Quote:What I dont belive in is repenting of sins with the church. You can say your truely sorry and get forgiven by someone who doesnt even know you.

Quote:Hebrews 10:25 Not forsaking the assembling of ourselves together, as the manner of some is.

Quote:1.  Admit you are a sinner.  Romans 3:10
2.  Be willing to turn from sin (repent)  Acts 17:30
3.  Believe that Jesus Christ died for you, was buried and rose from the dead.   Romans 10:9-10
4.  Through prayer, invite Jesus into your life to become your personal savior.  Romans 10:13

What do I pray? You could say something like this:
Dear God,  I am a sinner and need forgiveness.  I believe that Jesus shed His blood and died for my sins.  I am willing to turn from sin.  I now invite Christ to come into my heart and life a my personal Savior.  Thank you for this gift.   Amen.

Quote:Rom 12:19  Dearly beloved, avenge not yourselves, but rather give place unto wrath: for it is written, Vengeance is mine; I will repay, saith the Lord.

Quote:From what I see on TV these days...it isn't even very cool in the young crowd to be a Christian.

Quote:PS. I'm still looking for the passage about ricochet being in heaven for you Anon.

Quote:Galatians 2:16  "Knowing that a man is not justified by the works of the law, but by the faith of Jesus Christ, even we have believed in Jesus Christ, that we might be justified by the faith of Christ, and not by the works of the law: for by the works of the law shall no flesh be justified."

Titus 3:5  "Not by works of righteousness which we have done, but according to his mercy he saved us."

Proverbs 14:12  There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Quote:you have to write a gospel, join the clergy or give money to the Church to get in.

Quote:edit...  Remember that laughable picture...plueeeze!  I want everyone to remember that PIX showed how funny Hell was whether it's tomorrow or a 1000 years from now....please remember it.

Quote:1. The Carbon 14 dating procedure is only good on objects that are dead...that were once living. Carbon 14 is absorbed and ingested by all living plants, animals and humans and only begins to diminish after death. The Carbon-14 dating method measures the decay and converts that decay into years.

2. Rocks, minerals and fully mineralized fossils cannot be dated by the "radiocarbon" method.

3. Even ardent proponents of Carbon-14 dating know that past 50,000 years, the Carbon-14 remaining in a once-living object would be so minute that no reliable measurement could be made.

4. Many scientists doubt Carbon-14 dating's accuracy beyond 3,000 years.

Quote:The ridiculous long ages of into the billions are not a product of radiocarbon dating. The two most commonly used methods to date rocks and minerals are the Potassium-Argon and the Uranium-Lead methods. As in all the radiometric systems of dating two familiar false assumptions are in their equation. Remember, if your computer says 2 + 2 = 5, no matter how scholarly, the math computation will always be incorrect. The following are the two false assumptions and the excerpt cited is from the book titled, The World That Perished, by John C. Whitcomb:

Many scientists claim to have nearly infallible methods for determining the age of the earth and its various formations. But all of these methods are built upon two basic and unprovable assumptions: (1) the assumption of starting point or original condition and (2) the assumption of a uniform rate of change from that starting point to the present.

Quote:The following statement has been taken from the Anthropological Journal of Canada:

The troubles of the radiocarbon dating method are undeniably deep and serious. Despite 35 years of technological refinement and better understanding, the underlying assumptions have been strongly challenged, and warnings are out that radiocarbon may soon find itself in a crisis situation. Continuing use of the method depends on a "fix-it-as-we-go" approach, allowing for contamination here, fractionation there, and calibration whenever possible. It should be no surprise, then, that fully half of the dates are rejected. The wonder is, surely, that the remaining half come to be accepted.

No matter how "useful" it is, though, the radiocarbon method is still not capable of yielding accurate and reliable results. There are gross discrepancies, the chronology is uneven and relative, and the accepted dates are actually selected dates.

It is important to keep in mind that dates and ages of most rock strata were assumed, based on evolutionary theory, before radiometric dating was invented. If the dates measured are contrary to evolution's preconceived positions, then the date is often rejected.

In a publication titled, Contributions to Geology, this paragraph was found:

In general, dates in the "correct ballpark" are assumed to be correct and are published, but those in disagreement with other data are seldom published nor are discrepancies fully explained.

The dating discrepancies in the radiometric field are daunting. Example: wood which was buried in lava flow that formed basalt in Australia was dated by Carbon-14 at about 45,000 years old. The basalt it was found in was measured by the Potassium-Argon method at 45 million years old. Potassium-Argon said it was a thousand times older than Carbon-14.

