Choosing a faith

Mark 12:1-12 is as plain as day. Who owns the vineyard, after all? The same one who owns the cattle on a thousand hills. The ones who leased the vineyard had just cause to fear the heir. WHO was the capstone the builders rejected?

What it says is pretty clear. GDR is the one who got that wrong. So maybe you should be talking to him.

Dwise, stop playing dumb. Evolutionists do believe that
all organisms evolved from one parent organism. The
changes took place in small increments, over hundreds
of millions of years.This assertion is not backed up by the fossils. In fact, It is
not backed up by anything. It is so overwhelmingly short
of credible evidence that more and more evolutionists
are dropping Darwinian evolution in favor of a third
alternative.Third Way of Evolution. Org.These people are so anti-God that they would believe in
anything before accepting God as Creator.Evolutionists say that it is a FACT that the simplest form
of life began roughly 3,500,000,000 years ago. Yet , they
do not have any idea of how it actually started.These fools hold anyone who question evolution in
contempt. Teachers and professors are forced to teach
this dogma. Our museums and other federal and state
agencies allow no dissent. To even question evolution
is anathema.Real science does not automatically shut down opposing
views. It encourages it.If I were Satan, and the current god of this age, I would
do the exact same thing.Let me tell you what Christ stated: "But whosoever
therefore shall deny me before men, him will I also deny
before my Father which is in heaven. Matthew 10:33.You, and many others, not only deny God, but you actively
fight against Him. It is your burning desire to convince
others that He doesn't exist.Dwise, your only hope after death is that God is a loving,
merciful God. It would be a terrible thing to stand in front
of God and receive the penalty of eternal death.Evolutionists speak of the sheer number of fossils in the
Cambrian explosion, which is nothing more than the
lowest level of strata deposited by the worldwide flood.None of the fossils in this strata are transitional. They are
the same today as they were then--4400 years ago.The worms, marine creatures, starfish, horseshoe crabs,
etc..., are still alive today.Evolutionists date fossils by the strata they are in. And,
they date the strata by the fossils in them. They still do
this today. And they actually have the gall to call it science.Creationists look at the fossils and sees what one would
expect to see as the result of a worldwide flood.We would expect to see marine creatures in the lowest
strata. Above this we would see amphibians, then reptiles,
and finally mammals and birds.Humans and birds would climb to the highest peaks;
thereby being the last to die, and the last to be covered,
if at all.FARM is exactly what we would expect the fossils to
reveal, and it does. Fish; Amphibians; Reptiles; Mammals.Organisms with soft tissue is in every layer of the
geologic column.Dinosaurs fossils and other organisms contain soft
tissue such as blood vessels; soft stretchy tissue;
collagen; proteins; blood cells; etc...Dr. Bryce Thomas has a catalog with over 120 papers
documenting soft tissue. The majority of which are
secular academic papers.Anything that goes against evolution does not receive
much press.Soft tissue are found even in bone fragments.
significant amounts of C-14 is also found in many
dinos and other organisms.When confronted with this evidence (evidence which
should force any reasonable person to question his
paradigm) they say that these are anomalies. Also,
that they were wrong, in that molecules and tissues
Can last 10's and 100's of millions of years.The human genome is devolving not evolving as atheists
would have us believe. Each generation has more
mutations than the preceeding generation.We are devolving and losing information. This has been
shown to be true.Never has a mutation added information to a genome.
True evolution would add information, not subtract
from it.I have already stated the assumptions made by
Radiometric Dating. Denying that these assumptions
occur does not change the fact that assumptions
are at the core of the process.And denying the worldwide flood and the effect is has
on dating assumptions and techniques also proves
RMD to be highly inaccurate.

