http://www.nature.com/news/2002/021021/images/pugent_190.jpg

In another in a series of notable pronouncements, religious broadcaster Pat Robertson says God told him storms and possibly a tsunami will hit America's coastline this year.

Robertson has made the predictions at least four times in the past two weeks on his news-and-talk television show "The 700 Club" on the Christian Broadcasting Network, which he founded.

Robertson said the revelations about this year's weather came to him during his annual personal prayer retreat in January.

"If I heard the Lord right about 2006, the coasts of America will be lashed by storms," Robertson said May 8. On Wednesday, he added, "There well may be something as bad as a tsunami in the Pacific Northwest."

Robertson has come under intense criticism in recent months for suggesting that American agents should assassinate Venezuelan President Hugo Chavez and that Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon's stroke was divine retribution for Israel's pullout from the Gaza Strip.

im sitll wondering if yzf knows if theres a doggy heaven... i asked him last time and he didnt reply.

im sitll wondering if yzf knows if theres a doggy heaven... i asked him last time and he didnt reply.

According to YZF, all dogs do NOT go to Heaven.

Man, these people need to read their bibles

Since when has a prophet said "Well, I kinda think (not quite sure) what God was saying was that the <insert vauge prediction, such as 'storms MIGHT hit the USA, maybe a tsunami'"

It tended to be more like:

"Destroy this temple, and in three days I shall raise it up!"

Or

"And the third angel sounded, and there fell from heaven a great star, burning as a torch, and it fell upon the third part of the rivers, and upon the fountains of the waters; and the name of the star is called Wormwood: and the third part of the waters became wormwood; and many men died of the waters, because they were made bitter."

I wonder if religious wacko Pat Robertson realizes that storms don't hit the Pacific Northwest. Maybe he should have spent his childhood reading books with valuable information.

I wonder if religious wacko Pat Robertson realizes that storms don't hit the Pacific Northwest. Maybe he should have spent his childhood reading books with valuable information.

+1

Pat Robertson also claimed to have seen a 900 foot tall Jesus. Now, I have a pretty good eye for distance, but to estimate height at 900 feet... That's tough.

I predict rain at some point in the relatively near future

Pat Robertson also claimed to have seen a 900 foot tall Jesus. Now, I have a pretty good eye for distance, but to estimate height at 900 feet... That's tough.

Oral Roberts saw the 900 ft tall Jesus. For crying out loud $100T2, if you're going to quote prophecy, get your book and verse straight.

I never saw a 900ft tall Jesus but I once heard an MC 900ft tall Jesus sing about arson.

i like cars

Oral Roberts saw the 900 ft tall Jesus. For crying out loud $100T2, if you're going to quote prophecy, get your book and verse straight.

I never saw a 900ft tall Jesus but I once heard an MC 900ft tall Jesus sing about arson.


I'm pretty sure it's spelled "Orel". And that's only because I remember Orel Hershiser.

Oral Roberts saw the 900 ft tall Jesus. For crying out loud $100T2, if you're going to quote prophecy, get your book and verse straight.

I never saw a 900ft tall Jesus but I once heard an MC 900ft tall Jesus sing about arson.

LOL, my bad. I just remember Sam Kinison talking about it in "Have You Seen Me Lately?"

Sam Kinison's last line after what would be a fatal head-on auto accident:

"do I have to go?"

there is no question in my mind God took his life

You are of course aware that he had just turned his whole life around, right? He got clean and sober, really got his stuff together, and then he was killed. you are aware of this, I suppose, before making such comments? I didnt think so

"clean and sober" has nothing to do with his spiritual condition, obviously

why do you say that? Because he was killed? Are you implying that only those bound for hell are killed in such a manner? Or are you trying to say that you THINK you know where he is now?

More of your usual arrogance and judgmental crap, I see....how....unsurprising....

I'm saying just what I said

Sam Kinison was a rank apostate, he was once a pastor, then he left the faith, and openly mocked what he once believed, there is no coming back for those people...

again, Hebrews 10

If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, no sacrifice for sins is left, but only a fearful expectation of judgment and of raging fire that will consume the enemies of God. Anyone who rejected the law of Moses died without mercy on the testimony of two or three witnesses. How much more severely do you think a man deserves to be punished who has trampled the Son of God under foot, who has treated as an unholy thing the blood of the covenant that sanctified him, and who has insulted the Spirit of grace? For we know him who said, "It is mine to avenge; I will repay," and again, "The Lord will judge his people." It is a dreadful thing to fall into the hands of the living God.

the fact that Sam Kinison supposedly "got sober" and got off the drugs is all well and good, but it has NOTHING (inherently) to do with his spiritual condition

1--he was a preacher of a specific faith. The faith he was tied to is not the same as your faith. Because of this, and according to your own statements, he was doomed to hell anyways, whether he had left the church back then or not. So your point is moot, because in your eyes, he left a false religion anyways. Thanks for playing.

2--you show too much ignorance, Mark. It is a well-known fact that pretty much any of the more common programs for addiction, such as AA, involve a great deal of SPIRITUAL healing as well as physical and emotional. It is essential in such programs that one hand control of their life to the higher power....so much for what you THOUGHT you knew. In this specific case, he really did clean up his act. he changed so much about his life, including spiritual issues. In fact, Sam got into spiritual music as well....his favorite singer was Sherry Kinison, his sister in law. He was known at the end of his life for singing duets with her. She sings spiritually motivated music.

his original faith was Pentecostal, as was his brother's, and the reason for this is because his daddy was a preacher of the same faith.

Any questions?

Didnt think so

the fact is was once "saved", or claimed to be, then he openly blasphemed Christ and mocked God in his comic routines

God took his life

And just as God forgives YOUR sins when you ask for that forgiveness, why is it so difficult for you to think that God could forgive someone else at the same time, in the same way? Even his comedy act changed. You are fresh out of ideas, and now you are even contradicting YOUR OWN VERSION OF GOD, as told by you to us repeatedly on this forum!

Is honesty really that hard a pill for you to swallow, Marky??? Geez, I pity you...

i bet he doesnt believe in dinosaurs either....

blaspheming the Spirit of God is not forgiveable, as usual, you don't know anything....he was an apostate

How unbelievably wrong you are....HOW THEN DID SAUL BECOME SAVED??

Did he not commit such acts routinely? YOU ARE FULL OF IT. The bible clearly says that ALL SIN IS EQUAL, and it also says that GOD FORGIVES THOSE SINS. Stop lying out your ass and stick to the damn point.

:rolleyes:

are you talking about O.T. Saul or N.T. Saul?

interesting that in the N.T., the Apostle Paul's name was once Saul....God changed it....I wonder why?

Because he was FORGIVEN FOR HIS SINS AND REBORN INTO CHRIST--which is precisely what you just told us CANNOT HAPPEN when you said this:

blaspheming the Spirit of God is not forgiveable

So, I ask you again--WAS HE OR WAS HE NOT FORGIVEN FOR THOSE SINS???

Remember, HONESTY, Mark....while youre at it, humility enough to admit your screwups too.

Stop dodging the questions and man up

EDIT--again, here you are, trying to make up your own rules and call it God's Word....YOU said that it was unforgiveable, and God proved you wrong the moment that Saul received the gift of the Holy Spirit!!!

Any questions?? Oh, and stop trying to rewrite the Word, Mark--it already says precisely what it was meant to, and every time you go against it, it sticks out like a sore thumb. Time to get a clue....

yzf (like razorback and others) simply can't put me in ignore.

I'm tooo hot to resist.........
__________________

u have.

I manage to solicite essays from u.

oh wait, ur a master of jacking off the CONTROL-C for those wonderful religious quotes.

How's the prostate tumor coming along?

i'm a spell-bee blackbelt that's designed to antagonize folks like u.

u engineer dirt?

:rolleyes:

I'm going to be putting you on ignore very soon because I'm tired of the endless do-loop of your babbling crap, I've had enough of you to last multiple lifetimes

Paul never blasphemed the Holy Spirit because he was not converted at the time he persecuted Christians (!)

until the miraculous event on the Damascus Road, Paul (then Saul) acted in ignorance...note I Timothy 1

I thank Christ Jesus our Lord, who has given me strength, that he considered me faithful, appointing me to his service. Even though I was once a blasphemer and a persecutor and a violent man, I was shown mercy because I acted in ignorance and unbelief. The grace of our Lord was poured out on me abundantly, along with the faith and love that are in Christ Jesus

the unpardonable sin is to at one time believe the Truth, receive the Spirit, and then turn your back on the faith

Sam Kinison is COMPLETELY different...Sam knew the Truth, he was converted at one time, then left the faith and publically mocked the Truth, there is no coming back from that, as I already quoted from Hebrews 10

so God said "enough is enough" and took his life....I guess you are offended at this because you were a big Sam K fan, and I thought he was funny at times, too, but his mockery of Christ was frightening to me

hang on a second there, jack....you dont get off that easily....

AS I recall, you are the one that claims that ANY church other than yours is the wrong one....hence, anyone who believes as those other churches do, well that person DOES NOT KNOW THE TRUTH. You do not get to trumpet that around all over the place, and now suddenly change your mind and claim that he, being raised Pentecostal, "knew the truth". He was a preacher's kid, and much like any preacher's kid, it is a fair assumption that he was spoon-fed his religion. How can you be such a hypocrite as to say that he "knew the truth"....when any other time someone talks of other faiths, you say that THEY DO NOT KNOW THE TRUTH?? Where is all the talk of false religions and false doctrines now?

