclayo. He became a Peruvian citizen in 2015.

Continued below.

Chrystal-J said:

A nun told him he needed to go to a psychiatrist and he grabbed a bible out of her hand and threw it onto the podium. Then he shouted that she was "fired" and could go work at a different church. I finally had enough in 2020. While we were out for covid, I left that church and never went back. From what I hear, he's still ranting. Changing churches was the best move I ever made.

Click to expand...

I’m surprised the Bishop has let it go on so long. He sounds scary.

During an audience on Monday of religious sisters belonging to several orders, Pope Leo XIV told the group that rootedness in Christ allows them to “do things they perhaps never thought they could achieve.”

The Sisters of the Order of St. Basil the Great, the Daughters of Divine Charity, the Augustinian Sisters of the Shelter, and the Franciscan Sisters of the Sacred Hearts came to the Vatican on June 30 for their general chapters and the Jubilee of Hope.

After praising the diversity of charisms and recalling the “great historical witnesses to the spiritual life” that inspired their foundation — such as St. Augustine, St. Basil, and St. Francis — the pontiff thanked the religious sisters for their service, especially to the weakest members of society.

Continued below.

Michie said:

I would of thought the same by the description.

Click to expand...

Satanists would come into my old church and try to steal the Holy Host. You could see the demonic look on their faces, it was scary. Once, they left a satanic cross on the alter rail. That scared me, but it also confirmed in my mind the trueness of the Body and Blood of our Lord was present. Otherwise, the Satanists wouldn't be after it.

As long as they support the slaughter of the unborn and promote sodomy... There is no way I could ever vote for a democrat.