"It has come to our attention that THE THIRD WAY web site is wrongly being referenced by proponents of Intelligent Design and creationist ideas as support for their arguments. We intend to make it clear that the website and scientists listed on the web site do not support or subscribe to any proposals that resort to inscrutable divine forces or supernatural intervention, whether they are called Creationism, Intelligent Design, or anything else."Looks quite interesting and it's how science happens.Home | The Third Way of Evolution

The Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, The Third Way, is blown way out of proportion. Hyped ... and then hyped again. "By who?" or "By whom?" The answer to both is the public media. Surprised?EES is a call for more intellectual respect for known/studied evolutionary mechanisms that it's proponents feel are under appreciated (with too few awards and research grants).

quote:

---

Kevin Laland, the scientist who organised the contentious Royal Society conference, believes it is time for proponents of neglected evolutionary sub-fields to band together. Laland and his fellow proponents of the Extended Evolutionary Synthesis, the EES, call for a new way of thinking about evolution – one that starts not by seeking the simplest explanation, or the universal one, but what combination of approaches offers the best explanation to biology’s major questions. Ultimately, they want their sub-fields – plasticity, evolutionary development, epigenetics, cultural evolution – not just recognised, but formalised in the canon of biology.

---

I can't disagree with the pushback. The Modern Synthesis, like any theory, can be strengthened but some rabbit holes, while fascinating, are too wrapped in complex minutia to be either help or hindrance to the greater understanding.

quote:

---

Brian and Deborah Charlesworth are considered by many to be high priests of the tradition that descends from the modern synthesis. They are eminent thinkers, who have written extensively on the place of new theories in evolutionary biology, and they don’t believe any radical revision is needed. Some argue that they are too conservative, but they insist they are simply careful – cautious about dismantling a tried-and-tested framework in favour of theories that lack evidence. They are interested in fundamental truths about evolution, not explaining every diverse result of the process.

​

“We’re not here to explain the elephant’s trunk, or the camel’s hump. If such explanations could even be possible,” Brian Charlesworth told me. Instead, he said, evolutionary theory should be universal, focusing on the small number of factors that apply to how every living thing develops. “It’s easy to get hung up on ‘you haven’t explained why a particular system works the way it does’. But we don’t need to know,” Deborah told me. It’s not that the exceptions are uninteresting; it’s just that they aren’t all that important.

---

Do we need a new theory of evolution? | Evolution | The GuardianIf you have been a fan of Dr. PZ Myers ( Pharyngula ) over these last twenty years then you know plasticity, evo-devo, epigenetics, these new radical hypotheses aren't all that new, or radical. They are, in fact, recognised sub-disciplines under the present Modern Synthesis. Cultural evolution ... not so much. Real bunch of crap floating around that one (Jordan Peterson).Evolution is not in any intellectual trouble bordering on collapse. Just a friendly jockeying for the limelight among the girls.

Hi candle2You are lightly dismissing RMD but have not responded to my request to be shown why I should not regard the evidence from Lake Malawi and volcanic chains as supportive evidence.
One would think that after many decades of using RMD those involved would realise if it were unreliable.Your idea of FARM to explain fossil evidence does not work. It does not explain the evidence for 5 major and many minor extinction events for a start. Why didn’t the pterodactyls fly higher than the rest of the dinosaurs climbed? How did modern plants manage to
be only in higher layers?YEC writers can not agree on where in the geologic layers is the Flood. For any one writer’s chosen level you can use the words of the others to show it is wrong.If you know conventional dating is so flawed go to RAZD’s thread Age Correlations for an Old Earth and refute it.And I would still like to know how Satan tempts me.

Have you ever stopped to read what dwise1 posts? Are you so arrogant about your faith that you feel it your calling to scold everyone who disagrees with you?If God is so powerful (and I believe He is) God Himself will one day reach each and every member of this forum without your constant scriptural lectures. If you feel so strongly about lecturing, why not start with me? Everyone else lectures me, and I take it like a man. Lets see what you've got.

Actually, you whine and make excuses like a child.
Maybe it would be better if you took it like a woman. They tend to be stronger emotionally and behaviorally than most men.

