Jump to content

Keystone

Members
  • Content count

    68
  • Joined

  • Last visited

1 Follower

About Keystone

  • Rank
    Getting The Hang Of Things
  • Birthday 02/01/1981

Additional Information

  • Interests
    Biology, zoology, literature, language, Asian culture, the Internet
  1. Keystone

    Question bout' evolution.

    We're got an enormously complicated issue on our hands right now if we just deal with evolution, but now we're talking about different things. It would not make sense to talk about the moon landing, stars and constellations, and alien life forms all in the same thread. Evolution, the origin of life, and the origin of the universe are entirely different issues, and right now they are mixed together, and it's just too complex to discuss. Please, can some mod step in and give us some direction. I didn't mean you needed credentials. If you base all your scientific beliefs on direct observations of what is happening, you're barely going to have any science left. You cannot show that the earth is not at the center of the universe, nor that it revolves around the sun, nor that it even rotates. But, you can say, we have evidence that these things occur! Our observation of the stars and the way they shift indicates that the earth changes place, the theory of the earth's revolving around the sun explains the seasons in temperate parts of the world perfectly, not to mention the changing lengths of daylight and how they may be compared in other parts of the world. We never needed a rocket ship to prove that the earth rotated around the sun, etc. We had enough proof before. In exactly the same way, we don't need direct observational evidence to see evolution at work. We have already amassed enough evidence in many different fields of science that come together to confirm the process of evolution. It doesn't matter how many of the 0.1% you quote. 99.9% of biologists believe their logic is riddled with gaping holes, and so do I. Creationists often make out evolutionary scientists and backers as those who have an agenda: They do not want to believe in God, so they misinterpret and manipulate the evidence according to their bias. Romans 1 says it is apparent that God has created the world, but now, we our new abilities of observation, it is just as obvious if not more so that he created life's diversity by evolution. This is confirmed and reconfirmed by multiple fields of scientific study. It is as though the earth itself bears witness of evolution. I have found it to be true that Creationists are the ones with the agenda. (I do not mean this as an insult or taunt, but just an observation.) They know that they must confirm their literal interpretation of Genesis no matter the cost. They are driven by a confirmation bias that is obvious and ridiculous to the unbelieving world. Thus, ironically many unbelievers refuse to consider Christianity because the Christians adamantly refuse to believe what the rest of the world knows to be true. Disclosure: I am going to bow out of this thread. I think I've said what I can say to the Creationists.
  2. Keystone

    CATHOLICS! I NEED SOME ANSWERS....NOWWWWW!

    Alyosha, I am not a Catholic, but I think that was a beautiful post. It's always wonderful to meditate on what was accomplished through the Lord's death and the triumph of his resurrection. Thank you for taking the time to share. I have been thinking a lot of how politics divide people. They are a necessary evil, I suppose, but sometimes it's good to silence one's own politics and just "love your neighbor." I think discussing theology can be like this, too. Sometimes instead of emphasizing the differences in our theology--and if theology isn't difficult to interpret, nothing is!--and step back and remember what is the same. God bless. Keystone
  3. Keystone

    Not Married, but Living Together

    "Making love" serves three purposes: - procreation - Making babies. Birds do it, bees do it. - recreation - It's very pleasurable. - consummation - The act of marriage. The Bible teaches us this third aspect, that it bind the man & woman together to what it calls "one flesh." It creates a connection between them. (Gen 2:24, Mat 19:5-6.) Anyone you "sleep" with becomes one body with you. ("Or do you not know that he who is joined to a prostitute becomes one body with her?" 1 Cor 6:16 ESV), but this is only meant for husband & wife. It completes and fulfills marriage. That is what is meant by consummation. It is important to note: Sex doesn't make you married. It makes you one body/flesh. There is a difference. And I know of no way to "undo" the one-body union if the two of you are still alive. The good news is that it is fine to marry a different person regardless of sexual sin with others. God requires Christians who are already saved to be baptized. Acts and the remainder of the New Testament make this clear. God doesn't just want a private commitment. He values the ceremony as a public sign of it. So, to answer a question that wasn't asked, no, do not sleep with your lover under any circumstances if you haven't married him or her properly. It doesn't matter if you registered that wedding with the government if you have had a real ceremony of some sort, and it would be fine if you just registered your marriage at a government office. God values the ceremony. Back to the main topic.... Sharing an address is not something you should do unless you're married. It implies sex. It will put you in a situation where it's even harder to control your passions for that person. If you want to save money, keep in mind that the love (or valuing) of money is the root of all kinds of evils (1 Tim 6:10). You can't put a price tag on purity, friend. This isn't the way to find out if the person is the right person to marry. It is sin to move in with your boyfriend or girlfriend.
  4. Keystone

    Question bout' evolution.