The following paragraphs are found in a book authored by Morris and Morris titled Many Infallible Proofs:

As in the case of uranium dating, potassium dating also commonly yields great ages on rocks known to be very young.

The radiogenic argon and helium contents of three basalts erupted into the deep ocean from an active volcano (Kilauea) have been measured. Ages calculated from these measurements increase with sample depth up to 22 million years for lavas deduced to be recent...it is possible to deduce that these lavas are very young, probably less than 200 years old.

And again we ask how it is possible to be sure that potassium ages are correct when determined for rocks of unknown age, when the same method gives ages 100,000 times too great for rocks whose age we know!

Evolutionist F.B. Jueneman in Industrial Research and Development stated:

The age of our globe is presently thought to be some 4.5 billion years, based on radio-decay rates of uranium and thorium. Such "confirmation" may be shortlived, as nature is not to be discovered quite so easily. There has been in recent years the horrible realization that radio-decay rates are not as constant as previously thought, nor are they immune to environmental influences. And this could mean that the atomic clocks are reset during some global disaster, and events which brought the Mesozoic to a close may not be 65 million years ago, but rather, within the age and memory of man.

The following statement is from evolutionist William Stansfield, Ph.D., California Polytech State:

It is obvious that radiometric techniques may not be the absolute dating methods that they are claimed to be. Age estimates on a given geological stratum by different radiometric methods are often quite different (sometimes by hundreds of millions of years). There is no absolutely reliable long-term radiological "clock."

Quote:Heb 11:1  Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Quote:There is another problem with the so-called transitional fossils. They do not distinguish between the evolution and creation models. The often cited Archeopteryx does nothing to distinguish between the two models because it could just as well be just another created species. Our experience of living species indicates that there is a vast variety of species on the planet filling just about every possible ecological niche. Kathleen Hunt says that "the exciting discovery of Archeopteryx in 1861 showed clearly that the two groups (diapsid reptiles to birds) were in fact related" italics mine. It does nothing of the sort, unless you assume that evolution is true, it does nothing to prove that one group is related by descent to the other. To do that requires a series of fossils that show the development of a new adaption.

Quote:Most, due to lack of real interest, are unaware there is a mountain of information to support a 6,000 year old earth. There are 107 scientific measurements alone that prove the earth to be young; scientific research concerning things such as population statistics and the fossil record to Helium in the atmosphere to erosion of the continents.

Perplexing news concerning recent dinosaur bones unearthed in Alaska should have sent a lot of the old-earth proponents back to their bunkers to attempt to sure up their theories. According to the anti-Bible folks there was a huge catastrophe that killed off all the dinosaurs around 70 million years ago. M. Helder in a 1992 article titled, "Fresh Dinosaur Bones Found," published in Creation ex nihilo, Vol. 14, the following information:

She could not accept that fresh (not permineralized, meaning unfossilized) dinosaur bones had been found in Alaska. Such bones could never have lasted 70 million years, she said. Unlikely or not, it is a fact that such bones have been found...How these bones could have remained in fresh condition for 70 million years is a perplexing question. One thing is certain: they were not preserved by cold. Everyone recognizes that the climate in these regions was much warmer during the time when the dinosaurs lived...Why then did these bones not decay long ago?...The obvious conclusion is that these bones were deposited in relatively recent times.

Scientists at the University of Montana were shocked when they found T. rex bones that were not totally fossilized. Not only were the bones not fossilized but they appeared to have blood cells which would be impossible if they were millions of years old. The following is part of the report issued by the scientists:

A thin slice of T. rex bone glowed amber beneath the lens of my microscope...the lab filled with murmurs of amazement, for I had focused on something inside the vessels that none of us had ever noticed before: tiny round objects, translucent red with a dark center...red blood cells? The shape and location suggested them, but blood cells are mostly water and couldn't possibly have stayed preserved in the 65-million-year old tyrannosaur.

The bone sample that had us so excited came from a beautiful, nearly complete specimen of Tyrannosaurus rex unearthed in 1990...When the team brought the dinosaur into the lab, we noticed that some parts deep inside the long bone of the leg had not completely fossilzed...So far, we think that all of this evidence supports the notion that our slices of T. rex could contain preserved heme as hemoglobin fragments. But more work needs to be done before we are confident enough to come right out and say, "Yes, this T. rex has blood compounds left in its tissues."