Maybe.Then again, I believe that one does not simply choose their gender as if they are trying on a new pair of clothes.Of course in our progressive society they can and do.I am against any minors doing this.Once we become adults, we have every right to change ourselves...but there is no guarantee that one will automatically become better.

Irrelevant and not at all related to what I said. You make everything about you and your regressive beliefs. All you know how to do is troll.

I don't even know what "troll" means without looking it up.It seems that you like to complain and control however.The only one around here worse was jar who lived to frame issues and squash his opponents points.And then I have Percy who treats me like a child by turning off my ability to make links. That really pisses me off.How about you people quit trying to control me. Criticism should be constructive and not punitive.

Sure, but not just the priests but anyone else who was there and anyone who heard it repeated. Jesus is clearly referring back to Isaiah Chap 5 where Isaiah has written a poem where he refers to Jerusalem and by extension Israel as a vineyard. The killing of the slaves in the parable clearly refers to the killing of the prophets over the years.In verse 12 we can see that the priests clearly understood it that way as they understood it to be aimed at them. Also it isn't so much that that they rejected the "son" in the story but in doing that they were also rejecting His message, which along with saying that the priests had made the Temple a den of thieves, but also it meant that His message on non-violence was being rejected with the results of that pictured in vs 9. You are right to the extent that I shouldn't have used the term "usually" as I don't know that to be the case. Put in "often" in place of usually.Here is a list from the ancient book "The Lives of the Prophets"
​

quote:

---

Isaiah: said to be of Jerusalem, suffered martyrdom by being sawn in two by Manasseh (in agreement with the Martyrdom of Isaiah), buried near a place usually identified by scholars as the Pool of Siloam.
Jeremiah: said to be of Anathoth (Jeremiah 1:1), suffered martyrdom by stoning at Tahpanhes in Ancient Egypt where he was also buried. It is said that who prayed with faith over the seer's grave is healed from asps bites. His remains were later moved to Alexandria. Before the First Temple was destroyed, Jeremiah hid miraculously in the rock the Ark of the Covenant.
Ezekiel: said to be of Arira[11] and to be of a priesthood family. He suffered martyrdom in the land of the Chaldeans and was buried in the grave of Shem and Arpachshad. A description of the grave is given. Same stories of Ezekiel in the Babylonian captivity are then narrated.
Daniel: said to be of the Tribe of Judah and born at Beth Horon.[11] He is described as a man devoted to fast and prayer, and the story, full of miraculous details, of Nebuchadrezzar's conversion is narrated.
Hosea: said to be of the Tribe of Issachar and born at Belemot[11] where he was buried.
Micah: said to be of the Tribe of Ephraim. He suffered martyrdom by Jehoram[12] and buried in his land near the cemetery of the Anakim.
Amos: said to be born in Tekoa (Amos 1:1), tortured by Amaziah (the priest of Beth-el of Amos 7:10) and martyred by the son of this one. He laid in his birth-land.
Joel: said to be of the Tribe of Reuben, born and buried in Bethomoron.[13]
Obadiah: said to be born in Beth-acharam[11] in the land of Sichem.
Jonah: said to be born in the land of Kariathmos[11] near the Greek town of Azotus. After his predication in Nineveh he went to live with his mother in Sur. He returned in Judea, died, and was buried in the cave of Kenaz (the one referred to in Genesis 36:11).
Nahum: said to be of Elkesi (Nahum 1:1), in front of Isbergabin [11] of the Tribe of Simeon. He died in peace and was buried in his land.
Habakkuk: said to be from the land of Bethzuchar[14] and of the Tribe of Simeon. After the fall of Jerusalem he went to live in the land of Ishmael and then returned to help the Hebrews who remained. He later went in Babylonia during the Babylonian captivity where he met Daniel. He died two years before the end of the captivity and was buried in his land.
Zephaniah: said to be from the land of Sabaratha[14] and of the Tribe of Simeon. He was buried in his land.
Haggai: said to come in Jerusalem from Babylonia when he was young, and he saw the reconstruction of the Temple. He was buried near the graves of the priests (probably in the Kidron Valley).
Zechariah: said to come in Jerusalem from Babylonia when already old. He blessed both Jozadak (the father of Joshua) and Zerubbabel. He died old and was buried near Haggai.
Malachi: said to be born in Sofa.[11] He died young and was buried with his fathers.
Nathan: said to be from Gaba.[14] He taught the Torah to David. Beliar caused he couldn't stop David to kill Bathsheba's husband. He died very old and was buried in his land.
Ahijah the Shilonite (1 Kings 11:29): said to be from Shiloh. He was buried near the oak of Shiloh.
Joad or Ioad (named Jadon in Antiquities of the Jews VIII,8,5 and referred to as the man of God in 1 Kings 13:1): said to be of Samareim[14] and was buried as told in 2 Kings 23:18.
Azariah (2 Chronicles 15:1): said to be from the land of Subatha.[14] He was buried in his land.
Elijah the Tishbite: is said to be from the land of the Arabs, of the tribe of Aaron that was in Gilead. The birth of Elijah was miraculous: when he was to be delivered, his father Sobacha saw white figures of man who greeted him, wrapped him up and fed him with flames.
Elisha: is said to be of Abelmaul (1 Kings 19:16) in the land of Reuben. When he was born a calf of gold screamed so loudly it was heard in Jerusalem. He was buried in Samaria.
Zechariah ben Jehoiada (2 Chronicles 24:20–22): said to be of Jerusalem, he was killed by Jehoash near the altar of the Temple. He was buried near his father Jehoiada. After his death, the priests of the Temple could no more, as before, see the apparitions of the angels of the Lord, nor could make divinations with the Ephod, nor give responses from the Debir.

