to Christians in this forum...

Since we're playing these little rhyming word games I thought I'd throw this one out: in Matthew 19:5 Jesus clearly approves of marriage and says it is not only desirable but necessary. But in 1 Corinthians 7 Paul says marriage should be avoided. IYO, what would Jesus have said about Paul's words?

leviticus 14 never says that god caused leprosy, it provides an old testiment method for healing, which doesnt apply anymore, since jesus came.[This message has been edited by Mnenth, 04-02-2004]

Ok, i would advise you to read the scriptures you provide links to, before you make these rediculus assumptions. 1 corinthians 7 is Paul saying that people should stick with their husband/wife, and not go around sleeping (fornicating) with other people.

quote:

---

I am also saying that i believe the earth to be about 10 thousand years old because there is also a great deal of evidence pointing to that. For example: the earth's rotation has been slowly slowing down. Calculate it out, and if the earth were the billions of years old u say it is, then the earth would be rotating fast enought to easily be throwing all life, and large chucks of top soil into space.
Example 2: the moon has slowly been drawing farther and farther from the earth. calculate it, and 4.5 billion years ago it would have been smack dab in the core.

---

Please stop misrepresenting science like this. Speaking as a physics major and someone that have done these calculations before, it really hurts me to see someone as ignorant as you on these subjects trying to use such examples that you pulled out of your arse to support your beliefs. Since this is a relgious section, I will not be arguing with you on these examples that you pointed out.Peace.

So now you have a physics major? in post #37 of "missing links" in the evolution forum, you said you had a biology major. which is it? Or do you have both? And how am i mesrepresenting science? As far as i know, i was right about the calculations. If im not, please, show me the math.

quote:

---

So now you have a physics major? in post #37 of "missing links" in the evolution forum, you said you had a biology major. which is it? Or do you have both? And how am i mesrepresenting science? As far as i know, i was right about the calculations. If im not, please, show me the math.

---

Read that post again. I said I USED to be a biology major. To be more precise, I used to be a pre-med. I just fell in love with physics and changed my mind.

And since you have a physics major, AND a biology major, AND you said that you have done these calculations on your own, heres another one for you:
Two scientists, Gilliland and Stephenson have both studied the size of the sun and come to the conclusion that the sun is shrinking. However, they dissagree on the rate of shrinkage. Gilliland concluding a small rate of almost 0.2 second of arc per century, while stephenson saying a .02-.3 range, with a probability of .16. Meaning, a shrinkage rate of around 0.16—0.20 second of arc per century within the range of 0.02—0.30 second of arc per century to account for the error margins. Now even if we take Stephenson's bottom-of-the-range figure of a mere 0.02 second of arc per century (tiny shrinkage indeed), this means that, using the evolutionists' own uniformitarian assumption of extrapolating this shrinkage rate backwards in time, just as they extrapolate further back 10—15 billion years to the 'big bang', only 100 million years ago the sun would have been too large for life to exist on earth!

Ok guys, I've asked that various religion related questions be brought to this forum and now I'm going to ask that discussions concerning science be taken to an appropriate forum.

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

quote:

---

i said i USED to be a biology major

---

ok, ok, im sorry.

quote:

---

If im not, please, show me the math.

---

Refer to the thread you started in cosmology for the math stuff. It's relatively simple. Anyone who have taken geometry could calculate this stuff.