This is the problem with you--you cannot just have one set of values to stick by no matter what. You hate being wrong so much that you will blatantly lie and contradict yourself whenever you think you can pull it off....but you can't. You thought you were going to one-up me. You thought wrong. Why not just be a man and own up to your shit for once?

Put me on ignore? Go for it. I could give a damn less. You are, after all, the genius that thought he could goad me into more sin by cursing me out, blah blah blah, and you lost there too. And ever since then, I still have not played your game. You can ignore me all you like....it still wont change the fact that you are a dishonest hypocrite that cannot even be man enough to tell the truth about anything.

no, I NEVER said that, so the rest of your argument is invalid...I know several pentecostals, and, while I think they are over the top with speaking in tongues and so forth, they are Christians....there are also some genuine catholics...not many, but some

there is one faith, and many (man made) denominations....some truly know Christ and some don't


you NEVER said anything like that?? Let's start with this:

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showpost.php?p=93520&postcount=7

ha

I just believe the Bible, denominations are man made religious stuff...the true church of Jesus Christ has always been one body

HMMM....

how about this one??

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showpost.php?p=82143&postcount=31

the "church" (and I use that term loosely, because it's difficult to tell the true church of Jesus Christ from the legions of imitators and false teachers these days) doesn't invent any Biblical doctrine, although some, like the Roman Catholic system, try to undermine doctrine with lies

so, you NEVER said that there was only one true church?? HMMM....let me also ask you this---if there is only ONE "true" church, then that obviously means that, according to you, ALL OTHER CHURCHES ARE NOT TRUE-in other words--FALSE.

tell me something else--how is it that you now try to defend this position regarding the Pentecostal faith? The Pentecostal faith was derived from within the Protestant church, which is a direct offshoot of the ROMAN CATHOLIC CHURCH. How can the Catholic church be so wrong in your eyes, but a church that developed from that "false church" is ok??

Here is yet another of those famous quotes from you--since you cannot even be man enough to tell the truth about ANYTHING these days....

http://www.theforumlounge.com/showpost.php?p=72868&postcount=167

let me state this very clearly: there is no "branch" of the truth, or the true church of Christ...you are either in the truth, according to God's revealed Word, or living in darkness and lies...whether subtle or not-so-subtle

Either you are with the "one true church", AS YOU SAID, or you are living in LIES AND DARKNESS. When the hell will you wake up and realize that the comments you make here are recorded so you cannot lie and hide from them at a later date? Further, when will you mature enough to tell the truth?

EDIT--one more thing...you have consistently denounced the entire Catholic faith as false....so tell us, how can you have a "genuine" Catholic? If the person does not partake of the parts of the Catholic church which you consider false, then THEY ARE NOT A CATHOLIC. Why is that so hard for you to understand?

And, if they DO follow the Catholic ways, then they are NOT GENUINE, as you have said so many times yourself....and as I have just shown you saying in this post, despite your best lying efforts....any questions?

that's right, in the spiritual dimension, there is one true church....but no one has the eyes of God of course

there are certain foundational doctrines that are non-negotiable, that's what I'm referring to....as far as I know, most pentecostals believe in salvation by faith alone through Christ alone, and that Christ was God in the flesh, those are key doctrines (there are some others)

I have shown where you pointed out that there is one true church--one true doctrine. Anything else, as you have said, is not the one true doctrine. So, if a church gets most of it right but does not follow a couple of the points in that doctrine, ACCORDING TO YOU, they are wrong.

Hey, dont get your panties in a wad--I am only using your own words here....if that isnt what you intended, you never should have said it....

that's right....but there are multiple denominations that hold to that true doctrine (baptist, methodist, etc)....and also many that don't

this is where discernment and knowledge of the scripture is critical, to separate truth from error

How wrong you are, yet again. Tell me something--if these denominations all follow precisely the same doctrine, in the same manner, then why would there be different denominations in the first place?

Let me spell it out for you--there is, according to the words of Marky, ONE TRUTH. There is, according to you, ONE TRUE CHURCH. ONE TRUE DOCTRINE. And, also according to you, if you are not following that one true doctrine in its entirety, you are WRONG. You have said this more times than I can count, and I provided just a few examples of it earlier.

Let's take a good look at these denominations that you usually say are "false churches", or "man-made"....but now try to claim that they are "holding to the true doctrine"....well, since they do not all follow the exact same doctrine, how can they all be "of the one true doctrine"?

Methodists, for example, practice infant baptism, which goes against the Bible. They use Acts 16:15 as the justification for this. Well, that scripture merely states that Lydia and her household were baptised....in every other case throught the entire NT, every baptism was performed on an adult. The reason for this is that the act of declaring Jesus as your savior cannot be done passively. It must be a conscious decision on the person's part.

But you named Methodists as one of the denominations that "hold to that true doctrine"....that makes no sense, Mark. None at all....

The Baptist church is similar in that respect, but there are so many different "baptist" doctrines. they cannot all be "right" if they are all different....

the pentecostal church is different from these--they say that baptism with water is not a sign or symbol of baptism with the Holy Spirit--that they are two completely different things.they also believe that when one becomes filled with the holy spirit, they are to speak in tongues--something that none of these other religions hold to in their doctrines. They believe that baptism into the spirit is a gift for all, while the bible clearly shows people having to make the choice to receive it and follow, or not. There is no point in pentecostal doctrine that requires baptism to be done when you are an infant. In short, the very way that a person comes to follow God is not at all the same among these churches--but just because you cannot admit a mistake, you now insist that they share the "one true doctrine"?

Nice try....maybe next time you will fool someone...not today

agree

ok, now we are getting somewhere. You agree that they go AGAINST the doctrine of the Bible in this matter.

baptism with water is a symbol of the new life, and also an act of obedience

agree they are two different things

Again, you agree. good....because I promise you, I do have a point to all of this. Bear with me....

disagree

Do you disagree that they believe this or do you disagree with the concept of speaking in tongues itself? Personally, I disagree with the concept as they use it. the "speaking in tongues" as I recall it was only done so that the people from many places would hear the message in a language that they understood.

the above are not required (or prohibited) doctrines for salvation

Ah, but they are.....as proof of this, let's visit Acts 2:36-41....

36"Therefore let all Israel be assured of this: God has made this Jesus, whom you crucified, both Lord and Christ."

37When the people heard this, they were cut to the heart and said to Peter and the other apostles, "Brothers, what shall we do?"

38Peter replied, "Repent and be baptized, every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ for the forgiveness of your sins. And you will receive the gift of the Holy Spirit. 39The promise is for you and your children and for all who are far off—for all whom the Lord our God will call."

40With many other words he warned them; and he pleaded with them, "Save yourselves from this corrupt generation." 41Those who accepted his message were baptized, and about three thousand were added to their number that day.

This was Peter's moment of responsibility--when Jesus said that he would be the foundation of the church. He told the people how they had turned away form God, and then he told them the one way they could get back closer to Him--REPENT AND BE BAPTIZED IN THE NAME OF THE LORD.

Think of it like this--repenting and being baptized is the one way for a person to reach God, am I right? So, if a church goes against the Bible as to exactly how and when this is to be done, how can you possibly sit there and say that it is not of consequence to the doctrine? God's Word lays out a specific manner in which a person is to be baptized in order to receive the Holy Spirit. If a church goes against that, then they are NOT following the same doctrine. This is plain as day, Mark. God makes it clear in the bible that one must be "dead" to their old life and be reborn into Christ--how does baptizing an infant, when that infant has nothing to do with the choice, qualify?? The answer is that it does not.

yes, but being baptized with water is not a requirement for salvation, it is a physical symbol of the new life, an act of repentance/obedience, just as taking communion is not required for salvation, but it is an act of obedience and a sacrament commanded by Christ Himself

the bottom line is, John 3:16 and many other passages, whoever truly believes (not just speculative faith) that Christ is God in the flesh who died for their sin, receives eternal life from that moment (note what Jesus said to the criminal being executed with him: "TODAY you will be with me in paradise"...that man was not baptized and he did not take communion)

Now you are just putting words in my mouth. Pay attention--I not once ever said that water was required. I am referring to the manner and age at which baptism takes place in these churches. Let me clear this up--I grew up in a protestant church, which I no longer attend. That church believes that infant baptism is the way it is supposed to be done--contrary to the Bible. This is the important part--they, like the others I mentioned, believe that the infant baptism is what gets you into God's kingdom. It is not. The NT clearly states that one must make the intentional decision to follow Christ with their heart, which is not the case when someone chooses for you during your infancy. In other words, those people then say "I was baptized so it is ok...". They have been taught the wrong way. Then, they bring their children up in the same manner. I know--thats how I was raised. To this day, my mother still believes that the infant baptism is what will allow me to reach heaven. This is how these churches operate....how can you not see the problem there?

If following Jesus with your heart must be a deliberate decision, and someone falsely thinks that they are "covered" because of an infant baptism, that means that they are NOT following the proper doctrine. Yet, you earlier claimed that these churches are in fact doing just that. Wrong answer.