---

..and giving the vineyard to others. I agree His anti-revolutionary message as specifically as He does elsewhere but it is there. It is all part of His overall message that things go badly when people or nations think and act in opposition to God's call for agapeic or sacrificial love. I agree that would be the main focus with His anti violence massage subtly in there as well. Also it isn't just the priests listening to His message.

We have used the term "theistic evolution on this site forever. I don't understand your problem. It doesn't change the facts concerning evolution but simply means that there is an intelligent root cause. It's not about religion but about God's influence in the world. The point was that it is accepted by all religions and by secularists. Here is Dawkins' definition of a meme. [quote]In that context, Dawkins defined the meme as a unit of cultural transmission, or a unit of imitation and replication, but later definitions would vary. [/qs] Sure, we are influenced by our environment. I'm not denying that but tell me how we are led to help people or animals on the other side of the world by sacrificing our own well being as a result of evolution with nothing but a materialistic root. Not really. I'm not on board with much of modern society's values and the only primitive belief that I am trying to fit in is the concept of "the Golden Rule". Ya, so what. Would you want a church that is static and can't take on new insights. Like I said, I view the history of the Christian Church as a progressive understanding of the nature of God, even if that progress is erratic. I'd add that the church is made up of fallible people, and like the Temple at the time of Jesus, the church still exists with all of its faults today.

Crawl back under your rock.

Some of the religious that have appropriated ToE use the term, it has no value outside those groups. There is no evidence at all for god or his alleged influence in the world. In fact, if you accept the ToE you accept that everything about us derived from a natural process. The emotion of empathy evolved the same way as our other emotions. I've explained this a dozen times, you just shrug it off. As a social species we have evolved empathy. That's it. We're just empathetic enough to to send a few dollars to help support starving Africans but not to the extent that involves any true discomfort on our part. We don't do what Jesus commands us to and give everything up to follow him. This voice of yours is properly small and very still indeed. The 'so what?' is that it shows that by throwing away religious beliefs because they don't fit with modern views of ethics and morality demonstrates that religious beliefs are man made not god made.