Moore's Beach Monster

[BrianC]

Was theft not a crime before the Ten Commandments?

Law defines crimes. The question should be "was theft a sin before the Ten Commandments", and the answer is, of course, yes. Just because something is not stated as "sin" does not mean it isn't sin. Sin is simply something which opposes God's ways. Anything against God's perfect ways is sin.

God said the people before the flood were unimaginably evil, which means they were sinning like crazy. But also, we are told in the Bible that the Law of Moses had not come yet to inform people of what sin was. And so it says that where there is no law, there is no trespass. In fact, Paul says that he was spiritually alive before he learned about the Law to know what sin was, and then he says he died spiritually. In other words, ignorance is bliss in a sense. You can plead ignorance in God's court, it would seem. However, that's not quite as it seems. It sounds like the people before the flood DID know they were doing evil and rebelling against God, because in the New Testament, it says the spirits of the people before the flood were in prison, and Jesus made proclamation to them after He rose from the dead. I'm guessing He offered forgiveness and salvation to them, because otherwise, He was going down there to rub it in their faces that they were stuck in prison. LOL And that just doesn't sound like Him.

So, this is how I understand it. God says that one must be perfect to enter heaven, meaning that they are without sin. The people before the flood may have not been condemned to hell for being evil, because it says they were only "in prison", whatever that means. We can't know for sure what that means. But it sounds like those people could not go to heaven since they still had evil in them, but Jesus came down and offered them forgiveness to get rid of the evil so they could join Him in Heaven. That's my guess. No way to know for sure, though.

Hope that answers your question thoroughly enough.

[BrianC]

Umm, excuse me, but Steven Hawking IS a scientist

http://www.answers.com/topic/stephen-hawking

And since you brought up Kent Hovind, do you agree with him on his Hydroplate and Ice Shield "theories"?

I'm not sure they quite have the hydroplate theory worked out exactly like it happened. I really can't say, because it, like evolution and big bang, is only theoretical in nature. Hydroplate theory makes the most sense, though. It makes way more sense than continental drift, because the continents and continental self are connected. Pangaea and continental drift act as if the continental self doesn't exist, and they completely eliminate Central America and Mexico and they reduce the size of Africa by half I think it is. I thought it was a third, but it's half if I'm not mistaken. Makes absolutely no sense. And on top of that, some of the continental plates "drift" the wrong direction, and that makes the theory contradictory.

As for the ice-shield, you mean the ice canopy. Well, I haven't quite decided how that happened yet. I say that because the water being under the crust in the beginning would mean the crust had a larger circumference before, which would mean the atmosphere would be more compressed, which would mean there would be greater air pressure. But, that doesn't account for the double air pressure we find in amber air bubbles which is required for dinosaurs, plants and animals to exist in the sizes we find them in the fossil record. Which means something was most likely sitting on top of the atmosphere. I tend to think it was water split into two hydrogen metal shields and oxygen in between them. The reason I say that is because if you take water and super compress it and freeze it to nearly absolute zero, it splits into hydrogen and oxygen and the hydrogen turns into a metal. We learned this with superconductor research. I think this "firmament" canopy is what God was talking about when He says He divided the waters and moved a portion into the sky. I think part of the water was used to form the atmosphere, and the other part was used to form a canopy to hold in the air double air pressure.

SOMETHING increased the air pressure during the time dinosaurs existed. And that is the only explanation for how they could have existed in the sizes in which they existed. Same goes for the plants and other animals and humans. We find a lot of skeletons of humans which are 8, 9, 11 and 12 feet tall. We found bones from a 13 foot human too. The pictures are amazing - I think I saw one of the leg bones next to a man and it was nearly as tall as the man. Humans never stop growing their entire life IF their environment allows it. The parathyroid is what handles how bones are formed. If an environment would allow for a human to get bigger, he would get bigger and the parathyroid would ensure the bones kept growing. You can look at body builders and see how their bones continue to "grow" in different directions due to the forces exerted on the bones by the pull of their muscles. Have you noticed how women who do body building always have these wide jaws? They were not that way before they started working out. They grit their teeth while lifting, which causes the muscles to pull against the bones and the parathyroid causes that bone to be able to reshape itself to accomidate the forces caused by the muscles contracting. This also can cause the brow-line to protrude. They find in African tribes where the people use their teeth for tools a lot, having to chew on things, that their brow-lines are protruding quite a bit. This is due to the jaw muscles being connected to the eyebrows, and so the more chewing the people do, the more those muscles pull on the brow muscles which pulls on the bone causing the parathyroid to want to add to that bone to reshape it and pull it out further. They're not less evolved - they just use their teeth a lot.