The protestant church also believes that sin should be confessed through silent prayer time. There is no incentive to work on one's issues to get closer to God--all you need is to confess each Sunday and all is well. And the churches you are talking about now came from the protestant church. This is another example of false doctrine, directly according to your own words regarding the one true church.

How can you not see the contradiction here?

there certainly are consequences for disobedience and false teaching regarding water baptism, but those consequences do not include damnation....that's the point

No, you missed the point. If a person thinks that they are "saved" because they were baptized as a baby, then they truly have not given their heart to God in a deliberate manner. Why would they have to do more? They already believe that they are covered! THAT is the point. And again, I never said that water baptism was the key, so where you got that is anyone's guess. Maybe you can stop trying to invent my pov and just read the one I already laid in front of you--maybe then you will see where I am coming from.

again, water baptism has nothing to do with receiving the Holy Spirit

And again, for the third time, I NEVER said that it did. I never said that it was anything more than a sign of a committment--but you are again missing the point. That COMMITTMENT is the important part, and a baby can hardly make that committment to God, am I right? When I said "there is a specific manner", I was NOT referring to water. I was referring to the fact that one MUST make the committment with their heart to follow Christ. In fact, show me where I ever said that water must be involved?? I NEVER DID. Stop making shit up already and just read what I posted.

The committment is the important part. A person must make that committment with their heart in order to reach God's kingdom. If a church practices a doctrine that says "the only way to get to heaven is to be baptized as an infant", then they are teaching a FALSE doctrine. NOW do you get my point??

I'm still not sure what your position is here...do you think water baptism is required for salvation?

How in the world can you make the same mistake four times in the same post when I clearly stated that this is a decision that must be made intentionally?? In the post you replied to, I made it clear that baptizing as an INFANT was what I referred to, NOT BAPTIZING WITH WATER. What is your hangup here??

My position is this--baptism is a symbol--nothing more--of a committment between you and God. In order for that baptism to mean what it was intended to, the person must be of age to make such a committment from the heart, no? THAT is my position. What is so hard to understand there?

When a church advocates infant baptism, they are falsely teaching their members about how you get to heaven. They teach that this is how you gain entry to God's kingdom--want proof of this? From memory, I can tell you with complete certainty that there is a scripture the protestant church uses to justify infant baptism:

MARK 10:14-16

14When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, "Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these. 15I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it." 16And he took the children in his arms, put his hands on them and blessed them.

they actually think that you MUST be baptized as an infant or you will never reach the Kingdom. Now, tell me how that is proper doctrine....

right....I agree completely....I thought we already agreed about that (?)

Apparently not, seeing how you earlier proclaimed these churches as "following the one true doctrine"....even though you admit that you disagree with their practices as does the Bible. Tell me--if the Bible does not agree with what they are teaching, then how can they be "of the true doctrine" in the first place?

however, I don't really consider baptizing an infant "sinful" or "rebellious", either, it's just a man made ceremony....if parents want to baptize their child and pray for him or her that's fine (and good imo)....no harm done

Wrong---there IS harm done, because this is not just a baptism to pray for their child--they are taught that this is the one necessary step to get into heaven! Teaching the wrong doctrine IS HARMFUL, is it not? How would you feel if all your life you were taught the wrong thing, only to find out at the end?? THAT is "no harm done" in your eyes?

ok, I didn't realize your whole tack on this was the subject of infant baptism



that's obviously a big problem, yes....the people I know who practice infant baptism do NOT believe the child is "saved" by that practice



fine, I got it....excuse me if I don't always read every word of your rambling posts...it takes you two pages to say what most people say in one line, you always have all this build up..."wait, wait, see where I'm going with this?"....just KEEP IT SHORT, TO THE POINT, AND SAY WHAT YOU MEAN UP FRONT....and don't quote passages that having nothing to do with the subject of infant baptism

When you speak of those in churches that were derived from the protestant faith, they DO believe that infant baptism is the way to the kingdom. That was my point. And, if you know a methodist who does not believe that, then why are they in a methodist church? They are at that point going to what you call a "false church" and not even following everything that church says! WHAT WOULD BE THE REASON FOR DOING THAT? Sounds like a confused person to me....not something to condone.

As for what I posted--nothing was irrelevant. I posted about two things--the practices of those relligions you named, and the actual way, according to the Bible, that one can receive the holy Spirit. If you are not intelligent enough to put those together and see where it was going, then that is your problem. Also, no "build-up" was needed--I clearly stated my position before that post was even made when I said this:

Methodists, for example, practice infant baptism, which goes against the Bible. They use Acts 16:15 as the justification for this. Well, that scripture merely states that Lydia and her household were baptised....in every other case throught the entire NT, every baptism was performed on an adult. The reason for this is that the act of declaring Jesus as your savior cannot be done passively. It must be a conscious decision on the person's part.

But you named Methodists as one of the denominations that "hold to that true doctrine"....that makes no sense, Mark. None at all....

The Baptist church is similar in that respect, but there are so many different "baptist" doctrines. they cannot all be "right" if they are all different....

Where you got hung up on other things is anyone's guess, but clearly it was not because I did not state my position clearly enough. There it is--if you know how to read, it is quite clear, Mark, so stop whining already.

I only said "bear with me--this is going somewhere" after you completely screwed the rooster with my earlier, clearly-written post. any questions?

Obviously at that point, you needed to be told that there was a point, because you failed to get it. Rather than bitch about someone's writing, maybe you should ACTUALLY READ THE POST NEXT TIME. Here's your sign....

:stupid:

NO, they don't....not all of them....you do NOT know what you're talking about

thanks for falling right into that one....you declared that certain churches were of the one true doctrine....I just showed you ons particular difference between thema nd that true doctrine, and you AGREED THAT IT IS WRONG for them to do things the way they do. So, once more, how can they be on the right path if they break with the one true doctrine?? JUST ANSWER THE QUESTION PLEASE....

AS for Acts, it is hardly unrelated, champ--I posted the specific scripture that they use as justification for their false doctrine. THAT is unrelated in your eyes?? Geez, Mark, for someone so highly educated, you arent that smart, are ya? And I did say that up front--I even just re-quoted it for you to prove that. YOU are the moron that doesnt know how to read....that is not my fault or problem, scooter...

Have a nice day!!

EDIT--as for your latest post, ORIGINAL SIN??? You are seriously full of it, Mark....where does the bible say that the concept of original sin is real? Show me where the bible says that infants are with sin....

that's easy, Romans 5 (among others)

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned— for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.

I'm not saying infants are held accountable, that's a different issue...I believe all children below a certain age are with the Lord if they die....but through Adam all are born sinners and separated from God, this is commonly preached and solid doctrine

All too easy, Marky.....your own quoting of the scripture shows this:


Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come

That is the part you ignored.

Also, in rebuttal of your claim, allow me to likewise quote the bible....Matthew 18:1-6

1At that time the disciples came to Jesus and asked, "Who is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?"
2He called a little child and had him stand among them. 3And he said: "I tell you the truth, unless you change and become like little children, you will never enter the kingdom of heaven. 4Therefore, whoever humbles himself like this child is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

5"And whoever welcomes a little child like this in my name welcomes me. 6But if anyone causes one of these little ones who believe in me to sin, it would be better for him to have a large millstone hung around his neck and to be drowned in the depths of the sea.

Children are born into this world PURE. They do sin, as we all do, but until they sin, they are still pure of heart. How can a newborn baby sin, Mark? Tell me. What sin does a brand new baby commit? We are all sinners, but OUR SIN is what makes us sinners, champ--merely being born is not what does that. THINK....

Do babies curse? Take God in vain? Covet their neighbor's wife? Have impure thoughts? Commit adultery or murder? Do they steal? How about lie--does a baby that cannot even speak tell lies?

Sin comes from man's nature, yes, but no one is guilty of a sin until they commit that sin. Thanks for playing.

right.....little kids are more sinful....that is why Jesus told the disciples to be MORE LIKE LITTLE KIDS.....good call, loser....

Outwit?? You couldnt outwit a wet paper bag

notice that Christ later refers to His own disciples as "children" (weak in faith and understanding)

I tell you the truth, anyone who will not receive the kingdom of God like a little child will never enter it.

So, you are saying that the only way to enter the kingdom of God is to be "weak in faith and understanding"?? No wonder why you think you're going there.....:bigthumb:

well, at this point you re just being a retarded hypocrite....imagine you, of all people, bitching about someone getting a temporary ban at the other forum?? You wanna talk abotu screen names??

yzf-r1
badassr1
smarterthanyou
improvedfd

That is just off the top of my head--not to mention the 70 or so other ones you have had by now....and only a complete assclown would think that they could make the threats you have, and then say that it has nothing to do with why you get banned. They changed an entire forum section's format just because of your pathetic brand of bullshit, Mark....say whatever you will, but NO ONE compares to that. Get a life you complete loser.

As for this thread, it is not about being difficult--it is about me pointing out your hypocrisy. Have a nice day, genius

y-a-w-n

having been soundly defeated multiple times in debate, resort to diversion of the topic! :bigthumb:

Yeah, we know you do that, but we're still here.

By the way, did you ever get around to finding that research on homosexuality for me? Or, the stuff about the blood types?

Goodness, Mark.
You're getting your asshole stretched by being owned here.
What the hell?!
You're just gonna stand there and take it in yer ass from Jonny?
C'mon, fight back!
"Get up Rocky, ya lazy bum! Get up! Get up, damn ya!"