In another effort to make fossils speak in new ways, post-graduate student Mary Schweitzer has been trying to extract DNA from the bones of T. rex. Originally, like Kristi, she had intended to thin-section the bones and conduct a histologic investigation. But under the microscope there appeared to be blood cells preserved within the bone tissue. Mary conducted a number of tests in an attempt to rule out the possibility that what she'd discovered were in fact blood cells. The tests instead confirmed her initial interpretation.

Author, popular lecturer and broadcaster Ken Ham weighed in with the following comment on this subject:

These red blood cells provide excellent evidence that these fossils are not millions of years old, but are no more than a few thousand years old.

Ancient historic accounts, the Bible and thousands of local sightings testify of dinosaurs and fiery flying serpents in recorded history. Even in this present day reports of dinosaur-like creatures exist. For example, in the publication Science Digest, 1981, and in Science Frontiers, number 3367, they recorded that explorers and native Africans reported sightings of dinosaur-like creatures. In the February 6, 1980, issue of the Australian Melbourne Sun it was reported that over recent years 40 people claimed to have seen plesiosaurs off the Victorian coast of Australia.

Quote:The earth's magnetic field also points to a very, very young earth. Scientists believe that the earth is a large electromagnet and the source of the magnetic field is probably a large electric current. In 1971, Dr. T. Barnes theorized that nothing keeps the earth going except its own inertia. Because it is not being refueled with energy the Barnes theory says that the current is running down slowly like a flywheel without a motor. Consequently the strength of the earth's magnetic field is decreasing. Since the first measurement of the earth's magnetic field in 1835, it has lost 7% of its strength. According to the Barnes model the strength of the magnetic field should decrease by a constant rate each year and the data is consistent with just such a decrease. Present data points to a magnetic field which has lost one-half of its force over the past 1,400 years. Following this line backwards it is clear to see that Earth's age should be measured in thousands, such as in 6,000, and not billions of years. Russell Humphreys, Ph.D., is an ICR Adjunct Professor of Physics and as of 1993, a physicist at Sandia National Laboratories in New Mexico. He had this to say:

As measured by clocks on earth, the age of the universe today could be as small as the face-value biblical age of about 6,000 years.

Quote:"There are only two possibilities as to how life
arose. One is spontaneous generation arising to
evolution; the other is a supernatural creative
act of God. There is no third possibility.
Spontaneous generation, that life arose from
non-living matter was scientifically disproved
120 years ago by Louis Pasteur and others. That
leaves us with the only possible conclusion that
life arose as a supernatural creative act of God.
I will not accept that philosophically because I
do not want to believe in God. Therefore, I choose
to believe in that which I know is scientifically
impossible; spontaneous generation arising to
evolution." - (Wald, George, "Innovation and
Biology," Scientific American, Vol. 199,
Sept. 1958, p. 100)

Trigun.Vash.Ace.Shot,Apr 24 2004, 02:17 AM Wrote:lmao i just saw the munkey I aint from no damn munkey lol.
If we come from munkeys they say or evolved why arent theyre no munkeys evolving into humans right now?

lol i didnt read...

Wha?,Apr 24 2004, 11:00 PM Wrote:::PostScript::
Technically Homo sapiens sapiens descended from apes, not monkeys.

Quote:"There are three totally different kinds of humans on the Earth, meaning that they perceive the One reality in three different ways, interpreted differently. The first kind of human has a chromosome composition of 42+2. They comprise a unity consciousness that does not see anything outside themselves as being separate from themselves. To them, there is only one energy - one life, one beingness that moves everywhere. Anything happening anywhere is within them, as well. They are like cells in the body. They are all connected to a single consciousness that moves through all of them. These are the aboriginals in Australia. There might be a few African tribes left like this. Then, there is our level, comprising 44+2 chromosomes. We are a disharmonic level of consciousness that is used as a steppingstone from the 42+2 level to the next level, 46+2...These two additional chromosomes change everything."
                     -Drunvalo Melchizadek

Quote:::PostScript::
Technically Homo sapiens sapiens descended from apes, not monkeys.

Wha?,Apr 25 2004, 01:11 PM Wrote:1)Also, there are 23 chromosomes in a human, so what's the 44, and which 2 are getting special attention?
2)Why can't a mutation in the current ones bring the next level of consciousness?
3)I mean, after all, there are animals with way more chromosomes than people, and they haven't been mentioned in that theory.

Quote:I say SCIENCE with it's circular reasoning is the problem. Man fills in to many
gaps to get the answer HE desperately WANTS.

Quote:There is ZERO proof humans evolved from apes or any other muck....NONE.