Also, scientists have said that pterodactyls we find are too large to fly unless the air pressure was about twice what it is today, because otherwise, the air would be too thin to support their weight for flight. Some have been found to have 50' wingspans. That's one big "bird" right there. And there's no way it's getting off the ground without a lot of air pressure. There's no way the hearts of braciosaurs could pump blood to their heads without added air pressure. Double would increase pumping pressure by four times the amount. Also, without the added air pressure (air thickness), they could not get enough oxygen into their tiny nose holes to feed their lungs without the air friction lighting their noses on fire. And their lungs were not just real huge, so they would need a lot of oxygen to distribute to their bodies. And that only happens when the blood plasma is saturated with oxygen which only happens with double air pressure.

When scientists are asked what could cause the double air pressure needed for dinosaurs to exist in large sizes, they either have no answer, or they say that there needs to be something on top of the atmosphere pressing in (holding in) the air pressure. Creation theory just makes a LOT more sense to me, personally. If their theory were crap, I wouldn't buy into it. It's not about religion for me - it's about common sense. What makes the most logical sense is what I will go with.

[BrianC]

He's a theoretical physicist. He's about as much of a scientist as the guy who thought of the teleporter on the starship enterprise. BrianC was correct in his statement. Basically, Hawkings comes up with ideas, and scientists try to prove him wrong.

To be honest, I was unaware that Hawking taught classes and was a professor at any universities. I can't say if he's a scientist or not. Doesn't really matter, though, to be honest, because he's not the only one who has made statements that the universe "made itself" out of "nothing". That's been stated by multiple scientists. Kent Hovind quotes them on his videos if you care to watch them, but they are long as hell. Interesting, but long. lol

[BrianC]

I will agree with the hard headed creationist and say its not a beaked whale. It's obviously a transitional animal that came from the beaked whale through evolution! duh!

lol nice

[BrianC]

Wow.

What, you never took your own belief of evolution and thought critically about what the morals of evolution should be? Evolution has absolutely no morals. If evolutionists were to live by evolutions' lack of morals, they would need to be doing only what is best for them, which would be stealing, killing and doing whatever it takes to survive. Survival of the fittest.

Communism and fascism both have an evolution base to their belief systems. They spawned from evolution ideaology. If you don't believe me, go do a little research. Marx, Stalin and Hitler were all staunch evolutionists and said that evolution was the foundation of their beliefs upon which they built their government systems. You can find the statements and references to the statements in Hovind's videos. I can't keep up with all the references. Too much information, but you're welcome to research it yourself.

[BrianC]

By the way, I misunderstood Flashstang04 one day. I thought he was saying he was a moderator in the Theology forum here at DFWstangs, but I must have misunderstood him. He says he's not a mod, so I just wanted to correct my screw up on that one.

[talisman]

By the way, I misunderstood Flashstang04 one day. I thought he was saying he was a moderator in the Theology forum here at DFWstangs, but I must have misunderstood him. He says he's not a mod, so I just wanted to correct my screw up on that one.

I think we can all agree that is the least of your screw ups to worry about.

[slow99]

What, you never took your own belief of evolution and thought critically about what the morals of evolution should be? Evolution has absolutely no morals. If evolutionists were to live by evolutions' lack of morals, they would need to be doing only what is best for them, which would be stealing, killing and doing whatever it takes to survive. Survival of the fittest.

Communism and fascism both have an evolution base to their belief systems. They spawned from evolution ideaology. If you don't believe me, go do a little research. Marx, Stalin and Hitler were all staunch evolutionists and said that evolution was the foundation of their beliefs upon which they built their government systems. You can find the statements and references to the statements in Hovind's videos. I can't keep up with all the references. Too much information, but you're welcome to research it yourself.

Ha, thanks for the advice and for assuming I'm the one who needs to do research. By the way, there's a ton of info on morality and evolution. I know because I read lots of books, papers on that very thing a few months ago.

[BrianC]

Ha, thanks for the advice and for assuming I'm the one who needs to do research. By the way, there's a ton of info on morality and evolution. I know because I read lots of books, papers on that very thing a few months ago.

There's a ton of information which shows that their logic is absurd too. If evolution is true, there is ABSOLUTELY NO foundation for having any morals whatsoever. If you know so much about this, please, post some stuff in here about it and I'll show you where it makes no sense.

[talisman]

There's a ton of information which shows that their logic is absurd too. If evolution is true, there is ABSOLUTELY NO foundation for having any morals whatsoever. If you know so much about this, please, post some stuff in here about it and I'll show you where it makes no sense.

You're going to show someone else that what they think doesn't make any sense? That's rich.

[jdgregory84]

Morals have nothing to do with religion or evolution. Argue either way and when it comes down to it, morals are decided within a society and evolve within that society whatever way that particuliar society sees fit.