I wanna see you get owned some more.

Goodness, Mark.
You're getting your asshole stretched by being owned here.
What the hell?!
You're just gonna stand there and take it in yer ass from Jonny?
C'mon, fight back!
"Get up Rocky, ya lazy bum! Get up! Get up, damn ya!"

I wanna see you get owned some more.
on a side note saw a preview for a new Rocky movie.

ha....when little jonnie actually debates the issues for a few posts, he is always soundly defeated, so he has to resort (again) to personal insults, it's the same old stuff on all these forums
Uhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhmmmmmmm.....No.
Looks more like Jon completely defeated you.
It's a public forum. On the Internet. Everybody can SEE that you've been punked here.

of course you're going to say that (although you cannot demonstrate why)

I'm the only one you hate more than jon, dennis :)
Oh Skippy, I don't hate you.

...I just hate your sin.

Matthew 7

Why do you look at the speck of sawdust in your brother's eye and pay no attention to the plank in your own eye? How can you say to your brother, 'Let me take the speck out of your eye,' when all the time there is a plank in your own eye? You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye.

Do not give dogs what is sacred; do not throw your pearls to pigs. If you do, they may trample them under their feet, and then turn and tear you to pieces.
ARE YOU OUTTA YER FUCKING MIND?!

YOU ARE TRYING TO SCHOOL ME IN HYPOCRISY?!
:lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :lmfao: :asshole:

yes....your sin is greater in magnitude and extent than mine

you still call me every name in the book, still make death threats, still carry on like a raging demonic
Forgot to finish your sentence? Must be your mind rotting from all the bullshit that floats around in there.

Seeing as how you responded to what I just said, your statement is just retarded, as are you.

Hey, I'm just calling you out on the fact that your response of "not worth a response" was infact an actual response. So you are kinda stupid if you don't understand that.

yes....your sin is greater in magnitude and extent than mine

you still call me every name in the book, still make death threats, still carry on like a raging demonic

Earlier, you said this:

I hate my sin, too...although that isn't your concern, you have enough of your own to worry about

Riddle me this, hypocrite--if we are all supposed to look inward first at our own sin, what business do you even think you have making such a statement to Dennis or anyone else that "their sin is worse than yours"?? HYPOCRITE....

Tell us, Marky--we all wanna know...when will YOU finally apply those same scriptures to YOURSELF?? You tell others to look at their own sin instead of yours, but you are the first one in line to bash the shit out of anyone else whenever you see fit....How can you NOT see the hypocrisy there? We are all supposed to leave poor widdle Marky alone about his sin because God says to look at ourselves first--yet the same poor widdle marky thinks he has the right to go apeshit over anyone else's life and sin?

Sorry jack, but you just hung yourself on that one....big time....Also, if you truly knew the bible, you would have known that NO SIN IS OF A GREATER MAGNITUDE THAN ANY OTHER. So, for you to claim that his is "greater in magnitude" in itself is plain WRONG. you LIED, as well as arrogantly tried to judge!

Here--tell us what this scripture means, Marky....and then apply it to this latest BS claim of yours about someone else's sin....

ROMANS 2:17-24

17Now you, if you call yourself a Jew; if you rely on the law and brag about your relationship to God; 18if you know his will and approve of what is superior because you are instructed by the law; 19if you are convinced that you are a guide for the blind, a light for those who are in the dark, 20an instructor of the foolish, a teacher of infants, because you have in the law the embodiment of knowledge and truth— 21you, then, who teach others, do you not teach yourself? You who preach against stealing, do you steal? 22You who say that people should not commit adultery, do you commit adultery? You who abhor idols, do you rob temples? 23You who brag about the law, do you dishonor God by breaking the law? 24As it is written: "God's name is blasphemed among the Gentiles because of you."

Let that sink in for a minute or three....

And then, tell us what this scripture means....

ROMANS 3:23-25

23for all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, 24and are justified freely by his grace through the redemption that came by Christ Jesus.

--in other words, ALL have sinned. There is no distinction between Marky's sins and everyone else's sins according to God himself....so the only distinction that could possibly exist is one that YOU YOURSELF MADE UP. Thanks for playing, loser....

Dang, he owned you with your own book.....I'm gonna go eat now.

But see, thats not a bad thing, T-birds are nice. IMO anyways. Oh and he obviously owns a computer.

first off, I didn't bring up the issue of personal sin, dennis did

so, since he brought it up, there is no comparison...the guy is straight out of hell, much like yourself



true, but my sin is covered...his isn't, and neither is yours

thanks for losing

1--Who gives a shit who brought it up?? You OBVIOUSLY have an attitude about sin that completely departs from the very Word you claim to hold up as your doctrine--NO MATTER WHO BROUGHT IT UP, YOU JUST FUCKED UP THERE YOU IGNORANT MORON....

2--"no comparison"...according to the Bible, ONLY THOSE APART FROM GOD GO AROUND TRYING TO COMPARE THEIR SIN TO OTHERS IN SUCH A WAY. What does that say about how much you are "covered" there, you freak??

3--Your sin is NOT covered because you are a fake. You CLAIM to be with God, but you fall so far short of the bar. FALSE PROPHET....you think that because you quote scriptures that you are saved?? YOU ARE A JOKE. So tell me--you think you are "covered", so you go around and intentionally act like this?? ISNT THAT AGAINST GOD'S DEFINITION OF REPENTANCE??


Right now, Jesus is probably looking down on you, wondering what the hell he took three nails for. Good job, moron....HUMILITY, asshole--try getting some. Without it, you are nothing more than a run-of-the mill Pharisee. Chew on that, loser

Yes, but they aren't really in the same class. The 2-seater T-birds were more of a lux-sports car. As opposed to a balls to the wall sports car like the FD. The 4-passenger T-birds were more of a sports sedan. Granted it didn't have 4 doors. It was big enough to of had them.

I just smoked one a couple of days ago in the almighty FD....and I mean obliterated

wow, look at me everyone--I am Marky, the righteous christian wannabe!! See how prideful I am? See how I boast of worldly possessions?? WOW, DONT YOU WANNA BE JUST LIKE ME????

You must make God so very proud.....:bowdown:

Yes, but they aren't really in the same class. The 2-seater T-birds were more of a lux-sports car. As opposed to a balls to the wall sports car like the FD. The 4-passenger T-birds were more of a sports sedan. Granted it didn't have 4 doors. It was big enough to of had them.

My T-birds are Supercoupes....and I highly doubt that he "smoked one" in his "almighty FD"....because they are quite rare. My 95 is one of 574 made worldwide, for example. That's funny--the overly self-righteous toadstool over there calls his FD "almighty"....again, God must be so very pleased with this one...:bigthumb:

it's still a turd

what's the 1/4? high 13s? :roll:

It must be so hard to compete with you driving any car....since you are only as tall as the average smurf, your ride will weigh less than anything out there...


All that horsepower is sure gonna get you closer to heaven too, champ, isnt it?? You are a retard

who cares?

all that matters is the finish lineYes but if you're going up against lets say and old beetle, its not exactly a win worth bragging about. It'd be like me beating a baby and then bragging that I kicked his ass, which would be fucking retarded.


My T-birds are Supercoupes....and I highly doubt that he "smoked one" in his "almighty FD"....because they are quite rare. My 95 is one of 574 made worldwide, for example. That's funny--the overly self-righteous toadstool over there calls his FD "almighty"....again, God must be so very pleased with this one...:bigthumb:Yeah, I remember seeing something about them before, and I too doubt he went up against a SC. Those things are sweet, and rare. I almost got one a few years back.

as I said, the morality of any society is generally not detailed in history books

And, again, you claimed "Time and again, history has shown this", and all I'm asking you to do is provide facts to back up your claim.


I provided an AIG link, which I thought was excellent, and of course you scoffed at it

You thought it was excellent. That's great! What blood bank do you work at? Which med tech program did you go to?

Oh, that's right. You didn't. I, however, did. I, however, am an expert, according to my NATIONAL CERTIFICATION!!! So, I scoffed at your AIG link... Why? Could it possibly be because it's WRONG???

Your AIG link can be torn absolutely apart 100% by ANYONE who took any level of genetics course. It might be acceptable for Sunday School classes, but under the eye of an EXPERT, it is just bullshit. Now, before you say anything about my expertise, remember this, Mark: I do blood types and crossmatch blood for transfusion all day, every day, so people's lives are in my hands. I fuck up, I kill someone. That is the level of MY responsibility. I know what I'm talking about on this, far better than ANYONE on AIG.

Your link is bullshit. Plain and simple, utter 100% bullshit.

I hope you smash yer skull in during a crash and become a paralyzed drooling mess permanently stuck in a wheel chair with a bag of shit hangin' out yer stomach.
-You & yer dad can have races. :)

ruh roh, here comes the endless supply of answering genesis again....Mark, when you only get your news from one source, you only get one side of the news. Even the bereans were smart enough to compare just to make sure that what they got was factual....I suppose that owning an "almighty FD" means you are exempt from having to learn facts before you proclaim yourself "always right"??

:rlaugh:

um, kevin, how did you "prove" anything wrong with this summary?
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i1/blood_types.asp

OK, you want proof? I'll prove it.

One aspect of the wide variety of humans is all the different blood types. The following explanation covers the main A, B and O blood types 2.