    You say you don't see finches evolve into non-finches. Are you qualified to make that statement? A more appropriate question would be, "Have we seen sufficient evidence that finches evolved from non-finches." (We evolutionists say it takes an awful long time, so it'd be impossible to wait around to see finches evolve.) To get sound answer, you need to ask the right questions. Now, about finches mating with or without other finches. According to evolutionary studies, evolution is never a matter of once animal not reproducing with the others. That's not evolution. It's when one group of animals becomes separated/isolated from another group of the same sort of animal. There are many ways this could occur. Here's an example: After a flood, a shallow river changes course. One group of fish downstream become isolated in a lake. The upstream fish of the same species are isolated from the other group. After a sufficiently long amount of time, natural selection changes the two fish populations because there were ways each could better adapt to the environment. Maybe the sand of the riverbed or the plant life are a different colors. The fishes that "by accident" are resemble their environment more survive while their brothers are eaten more frequently. Other changes very gradually take place, over many generations. In the end, even if you put the two species together, they can no longer interbreed. They are then different species. Wash, rinse, repeat, over and over again. As the changes accumulate, the newly evolved species look more and more different. Whale evolution is one of the best, well-documented examples of huge change between drastically different seeming species. The evidence out there is really compelling. It's this stuff that made me realize, "Hey, these guys aren't just trying to disprove God. They are just truth-seekers following the hard evidence." More detail can be found on this general subject by Googling "speciation", which is the formation of new species. But there's one resource: http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/S/Speciation.html For the record, they cannot all interbreed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canid_hybrid Here's a great discussion of the subject: http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=17102.0 I find that one of the weaknesses of many Creationist arguments is they say "this couldn't happen" without being able to back it up with anything but ideas, no hard evidence. Evolutionists can say, "Look what natural selection did" and provide vast quantities of evidence (I am not exagerating) to support their claims. http://biologos.org/ is a great resource for born-again Christians (and other types too) who accept Darwinian evolution. It's founded by Francis Collins, the leader of the Human Genome Project.
  5. Keystone

    Height Difference

    I'm married to a wonderful woman who is much shorter than me. So I'd say no.
  6. Keystone

    is this a swear word?

    A little story somewhat related I always thought it would be handy to add "cr*p" to my vocabulary. (After all, it's not nearly as bad as saying *bleep*, y'know!) It expresses feeling without being strongly offensive, and even some of my devoted Christian friends like to say it. My my mom always taught me it was a bad word. But now was a new era! I was about to reinvent myself aided by a doubtfully offensive four-letter word! Yet even though I'm nearly 30, I couldn't say the word without a considerable pang of guilt. If there's any chance that a rebuff from the Holy Spirit, I (reluctantly) eliminated it from my vocabulary once again.
  7. I noticed there are lots of Catholics up in here. 'Sup, Catholics! Anyhow, I went to a Catholic university, and I took a class that explored the subject of the Eucharist, among other things. I think I even did a research paper about it. My memory is getting vague... I know you're really, really into transubstantiation... I just wanted to discuss my take on the issue--I dunno--for the sake of discussing it. I don't think I'll persuade anyone. Nope. I just want to wave my hands and say, "Everybody, this is wot I think!" My general understanding of Communion/the Eucharist was inspired coincidentally by an analogy written in some book by a Catholic priest. If a girl takes a bouquet from her boyfriend and treats them poorly, she is showing contempt for his love. If she honors those flowers, she honors his love, for they are a symbol of his love. Thus, the fact that it is only symbol without substance does not detract from the power of it in the least. You guys believe that the host actually becomes the body of Christ, so much you direct worship to it, a logical extension of the belief. I, on the other hand, believe it to be a very strong symbol of Christ's body and blood. I don't mean any disrespect, but let me be frank in the interest of sincerity: I think your idea that it becomes Christ's body and blood without being anything like His body and blood to be a throwback to old, obsolete philosophy. I understand that Catholicism has just loaded up the Biblical teaching with that philosophy to explain how important it is to God. For me, the fact that God treats it as a super-strong symbol of Christ's body and blood has absolutely no difference than transubstantiation. Transubstantiation's effect: We treat the host as Christ's body and blood, though we outwardly sense no difference. Super-strong symbolism effect: We treat the host as Christ's body and blood, though we outwardly sense no difference (nor acknowledge any inward difference). Yes, there is more to it than that for the ways Catholics conduct their Masses. I know Catholics are super careful about what they do with the unconsumed host. Protestants, generally, don't mind a few spilled crumbs. As a comment, I thought it was weird to learn that the congregation doesn't always sip the wine. In the Bible, Jesus indicated the wine as his blood, and the bread as his body, instructing us to consume both, but Catholics teach that consuming only the bread is fine, because it contains the substance of body and blood. That smacks to me of "misguidedly explaining away an inconvenient Scriptural truth." I believe 100% that God accepts and is please with your Eucharistic worship. My understanding is that He, of course, sees that your theory is wrong in some respects, but you are still doing your best to obey and worship Him, and that's what counts. Unlike y'all, I believe God is also please with any believer from another denomination who partakes of Communion with a heart of worship and reverence.
  8. We are the superior beings! You will be EXTERMINATED!