[slow99]

There's a ton of information which shows that their logic is absurd too. If evolution is true, there is ABSOLUTELY NO foundation for having any morals whatsoever. If you know so much about this, please, post some stuff in here about it and I'll show you where it makes no sense.

I don't need you to tell me what does or does not make sense, but thanks.

[BrianC]

Morals have nothing to do with religion or evolution. Argue either way and when it comes down to it, morals are decided within a society and evolve within that society whatever way that particuliar society sees fit.

Wow, you really are delusional. Morals have EVERYTHING to do with religion. They come from what someone BELIEVES. If a person believes in evolution, they will create morals which best suit them, because evolution mindset is very self-centered and about personal survival.

Christianity has morals which are selfless. As it turns out, those morals are very good for the growth of society and for prospering both socially and financially. Israel, at times, due to their free-market economy, has been the richest nation on the planet. The US saw the same benefits from using the old law as the foundation for our constitution. Look at the morals in China. Ask them where they get them from. They will tell you from religion. They also get them from evolution, another religion. You can read about how the Japanese, during WWII, were very prideful about how they were supposedly further evolved than other races (I forget how, though). The Nazis saw killing the Jews and other unfit people and races as a kindness. Their beliefs drove their morals. Beliefs are always what drive morals. Communism has its morals and laws because of its evolutionary beliefs. They've killed millions and millions of people because of their evolutionism belief system. And they found that it doesn't work. Their country collapsed as a result, with some help from outside forces, though Russia was already in financial crisis before outside forces started causing them more problems financially. Now, they've taken a hybrid version of communism and capitalism to make it work a little better, just as China has. But it still doesn't work, though the entire world is in financial crisis because we're all linked to the problem since the world bank connects all our markets. During the Great Depression, the entire world was in crisis for 3 years. But because of the socialist policies we were implimenting in our country at the time, it lasted 10 years for us. Read The Forgotten Man if you want more info on that (though it's insanely long and boring).

Sorry, but all morals come from religious beliefs. Evolutionism is just another religious belief, but its morals are really only what benefits each person individually rather than the whole. Government implemented morals, though, is when it begins to be about the whole, like in Nazi Germany or 1920s America. When the government gets a hold of a belief system such as Evolutionism, they have to borrow morals from Christianity to make it work for a while, but it always collapses.

Sad that you cannot see that Evolution is a religion not science.

[BrianC]

I don't need you to tell me what does or does not make sense, but thanks.

LOL Nice. I give you one challenge, to defend your statement, and you deflect so you don't have to do it and get proved wrong. Good job!

[jdgregory84]

Wow, you really are delusional. Morals have EVERYTHING to do with religion. They come from what someone BELIEVES. If a person believes in evolution, they will create morals which best suit them, because evolution mindset is very self-centered and about personal survival.

Christianity has morals which are selfless. As it turns out, those morals are very good for the growth of society and for prospering both socially and financially. Israel, at times, due to their free-market economy, has been the richest nation on the planet. The US saw the same benefits from using the old law as the foundation for our constitution. Look at the morals in China. Ask them where they get them from. They will tell you from religion. They also get them from evolution, another religion. You can read about how the Japanese, during WWII, were very prideful about how they were supposedly further evolved than other races (I forget how, though). The Nazis saw killing the Jews and other unfit people and races as a kindness. Their beliefs drove their morals. Beliefs are always what drive morals. Communism has its morals and laws because of its evolutionary beliefs. They've killed millions and millions of people because of their evolutionism belief system. And they found that it doesn't work. Their country collapsed as a result, with some help from outside forces, though Russia was already in financial crisis before outside forces started causing them more problems financially. Now, they've taken a hybrid version of communism and capitalism to make it work a little better, just as China has. But it still doesn't work, though the entire world is in financial crisis because we're all linked to the problem since the world bank connects all our markets. During the Great Depression, the entire world was in crisis for 3 years. But because of the socialist policies we were implimenting in our country at the time, it lasted 10 years for us. Read The Forgotten Man if you want more info on that (though it's insanely long and boring).

Sorry, but all morals come from religious beliefs. Evolutionism is just another religious belief, but its morals are really only what benefits each person individually rather than the whole. Government implemented morals, though, is when it begins to be about the whole, like in Nazi Germany or 1920s America. When the government gets a hold of a belief system such as Evolutionism, they have to borrow morals from Christianity to make it work for a while, but it always collapses.

Sad that you cannot see that Evolution is a religion not science.

So far, you've been the only one preaching on this site. Morals (a strong word for ethics) came way before religion, especially christianity ever did. Like I said, they develop within a society and either grow or disappear as that society sees fit. Can you not agree that the majority of Americans are christian? Can you not agree that the morals today aren't the same as the morals of the late 1700's, 1800's, or even early to mid 1900's?