Ok, that's all well and good... Except for a couple things... Yeah, A, B, and O are three of the main blood types... Except for AB, A2, and a bunch of subtypes. Notice, also, that AIG doesn't get into RH positive or negative in any way, shape or form. Why? I'll get to that.

The A and B blood groups are caused by different antigens (substances which provoke immune responses) on the surface of the red blood cells. Their production is under the control of the DNA. The antigens develop from a red blood cell surface precursor called H substance, which is common to A, B and O. Type A results from the placement of N-acetylgalactosamine by the enzyme type A transferase on the H substance. Type B results from attachment of galactose to H by Type B transferase

We're ok thus far. However, this is where they start to lose it.

Type O is the result of a simple point mutation that greatly reduced or destroyed the ability of Type A transferase to attach N-acetylgalactosamine to H substance. Note that this is an example of loss of information, so is irrelevant to particles-to-people evolution. This ineffective Type A transferase is called circulating protein. The ineffectiveness of type O’s circulating protein depends on the point in the DNA where the mutation occurred, because some type Os attach more N-acetylgalactosamine to H than others. This sometimes causes discrepancies among blood banks. The mutations probably happened early in human history, since O is the most common blood group. Unattached H substance itself is an antigen which results in the rare blood type Bombay or Oh.

Oh boy, they brought up Bombay. We're in trouble now. I'll get to that, too. However, let's discuss a bit of mis-information. Type O is the absence of the type A and type B antigens. It is NOT simply a "loss of information" as AIG claims, because type O blood has anti-A and anti-B antibodies.

Let's get a little more depth here: There are two things that are tested in any blood bank when it comes to typing... We type your cells, called a "forward typing", and we type your plasma, which is a "reverse typing". Your forward type tests the antigens on the cells. Your reverse type tests the antibodies in your serum. A person who is type A will have anti-B antibodies. A person who is type B will have anti-A antibodies. A person who is type O will have anti-A and anti-B antibodies. If we didn't have these anti-bodies, we could transfuse any type of blood into a person with no bad results.

So, how do we do types? Simple. We use commercially prepared anti-A and anti-B to do the forward type. One drop of anti-A in a tube, one drop of anti-B in a tube, one drop of a 3% solution of patient red cells, spin it in a centrifuge for 20 seconds. If the cells clump up, it's positive. If they do not clump up, it's negative. Same deal goes with the reverse, except that we use commercially prepared red cells on the patients plasma. So, if you have type A blood, combined with anti-A, you're going to get a big ass clot in the tube. A clot that, if in your system, would probably give you a stroke or an embolus. Serious shit. As little as .5 cc of the wrong blood type can KILL someone. Remember that for later.

Now, forward and reverse MUST agree. If they don't, you did something wrong.

Why is that important? Because AIG said "Type O is the result of a simple point mutation that greatly reduced or destroyed the ability of Type A transferase to attach N-acetylgalactosamine to H substance."

Wrong, wrong, wrong. If that were the case, then the type O person would be inherently type A, hence no anti-A antibodies. However, the type O person has anti-A, rendering that argument null and void. Next!

There is one gene in humans that controls the ABO blood type. There are three versions of the gene, or alleles: A, B, or O. Since the gene is always present as a pair of alleles, with one inherited from each parent, two alleles are always present, so that the possible genetic make-up of any individual is AA, BB, AB, AO, BO, or OO. The O allele is recessive to the A or B, meaning that in the presence of the A or B allele, the blood type is determined by the A or B allele. That is, an AO person has A-type blood; a BO person has B-type blood, whereas only an OO person has O-type blood. Anyone with O-type blood is called a universal donor because their blood lacks the A or B proteins so that O-type blood can be given to a person with A, B or AB type blood. If, for example, A-type blood is given to a person with B-type blood, an allergic reaction can result in death of the recipient.

Ok, and here's the difference between dabbling and being an expert:

so that the possible genetic make-up of any individual is AA, BB, AB, AO, BO, or OO.

Ok, we'll go with that as acceptable, but save it for later, m'kay?

Anyone with O-type blood is called a universal donor

Yes, type O is the universal donor. Actually, O negative is the true universal donor. But, since AIG so nicely chose to ignore rh, we'll ignore it for now.

because their blood lacks the A or B proteins so that O-type blood can be given to a person with A, B or AB type blood.

Wrong! It's not proteins, it's antigens. Antigens and proteins, two different things. And, it's an important difference, as you're about to see.

If, for example, A-type blood is given to a person with B-type blood, an allergic reaction can result in death of the recipient.

No, it's not an "allergic reaction". That's what I mean about dabbling. Just because some schmo reads the AABB manual doesn't mean he has an understanding.

Remember what I told you earlier about testing the blood? Remember how I said anti-A and A cells will clump up? Remember how I said it could kill someone? If it was a simple allergy thing, the doctor could shoot you up with Benadryl (seriously), and you'd be fine. It's not proteins, it's the antigen-antibody complex, and it's serious as a heart attack.

For a husband and wife to pass on all alleles to their children, they need to, between them, have the A, B, and O alleles. So Adam and Eve could have had any of the following genetic make-ups:

AO and BO, AB and OO, AB and AO, AB and BO, AA and BO or BB and AO, that is, any combination where both parents have all three alleles between them.

True, except for one little problem. Adam and Eve didn't have parents. God created Adam, so Adam would have had a pure blood type, no alleles.

Next, Eve was created from Adams rib. Creating her from Adams body part would by default give her the same blood type. That's just the way it is. Blood production is done from the bone marrow, and does NOT change.

Of course, our friends at AIG figured someone might ask that question, so they came up with this drivel:

Another possibility is that the O gene arose later by mutation as discussed above. If so, the parents would only need to have A and B between them, so they could both be AB, or AA and AB, BB and AB or AA and BB.

Which is why there hasn't been a single documented case of type mutation in the history of blood banking. Thanks for trying.

Now, the guys at AIG were dumb enough to mention Bombay and rh null. Two very rare phenotypes... Bombay is the rarest, it's something like 1 in 100,000 people. You know how earlier we said that "O" is the universal donor? Unless you're Bombay. If you're Bombay, you can only get Bombay blood. Anything else, you're dead. How serious am I? The American Red Cross keeps a list of every Bombay person in the US with contact numbers and addresses. That's serious.

Now, the rest of that article is useless drivel which isn't even worth my time, especially this bullshit:

The variety in blood groups could also mean that some blood diseases could not destroy the whole population, if the pathogen was adapted to a particular blood type.

There are no such diseases.

Now, Marky, I'm not even getting into rh, all the other antigens and antibodies like Kidd, Kell, etc, which ALL go completely against the stuff from AIG. I would have to spend hours typing that out, and no offense, half you guys wouldn't understand it, because it's kinda hands on things you'd need to see to understand.

Yah TBirds rock and it was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve.

maybe he's trying to say that your gf isnt s she, but a he?? Who knows....

says who?

If Adam and Eve were genetically AO and BO, for example, their children could have had AB, AO, BO or OO genetic make-up, giving AB, A, B, or O blood types. Indeed, about 25% of their children would have been of each type.

If Adam and Eve had 56 children, as per Jewish tradition, then there would have been about 14 of each blood group in Adam and Eve's family

And the ONLY way to be AO or BO would have been to be the child of an A parent and an O parent. If you have parents who are both A, you're coming out as AA. If you spring directly from God, you're not going to have recessive alleles. And, O is recessive, btw.

I notice also that you chose to ignore the very next sentence:

Next, Eve was created from Adams rib. Creating her from Adams body part would by default give her the same blood type. That's just the way it is. Blood production is done from the bone marrow, and does NOT change.

So, even if Adam was AO, then Eve would have been AO. Thereby, any children they would have had would have come out AA or AO. Despite what AIG claims, they would NOT be equally divided, dominant and recessive traits would have seen to that. Perfect example: My ex-wife is type A. I am type O. My son is type A. In reality, he's AO, but again, O is recessive, so it doesn't matter. If she and I were to have 40 more kids, I'd say there's about a 95% chance they would ALL be type A. Do you follow me?

AIG wrote a nice, informative article for the doubters of Christianity, provided they don't have a genetics background.

And, again, they didn't take into account rh. That's a BIG, BIG deal, Mark. You know why they didn't take it into account? Because if they tried to, they would realize their whole argument is bullshit. Later tonight when I have more time, we'll get into phenotypes, D, C, E, c, e, the Kidds, Kells, Cw, Duffys, Lutherans, etc. Plus, when we talk rh, we'll talk about the 100+ sub-types of it, all of which will A) make your head hurt, and B) completely prove once and for all that no two humans could have been the start of the human race. Since this is going to be a huge battle with your opinion and my facts, we'll take it into a new thread.

Does anyone here besides Mark doubt me on this? Does anyone here other than Mark question my expertise?

I don't ? you, but I'm thinking it will be a good read. Shit like this is fun to read, informative too.

again....speculative

How do you figure? And, more importantly, can you disprove what I said? No, you can't.

If Adam was type A, his bone marrow produces type A blood. If you take type A bone to create another human, that human would have type A bone, which in turn would have type A bone marrow, which in turn would produce type A blood.

That's scientific FACT Mark. It is not open to speculation or interpretation.

not to pull a "God did it" here, but that statement does set restrictive and artificial limits on God in creation

What would the point be of God changing the blood type? Seriously?