Hello Hitchy and thank you for your welcome to the forum.You ask what changed my mind, what caused me to believe in the Bible after so many years of not believing. Well that has the potential to be a long story . However since you ask I will try to explain in brief (at least I will try to be brief, no promises).The days following immediately after 9/11 caused me to notice some inconsistencies in the corporate media coverage of this horrific tragedy. Also being that my husband is a retired military cop, he found the official 'investigation' at this time to fall far from normal investigative protocol. In other words, it didn't pass the smell test. This caused me to do some of my own research through more independent sources. This was the first time I had asked G-d to show me the truth, and I now believe that He was faithful to answer.At first it was my intention to understand what was going on from a geo-political perspective, the last thing I was interested in was a 'religious' perspective, yet the more I dug into it, the more I began to realize that it essentially does boil down to 'religion'.This eventually led me to look more closely at Bible prophecy and studying the Bible in general, which led me to believe that Jesus is everything He claims to be. Since accepting Him as my savior and knowing Him through the Holy Spirit that now lives in me, I have been blessed to know the very real power of Christ.(One thing I would like to say in regard to Bible prophecies is that many OT prophecies are dual in nature, meaning that they were fulfilled already but will also have a second and COMPLETE fulfillment in the 'last days'. Many of these prophecies, already fulfilled, FORESHADOW a future and COMPLETE fulfillment. One might notice in OT prophecies that in the middle they jump ahead to an 'end time' context, implying that they will have a second fulfillment. Looking at all the prophecies collectively and cross referencing them gives a fuller picture of this.)Right now there is a consolidation of global power in the hands of a very small group of the richest and most powerful people in the world, namely the global banking families, and their influence trickles down into virtually every 'established' institution. History has proven that when so much power rests in the hands of a small elite class it is NEVER a good thing for the freedom and prosperity of the common masses. Bible prophecy foretells that in the last days there will be a final and global consolidation of this power in the form of a global government,
global monetary system and global religion (kingdom of the anti-Christ), under the pretense of 'peace and prosperity' for all mankind. This is a false peace that is essentially the result of effective social engineering by means of the Hegelian Dialect. This is unfolding before our very eyes.There is really so much that can be said on this subject that I won't attempt to get too much into it here. I don't know that this forum is the proper place to do so. But to give a general idea I will say this, do a google search of 'Rockefellers + science' to get a 'surface' idea of how much influence this family has in the scientific community, then do a search of 'rockefeller' and any of the following: politics, education, medicine, media, banking and anything else you can think of.If you are at all interested there is an online book that you can read that digs beneath the surface of the Rockefeller empire and reveals a very interesting picture (this is only one elite family portrait):(snip)**In previous chapters we have seen that the Rockefellers exercise tremendous leverage over business, banking, and the economy. In the last chapter we showed how the family has used that money to set themselves up in the charity business, and then used their influence through their giveaways to guide education, religion, and the media-and therefore public opinion-along the proper course. Proper for the Rockefellers, that isThe perfect situation, from the Rockefellers' point of view, is to combine their economic muscle and their political oomph so that one hand washes the other. They have mastered to a frightening degree the art of using economic power to build political power which enhances economic power even further, and so on, ad infinitum.We have seen that the Rockefellers have spent generations developing an economic consortium that is the sleekest, smoothest, and most powerful combine on earth. The incredibly powerful political complex the Rockefellers have put together makes their economic activities look like the naive simplicity of a backwoods general store, and consists of organizations which are thoroughly interlocked with and financed by the House of Rockefeller.Nelson Rockefeller, the unelected Vice President of the United States, is a leader in the campaign to submerge American sovereignty in a World Superstate. Long-time internationalist Alan Cranston (right) is also an avid promoter of World Government, 'in violation of his oath of office as a US Senator.**Database ErrorI'll just leave it at that for now.Peace
pinky

quote:

---

do a google search of 'Rockefellers + science' to get a 'surface' idea of how much influence this family has in the scientific community, then do a search of 'rockefeller' and any of the following: politics, education, medicine, media, banking and anything else you can think of.

---

Since my lab works under federal grants, I thought I might chime in on how science is judged and funded. First of all, when a grant proposal is sent in, it is reviewed by scientists, usually around 3 to 5. They each score the grant, and the averaged score is used to judge whether or not the grant is to be funded. Nowhere in this procedure are the Rockefellers involved. My own boss has reviewed grants and he has never talked to nor been influenced by a Rockefeller. This type of review system is present within several different granting systems, including the NIH, one of or the largest.Just as a little anecdote. About a year ago a new head for the research department of the VA (Veterans Administration) was appointed. Right after her appointment, she cancelled several newly approved grants. Some of the scientists actually had to mail the money back and fire their technicians. This seemed to be a heavy handed and arbitrary thing to do, and quite an affront to several well renowned scientists. So what happened? The scientists who had there grants revoked met and decided to do a little investigating. The money that they sent back actually went to the newly appointed administrators best friends and lover. Needless to say, it was pretty easy to get her fired. Almost all granting institutions are like this, scientists first and politics second. There are horror stories that some others can tell about personal vendettas and politics that resulted in grants not being funded, but for the most part it is scientists governing scientists, not politicians governing scientists. Going off topic again, but I thought I might give you an inside glimpse into federally funded basic science research. Hope it helps in your investigations.

Thanks for that info Loudmouth, every little bit helps The point I was trying to make is that if the Rockefellers have their name or money invested in something, you can pretty much guarantee that they have some influence there. I don't think science would be an exception. In all honesty I have not done any real research as to how deep their influence is in the scientific community, I am now inspired to do so.I think the link I provided in my last post in regard to the Rockefelller empire is an interesting read to say the least, and gives some idea how the far their influence reaches. It is a book that was written in 1974? and still relevent to what going on in the world today.peace
pinky[This message has been edited by pinky, 04-03-2004]

My emotion ?You are scared....thats the real reason. Don't blame me.YEC is Bible based dogma. You are really frightened of science which is viewed as a challenge to the veracity of Genesis.The only thing that challenges Genesis is atheist worldview.

quote:

---

The point I was trying to make is that if the Rockefellers have their name or money invested in something, you can pretty much guarantee that they have some influence there. I don't think science would be an exception. In all honesty I have not done any real research as to how deep their influence is in the scientific community, I am now inspired to do so.

---

Please do go and do some research. That is a very serious accusation. I've spent some time in the past working in genetic research, and I can tell you that there was no political influence to the veracity of our findings. But if you want to believe in something you have no idea about, then I guess I can't really do anything.