  9. Keystone

    The Old And New Testament God.

    What if I change the topic a little: The Old & New Testament God and the God of Nature & History. When we think of the Lord God's role in the world, it is shocking. God is attentive to everything that occurs in life, and He guides the course of history and nature. I refuse to believe that the world has run off its rails since original sin. The idea that Adam & Eve's sin lead, not only human death, but also animal death is a wild one to me. The entire ecosystem depends on hunting and dying. To say it once existed without it would be to describe a world so different from our own, it might as well be 2D. When animals die and suffer, we are witnessing the world as it was created to function. Not a sparrow falls to the ground without God's attention (Mat 10:29). He's attentive over all creation, watching all of it unceasingly and exercising His sustaining influence over it. "And in him all things hold together" (Col 1:17 ESV). To quote some text from Van Halen's "Right Now" music video: "Right now, God is killing Moms and dogsā€¦ because he has to" There has been a whole lot of human pain and suffering throughout history. The amount of animals pain and suffering is even more mind boggling. God reigns sovereign over all things, including these inconvenient truths. God's severity is not as obvious in the New Testament, but it's there. He really wears it on His sleeve in the Old Testament. Believe that God is all safe and gentle and kind and stuff is not the reality of our God. He is hardcore, but He is good, and He is our friend!
  10. God knows very well what He is doing. He knows how difficult the Bible is to interpret. Unlike the Ethiopian eunuch in Acts 8, we do not all have our Holy Spirit-appointed apostle to clarify everything for us. When reading the New Testament, I'm thinking it took a long time before the common Christians were able to grasp that God is a Trinity. Today, some Christians will quickly lash out at someone who doesn't "get it" as quickly as they do. Unlike AquinasD, I have been absolutely convinced that Catholics have wondered far off base on some of their doctrines, even some which they consider dogmas worthy of great attention. I believe one can be truly saved and not understand (or even misunderstand) some very important truths about God. I think you only have to believe some bare-bones doctrines (facts about God) to be saved: That Christ Jesus, the Lord, came into the world to save sinners, which he did by dying on the cross. He rose from the tomb shortly thereafter, and anyone who sincerely believes this and repents of his sin may be saved. If we are sincerely trying to understand God's word, we may get some things wrong, but that doesn't constitute rejecting Christ unless you really fowled up.
  11. I am the doctor. I am the only one on speaking terms with all six guardians of the universe, casuality, and 42. I choose to make earth my home, and anyone who pushes me around is going to get it. I have wasted my patience and my pity on creatures like you DALEK, so be warned....LEAVE EARTH ALONE!!!

    In other news...so you a doctor who fan too eh? :)

  12. and my little brother?

  13. you dare to confront the doctor? the oncoming storm?

×