And again, I want you to disprove my statement. You can't disprove it using the Bible, I want to see scientific data that can refute what I told you.

why couldn't Adam be type O negative?

He could be. But then, Eve would be, too. Don't worry, we're gonna get into rh positive and rh negative tonight.

Mark, AIG is wrong on this. Plain and simple.

Would it be possible for "new" blood types to mutate from the original ones? That (If possible) would explain everything.

Don't mutation and evolution mean the same thing. When an organism changes to adapt to its surroundings. Not an actual definition, just my own.

If they are, then the mutated blood would be void. Churches tend to disappove of evolutionary theories.

Don't mutation and evolution mean the same thing. When an organism changes to adapt to its surroundings. Not an actual definition, just my own.

If they are, then the mutated blood would be void. Churches tend to disappove of evolutionary theories.

I think that it is open to enterpritation. I think that mutation is a slow change. While I think that evolution is an instantanious change.

That is just my personal opinion. They may have the same difinition. :dunno:

Mutation - A permanent change, a structural alteration, in the DNA or RNA. Mutations can be caused by many factors including environmental insults such as radiation and mutagenic chemicals. Mutations are sometimes attributed to random chance events.

Evolution - Change in the genetic composition of a population during successive generations, as a result of natural selection acting on the genetic variation among individuals, and resulting in the development of new species.

Would it be possible for "new" blood types to mutate from the original ones? That (If possible) would explain everything.

Nope. What we've got is it.

good question, it may have something to do with blood borne pathogens

Which you took directly from AIG, and which I summarily rejected as horse shit.

ok, but you aren't the final authority on this issue

you know more than anyone else here about it, but you aren't a PhD on this subject, either

I know enough about it to tell you that my arguments are 100% valid, and any PhD or MD knowledgable on the subject would back me up.

So, is that your deal, Mark? Can't find any real scientific way to refute my claims, so you then try to say I'm not expert enough? That looks and smells like bullshit.

Bottom line, I've given you proof and explanations how what the Bible claims is not possible, and you don't want to open your eyes to the fact that it cannot be how the Bible purports it to be.

End of story.

blood mutations were possible, and I believe certain reality, in the past

Just like back in the old days, God spoke directly to men, angels spoke directly to men, all sorts of obvious miracles happen, but God flipped a switch and just turned it all off. That's convenient. It's also a load of crap.

the original storehouse of DNA information was highly adaptive

And you can prove this without the Bible or AIG as your "proof"?

No, of course you can't.

OMfugginGAWD! What shere, total OWNAGE!!!
Hey cholostomy head! You LOSE!


Bwaaaaaahahahahahahaha...

No one was there so it didn't happen? :scratch:
You're backpeddling into a corner...

Uhhhhmmm, NOPE, didn't read it. :)

neither can you disprove it, but it fits the creation model: the original storehourse of created information in DNA of all life was highly adaptive in the beginning (see above summary)

Sure, it fits the creation model, but that model is only accurate if you throw out any factual evidence of modern blood banking. I can make anything "true" by picking and choosing my arguments accordingly. AIG proved to YOU that two humans can be responsible for A, B, AB, and O. AIG prove to ME that they don't know shit because that article has holes the size of the ones that sank the Titanic.

so....if you are relying on blood types to disprove creation and substantiate evolution (in terms of origins), good luck, your case is hopelessly weak

Nowhere did I substantiate evolution. Nowhere did I attempt to disprove creation. I'm merely telling you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to have all the blood types we have from just two human beings. I am telling you that the story of Adam and Eve is completely false. That's all I'm doing, Mark.

ha....you have proof of exactly nothing that may have happened during the creation event 6,000 years ago...there are far too many unknowns here to be so dogmatic, and that's usually the issue with origins 'science' in general: it's more of a search for clues, rather than rigorous discipline....no one was there

Yet with no one being there, you're willing to take a 2,000 year old fairy tale written by cavemen as gospel?

The big bang theory is just as accurate as your Biblical theory. And yes, I said Biblical THEORY. You can claim it as "truth" all you want, but until you can prove it, it's a theory. Scientific method, Mark.

oh I know what you are doing: calling God a liar

dangerous stuff

Mark, I'm telling you, the Biblical accounts of the creation of man are just as blasphemous as any other religions accounts of same.

God did NOT write the Bible. You can say inspired, breathed, whatever, I don't care, God didn't write it, man did. If God had actually written it, it would be a lot more clear, not open to interpretation, and accessible to all people. If there is a God, he's probably up there laughing his ass off at how silly people are for arguing over what he did and did not say.

I will say this, though: The fact that AIG has to attempt to answer the blood types question means that people are at least asking that question. Unfortunately, there are too many people, such as yourself, that assume the people over at AIG have some sort of expertise in this matter.

They don't. The person who wrote that article on blood types is NOT an expert on blood types. That person is NOT an expert on genetics. That person is NOT an expert on phenotyping or anything related to blood banking. That person is an expert on religious doctrine and trying to keep the sheep in the flock. That is all.

Notice that I don't attempt to cast doubt over every nuance of the Bible. I do, however, question something that I actually AM an expert on. Whatever it is that you do for a living, you are educated in. You are better at it than I am. Therefore, I would trust your opinion on that topic more than I would trust the people at AIG on it. Why? Because I know you have the background to do what it is you do. So why is it so hard to trust my opinion on something that I am an expert on? Does anyone at AIG do blood transfusions? Does anyone at AIG put the lives of people in their own hands based on that article? No. Of course not. Why? Because they aren't educated enough to do it.

You put the author of that article through ANY Medical Technologist program, and he will completely, 100% rescind every fucking word he wrote, I guarantee it.

I'm not saying you don't know your stuff, kevin

I'm saying you cannot speak to events of the distant past, with precious few facts in hand

Yet you'll take the word of AIG on those same events, when they have far less qualifications than I do? I am telling you, it is IMPOSSIBLE for all the blood types of the world to have come from any two people. It is absolutely IMPOSSIBLE.

2 Peter 1

We did not follow cleverly invented stories when we told you about the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. For he received honor and glory from God the Father when the voice came to him from the Majestic Glory, saying, "This is my Son, whom I love; with him I am well pleased." We ourselves heard this voice that came from heaven when we were with him.

And we have the word of the prophets made more certain, and you will do well to pay attention to it, as to a light shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts. Above all, you must understand that no prophecy of Scripture came about by the prophet's own interpretation. For prophecy never had its origin in the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

And, again, you can't use the Bible to prove the Bible. Can you find anything else to substantiate your claim? Using the Bible to prove the Bible is like me saying 2+2=5, because 5=2+2.

until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts.[/i]

isn't the morning star the original name for satan ?

I can if it's true :)

Yes, if it's true. Key word? IF. The thing is, you can't prove that it's true, therefore it's unacceptable as proof.

therefore our argument consists of circular reasoning, or you're just wrong :)

the really frustrating part for you is you have no hope of ever being proven right

Mark, I've already proven to you that it is IMPOSSIBLE for all the blood types to have come from just two people. You just can't see the forest for the trees. I have made a claim and given you more than adequate proof to back up my claim. Your claim is "No, because the Bible says so", and that's not good enough.

why? it's not scripture....your eyes won't bleed, ha
I've read scripture. It was obviously written to both console people in a time of hardship when they had no hope of a better life... EVER, as well as to scare people into behaving themselves. Scripture was created as a means to instill faith and fear.

...and there you are, a product of faith and fear.

You represent the cessation of the human intellectual evolution...We, collectively, should be far beyond the silliness of religious faith at this point.
Evolution can only continue as long as natural selection does, but compassion keeps us from walking around blowing the brains out of people like you, so unfortunatly you keep pissing in the gen pool.
I'm convinced that the weakness you demonstrate by having faith in such ridiculousness must be a genetic fuck up that keeps being passed on.

I guess at this point, the best the rest of us could ever hope for is if you religious fanatics would just all die in a war. Those of us with any sense of reason wonder why you all won't stop breeding due to the ever popular upcoming "tribulation". (I mean, you'd have to be pretty fuckin sick to really believe that and still want to bring a child into the world.)

of course no one knows when the Tribulation will arrive, it will "catch the world like a snare"

Isnt this the same retard that predicted the end of this world in the year 2013 or something like that?? But now, "no one knows when..."

What a liar....

as a sideline, this is interesting

http://anthro.palomar.edu/vary/vary_3.htm

Yeah, it's interesting, especially since it proves what I told you, providing you actually take the time to read it.

Remember I told you that A and B are the dominant alleles? So, if everyone came from Adam and Eve, then the Os would have been weeded out... Except that O is the most common blood type. Rh positive is also the dominant allele in the Rh system... 85% of people are Rh positive. Again, if everyone came from Adam and Eve, there would be NO Rh negative people.

Also, here's an interesting tidbit: If Eve was Rh negative, and Adam was Rh positive, and she had 56 children as claimed by AIG, we'd have another little problem: Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn. Ever heard of Rhogam, Mark? Google it and get back to us.

Yeah, it's interesting, especially since it proves what I told you, providing you actually take the time to read it.

Remember I told you that A and B are the dominant alleles? So, if everyone came from Adam and Eve, then the Os would have been weeded out... Except that O is the most common blood type. Rh positive is also the dominant allele in the Rh system... 85% of people are Rh positive. Again, if everyone came from Adam and Eve, there would be NO Rh negative people.

Also, here's an interesting tidbit: If Eve was Rh negative, and Adam was Rh positive, and she had 56 children as claimed by AIG, we'd have another little problem: Hemolytic Disease of the Newborn. Ever heard of Rhogam, Mark? Google it and get back to us.

once again, :owned:

Ooops! Cornholed AGAIN!!!

"Nah! I dunwanna play anymore!"
The difference between your beloved AIG and Kevin telling you to look up Rhogam is that he is presenting provable FACT, and your presenting a presumptous man made interpretation of a man made melleniums old book.

Hmmmm. No wonder you refuse to look at facts.

That's not a satisfactory answer from an adult who relishes the debate of Creation.
It's a childish retreat.

You're showing how soft your mind is and how easy you were to brainwash.

the term was used as a reference for Satan, yes, before he fell

Isaiah 14



How you have fallen from heaven,
O morning star, son of the dawn!
You have been cast down to the earth,
you who once laid low the nations!


this is actually a reference to the King of Babylon who expelled the Jews. the title "Morning Star" was applied by later writers to Lucifer because they misinterpreted the passage--easily done with the statements of taking Heaven and whatall. they were equating what the King of Babylon did with his city to what Lucifer did trying to usurp the Throne of Heaven, but this is definitely a reference to the King.

also, there are more than one order of angels. the "morning stars" are probably seraphim, higher than angels.

I'm not knowledgeable about this subject to debate it with him, I freely concede that, he needs to write a letter to AIG with his exceptions to their article, he would get a response
So it's more like "Hey...I dunno nuthin bout no blood, so go talk to these guys. They've got an answer for everything.", right?

You're such an asshole.
Do you NOT REALIZE that you are typing in circles and contradictions?
You did this to yourself, too. Painted yourself right into another corner, and now you're stuck.

You're basically proving to everyone here just how fallible the Bible and Creationism really is, Mark.
Like my signature states, you won't discuss the love and joy of the light of the Lord without wallowing in the yummy notion that all who do not heed His standards perfectly will burn forever.

You're sick, Mark. Even for a zealous psychoChristiaNazi.

they addressed the passage "To the King of Babylon", so i'm pretty sure it's a reference to him. they did equate him with Satan because of his aspirations to surpass Heaven with Babylon, so the passage is, as you said, an allegory. it relates the King to the people in a way they can understand--by calling him Satan, his sins and ambition are clearly evil. but the passage isn't switching subjects from King to Satan.

and we're not discussing the King of Tyre, nor Daniel, just Isaiah 14--although the Tyre part was again an allegory; obviously the King wasn't actually Satan.

seraphim are higher than angels. they're the highest spiritual being next to the Trinity.

fine. kevin's argument "proves" the Bible is wrong....believe it! I couldn't care less
...And again, a childish statement void of intellect.
The mighty Christian debater is suddenly acting like a baby.:bigthumb:

and again, i'm talking solely about the passage in Isaiah. not Ezekiel, not Daniel, Isaiah. relating the King to Satan is NOT suddenly saying the King WAS Satan. you haven't explained anything, just quoted more scripture and said that a man cannot fall from Heaven. of course a man can't do that, that's why this is METAPHORICAL. the King is related to Satan, he is not actually Satan, and the passage isn't talking about Satan, but about the King who was like him. see? you said it yourself: it's a parallel. they are paralleling Satan and the King of Babylon.

clearly Christ is higher than any of the angels, and i don't think God would put some "unknown" class of angels above His own son.

i don't know how many times i can say that i was only referring to that specific passage. i agree with you that the Kings are paralleled with Satan; i agree they they were possibly possessed by demonic forces. i'm saying that this particular passage states the Jews will take this "parable against the King of Babylon". it says right there that this is a parable to show the Jews and the King how Satanic he was; not a sudden red herring reference to Satan himself. and please don't patronize me.

...You fancy yourself an expert?
You're too emotionally wrapped up in the topic to be an expert.
The only thing you'll ever be is a [b]zealot[/i]. But never an expert.

it "proves" exactly nothing with regard to human origins....you love to use that word out of context

Who said anything about proving human origins? Again, the ONLY thing I'm trying to prove is that the blood types of today can NOT have come from 2 humans. First you accused me of trying to prove evolution, now you have me trying to prove origins? STICK TO THE FUCKING TOPIC. I am trying (and succeeding quite well) at proving that the blood types of today CANNOT have come from 2 humans. END OF STORY.

what I found interesting from that article is how distribution of blood types clearly show relatively recent distribution of humans across the earth....if humanity has really been present on this earth for "millions of years", as evolutionists claim, you would expect to see a far more uniform/homogeneous distribution

Actually, no, you'd expect a far more uniform/homogenous distribution if the crackpot claims of AIG were true: That if Adam and Eve had 56 children, it would be equally divided with 14 of A, 14 of B, 14 of AB and 14 of O. So, owned again.



nah....quite frankly I don't give a shit, kevin....believe what you want to believe, your ramblings don't prove anything, it's just impressive sounding jargon (impressive to someone uneducated about blood types, it would be interesting to see you debate a true expert)

Umm, I am a true expert. Funny that you try to attack my "ramblings", which I actually substantiate, with pretty much the same line I said about the fruitcakes at AIG.

...again, you work at a lab or something and don't have that much education, so cut the high brow bs

And that's a damn sight better than the fuckheads at AIG who try to pawn off some bullshit from attempting to read the AABB technical manual. I say "attempting" because I have my own personal copy, and it's about 2300 pages long. It's the Bible of Blood Banking, Mark. And, again, I notice that when you can't disprove something, again you try to question my expertise. When you can't disprove the message, you have to attack the messenger, huh? You're getting owned left and right here, in case you haven't noticed.

Bottom line, if I mess up a test, someone dies. If I give the wrong blood, someone dies. If I say something is compatible and it isn't, someone dies. I know my shit, Mark.

"facts" as substantiated by science in 2006 do not necessarily apply to the past, via reverse extrapolation....do you get it?

it is a fact the uranium decays to lead, at a certain rate, as measured in modern times, does that mean that rate has always been constant and thus the earth is "billions of years" old? no....that is reverse extrapolation of the facts...in the same way, kevin believes he understands all the nuances of the origin of blood types, because of what he observes today, and has been taught today...but that proves nothing in terms of origins...all he knows is what is testable and repeatable at this time...he ASSUMES Adam and Eve had the same blood type, that is the basis of his argument

I'm not making an assumption, dillhole. If you take an organ from someone for transplant, it has to be the same blood type as the person it's going into, because EVERY PART OF YOU TYPES THE SAME. So, if you take a rib, it's the same as taking a toe, an eyeball, etc. If Adam was A, then Eve was A. The only way Eve wasn't the same blood type as Adam is if the Bible is wrong and Adam and Eve never existed.

Let's say I go out to the woods behind my house and find a seed to a plant. If I plant it and it grows, it's going to be of an identical structure as the plant which produced the seed. If I plant a sunflower seed, I'm going to get a sunflower, not a pine tree. Same deal with Adam's rib: The DNA of Adam is in that rib. Sure, "God" could decide to change the sex and make her a woman, but guess what? Blood types are not related to the sex genes in any way, shape or form. Do you see what I'm getting at here?



I'm not knowledgeable about this subject to debate it with him, I freely concede that, he needs to write a letter to AIG with his exceptions to their article, he would get a response

That's the first intelligent thing you've said in this whole discussion.

How about this, then, Mr. Wizard? The first attempted blood transfusion ever was to the Pope in the 1500s. They transfused him from 4 younger men at the same time, and killed him. Why did they kill him? ABO incompatibility. What does that mean? Google it. Regardless, if God created different blood types, don't you think he would have mentioned it somewhere in the good book?

wonderful....have a nice day

And again, you lose, so you give up. You're like a fat kid throwing a temper tantrum because he got his cupcake taken away.

Thanks for letting me be your owned bitch. I've enjoyed being mocked while you've been fucking me in my cornhole. I'll be ready for you to make an ass out of me again tomorrow.
Have a nice day



...Ya know, -"edited for clarity.:asshole:

you don't get it, do you? part of studying the Bible is studying ALL passages where a certain type of phrase, metaphor, word picture, or symbolism is used, especially something difficult to understand, e.g. the locusts of Joel 2...this is Bible study 101....people that pull stuff out of context and run off on a tangent are ubiquitous, don't be one of them

Well, you certainly seem to get off on the old "bible banquet" style of religion...."dont be one of them"....:bigthumb:

Hypocrite.....

...again, you work at a lab or something and don't have that much education, so cut the high brow bs

wow, true Christian humility at its finest, folks....

:bowdown:

I'm not knowledgeable about this subject to debate it with him, I freely concede that, he needs to write a letter to AIG with his exceptions to their article, he would get a response

Of course, our humble widdle christian Marky could, and should, have just had the stones to say that three pages ago....but of course, with that ego, no chance....even then, he is still insulting the education of the guy in here who really is the expert in the field...Can ya just feel the Christian love in the room??

Funny too, how he only now can admit that "he doesnt have a clue"....that didnt stop him from trying to proclaim Kevin wrong and "rambling"....good call, fake christian

zealous for the Truth, and knowledgeable concerning the Truth....both are good

living the Truth is the hard work

You could not possibly know that. You are about as close to truth as you are to being an expert on the blood type discussion

And again, you lose, so you give up. You're like a fat kid throwing a temper tantrum because he got his cupcake taken away.

:ROFL:

And again, you lose, so you give up. You're like a fat kid throwing a temper tantrum because he got his cupcake taken away.
-Who said that; Mark?
:lol:
Wadda dick.

Mark you've got a genuine complex. It seems we all represent the things you hate about yourself, and it's just much easier for you to hate us instead of yourself.
I mean, that's the only way I can see that you could accuse all of us of doing exactly what YOU are doing, and have it make sense in your warped little mind.

Hmmm.
This is all getting boring. I'll bet I can push you j-u-s-t to the edge...
You should leave here. Your mind is far too fragile for this place.

-And I'm gonna prove it to you. ;)

-Who said that; Mark?
:lol:
Wadda dick.

Nope, that was me.

PETA emailed us about psycho kitty and wanted an amendment........

it's generally a more apt and fitting screen name

let us know when you change yours to "RabidHypocriticalLiarFalseProphetFakeAssWannabePre tendingToBe ChristianYoureAllGoingTooBurnInHell".....

it's generally a more apt and fitting screen name
Hmmmm. A more apt and fitting screen name for Skippy....

How 'bout "The AntiChristian"?

Yes, yes. We know. :rolleyes:
Personally I think you're full of shit about him being on "ignore".
I don't think you can help but look at his posts.
-Bit like passing a freeway collision.

*sigh*
Guess I have to work a little harder now. :rolleyes:

work harder at what?

why not try to be somewhat normal for once

why not try to be somewhat honest for once

why not try to be somewhat real for once

why not try to stop being such a hypocrite for once

why not try to be somewhat honest for once

why not try to be somewhat real for once

why not try to stop being such a hypocrite for onceI'm not about to be a go between so you can keep playing your little girl games of ignoring Jon, but this is nearly what I would've said myself.

work harder at what?

why not try to be somewhat normal for once

ur about as Liberal with regards to practicing hypocracy.

U know, like to dictate rules on others, yet they don't follow they're own rules.....

Unless u consider ur mental/religious BS mental ailment as "normal"

What's the matter?

Truth hurts, doesn't it?

U want a reality check?

Post a pole with any of these topics:

Who's whacked?

BATMAN or YZF

Is YZF a hypocrite?

yes or no.

U loose chicken shit.

Don't like it? Get out. No need to ban ur ass. u just make urself look more and more tard, if u don't know it already.

Ur thoughts, teachings, beliefs, etc. have had soo many holes in it that a boat can float through it.

And yet ur too dumb to acknowledge that. Ur the laughing stock of this forum.

Find out for urself and make a pole............. chicken shit.

for u it's a pole.

as in sit and spin........

it's "poll" asian retardGood-Good! Keep that flame of Satanic HATE alive, YOU RACIST MOTHER FUCKER!

G'on, you chicken shit lil' bitch. Post a poll to see just where you stand on the ole' "credibilitometer" there, scumbag.
I dare ya.

God DAMN I wanna club you like a fuckin RAT!

I see pictures of dead, mangled children in Lebanon, and I think of YOU!
It's hate like YOURS that causes such misery.

You, along with every other religious zealot, should be shot through the head.

No, cunt. It's not "typical knee jerk mindless liberalism".
It's very much cumulative, Mark.
It seems in your 3 thousand, seven hundred plus posts here, and the thousands at the other forum that you were banned from many, many times, you have forgotten just how many times you have referred to one's race in a disparaging manner.

...I have not.

You're a racist fuck, Mark, pure and simple. Plain for ALL TO SEE. (cept maybe your one and only supporter who fancies himself your guardian angel of the Internet. :rolleyes: )

whatever....I'm far from racist....I have several black and asian friends

and, contrary to your endless accusations, I've never made a racist statement on this forum or any forum, other than to say the Arabs are violent people

wow, another lie. "other than to say the Arabs are violent people...."

HAHAHAHAHAHAHA

do we really need to bring out all the comments he has posted regarding EXACTLY how he feels about Muslims?? Terms such as "evil", "satanic" and many others have been used....dont let this liar fool you, folks. The proof is in the posts.

Muslim isnt a race :O

it's one thing to be a bible thumper, but for one to preach and posess behavior unbecoming of one is not that far from being a liberal.

Same beat, different tone.

Muslim isnt a race :O

no, but ARABS are a race, and his entire basis for bashing on ARABS is because of the MUSLIM issues, tofu. Wake up already

Muslim isnt a race :O

Funny, I don't see "Muslim" anywhere in this post:

whatever....I'm far from racist....I have several black and asian friends

and, contrary to your endless accusations, I've never made a racist statement on this forum or any forum, other than to say the Arabs are violent people

"You are now with child
and you will have a son.
You shall name him Ishmael,
for the LORD has heard of your misery.

He will be a wild ass of a man;
his hand will be against everyone
and everyone's hand against him,
and he will live in hostility
toward all his brothers."[/i]



Ok, let's see if logic can somehow win out with you, Mark.

"You will have a son... You shall name him Ishmael... He will be a wild ass of a man"

How is that talking about the Arabs? I see it talking about ONE person. Does the Bible have notes on the bottom that tell you which lines are literal and which are not?

can anyone here who possesses intelligence answer something?

Ishmael, Abraham's first son, was the "father of the Arabs"

Isaac, Abraham's second son, was "father of the Jews"

Why, then, does no one ever bring up the obvious link between Arabs and Jews? If they are all descended from the same person--Abraham--then they are also all related, no? Yet, at the same time, Arabs consider Jews their sworn enemy forever.....

whatever....I'm far from racist....I have several black and asian friends

and, contrary to your endless accusations, I've never made a racist statement on this forum or any forum, other than to say the Arabs are violent people

Y-A-W-N

sos....I just gave you a clear definition, and, surprise, your worthless coon ass will argue against that definition for endless posts...then you call God's Word "mythology"

your not worth my time, jon, you're a worthless piece of dog shit on the side of the highway as I roll by in the FD at 100 mph, and I am officially done responding to any post from you....period
A racist and a liar.

ever read the Quran (as you CLAIM to have done)? ever talk to any Muslim alive?

they all recognize Ishmael as the father of the Arab race

And that doesn't mean that all children will have his temperament. Perfect example: My brother and me. He got all the work ethic, I got all the personality. We're totally different. "Ishmael" may be a wild ass of a man, but it doesn't say anything about the rest of his children.

but it is the general defining characteristic of that race

LOL. "General defining characteristic" is the same as "stereotype". I know a LOT more Arabic people than you (Don't doubt it, I grew up in SoCal, which is now about 30% Arabic in Encino, where I was raised) and NONE of them were violent assholes. In fact, a LOT of them were nicer than us honkies.

And I notice you have NO argument to back up the fact that children do NOT necessarily inherit the traits of their fathers. Big shock.

I believe all the races have certain strengths and weaknesses....that isn't a "racist" comment, just the facts

remember, God refers to his own chosen race as a "stiffnecked and rebellious people"..."God does not show favortism"

Sure he does. You can't have your "own chosen race" and then "not show favoritism".

no question some Arabs will be saved, but, in general, that race was created to show God's wrath....they are destined for certain destruction, because they hate Israel

And why were the Polynesians created? So God could show us how good swaying hips and perky breasts look doing the Hula?

You're hanging on by a very thin thread, Mark.

no question some Arabs will be saved, but, in general, that race was created to show God's wrath....they are destined for certain destruction, because they hate Israel

And yet somehow they have complete free will.

but God has predestined all men, that much is clear from scripture



If we're all predestined, then it shouldn't matter what we do. Worship, don't worship, it doesn't matter if we're all predestined.

If we're all predestined, then it shouldn't matter what we do. Worship, don't worship, it doesn't matter if we're all predestined.

Don't bother. His comprehension of fate and free will is so poor you'll get no where. Next he'll bring up that stupid ship analogy.

random insults always indicate you have been soundly defeated

predestination is fact....ultimately, God motivates those who will believe and obey, everyone else follows his/her own flesh, believes he or she is the master of their own destiny, and is damned...period

Refusing to remove yourself (at least momentarily) from your common view point does not equal victory.

It wasn't an insult, I just confront error.

ha....well, problem is you are full of error, you can't confront what you are blinded from seeing

What makes you think that I haven't considered your perspective? At this point I simply find it to be illogical. Free will is much more complex than you give it credit for.

ha....well, problem is you are full of error, you can't confront what you are blinded from seeing

Speaking of which, you ready for my blood types expose?

in Your book they all were written,
The days fashioned for me,
When as yet there were none of them[/i]

free will is impossible.
even god must walk the path that he has written.

if someone claiming to be god does anything that is not written in the book, you know that it is not god.

god CANNOT change his mind, he MUST follow the path that he has preordained.

free will is an illusion, and a sin.

the illusion of free will is that you can possibly do something other than what god has ordained for you to do.

free will is sin because to even think about doing something other than what god has ordained is sin.

to complete the illusion that free will is possible god has ordained that some shall sin and appear to do something against what god has written, where every single seemingly rebellious step is calculated to advance gods plan.