childeye 2 said:

So how exactly do you perceive the term Elohim <--plural?

Click to expand...

rjs330 said:

The Demeocratic Party has lost a lot of support. The No Kings protests are emblematic of the radical left. In watching videos of the protests in is very apparent that they are do radicalized that they would NEVER give support to Republicans No matter what they did.

Click to expand...

One of those people was a 49-year-old woman wearing a massive inflatable costume of a bald eagle dressed as Uncle Sam. “It’s absurd. This is everyday Americans who are looking at … every day there’s something new that is illegal or anti-constitutional,” the eagle said when I asked her about the GOP’s antifa and Hamas allegations. “The most American thing I think we can do is vote, and then the second most American thing you can do is peaceful protest.… I am proud to be an American, and I am proud to be part of this country, and I am an incredible supporter of the United States Constitution.”

Republicans Should Be Afraid—Just Look at Who Joined No Kings Protests

For days, Republicans have been claiming No Kings protesters are all agitators and terrorists. Well, America had a different message for them, and for their Dear Leader.

newrepublic.com

Oompa Loompa said:

Of course he knows, and his name isn't Shirley. Lol.

Click to expand...

Aaron112 said:

God , or more often, a god.... like the prince of evil.....

Click to expand...

2PhiloVoid said:

Besides, talking to you feels like I'm talking to one of my grandfathers. I might as well be arguing with a stone wall

Click to expand...

Always in His Presence said:

If you are not able to see the difference between tried in a court of law - found guilty by a jury of your peers and meeting the special circumstances - which is in only 27 of 50 states - and dragging people out of their homes, blindfolding them and blowing their brains out in front of their neighbors. You will most likely have continued difficulty in telling the difference.

Click to expand...

Bradskii said:

Nothing worth a response...

Click to expand...

Servus said:

Why delay what? This has been going on for over 50 years. In 1992 there was a girl just like Greta Thunberg addressing the UN about how horrible things will be when she becomes an adult. She might be a grandmother by now. So no, I don't think it's that much of a problem, because I've been hearing it's a drastic problem right around the corner, ever since I was a child back in the 70s.

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

They are much more alike than they are different. To tell the truth I don't even know if there are any substantive difference, it is just different ways of feeling good or bad. Eating tasty food feels good but it is a slightly different good than the good feeling waking after sleeping in. In the same vein doing somethings feel morally good and doing others feel morally bad.

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

If it can voice its opinion it can question the potter. The potters view is irrelevant, for whether or not the potter can be questioned.

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

Not to me, I thought it was shorthand for the creator of the universe.

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

That seems like something as a simple assertion.

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

You'll have to spell them out to me, and justify them if you want use them in the discussion, that is if you want me to care about them.

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

Feeling! I feel good when I help old ladies over the road, and I felt bad when I shoplifted as a kid. I have very few habits I feel bad about nowadays.

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

We are straying way into apologetics territory here: "If, as I surmise, God has directly intervened in history then I am justified in my trust of His revelation", If the conditional is true, how does that justify trust in Gods relevation? Are they logically linked? Could a deceitful God intervene in history, and lie in its revelation?

Click to expand...

Job 33:6 said:

And this is simply misinformation. For example, the first article states:

“Dinosaurs are supposed to have evolved into birds. But Confuciusornis was a true beaked bird that pre-dates the ‘feathered’ dinosaurs that it allegedly came from. It also has been found in the stomach of a dinosaur.”

But in fact, Confuciusornis dates to roughly 125–120 million years ago, while feathered dinosaurs date back earlier, such as Sinosauropteryx from about 130–125 million years ago, Caudipteryx from 125–124 million years ago, and Anchiornis from about 160 million years ago in the Late Jurassic.

Or from your second link, a statement is made:
"However, the presence of this unique fossil can no longer be used to reliably identify a rock as Cambrian. In addition to the Ordovician anomalocaridid discovered in Morocco, a lone fossil of an obvious anomalocaridid (although it was not identified as such) was described from Devonian strata in Germany."

Likewise this is just misinformation. There isn't anything out of place about an anomalocaridid in the Devonian. It's not as though you're finding a devonian tetrapod in the Cambrian before it's ancestors. Rather the opposite is being described in which a group of animals lived beyond just the Cambrian. Which is a common occurrence in the fossil record. There isn't anything unusual about this, despite the articles claims.

Click to expand...

Why Birds Are Not Dinosaurs (And Why It Matters)

Examining creationist arguments about the relationship between birds and dinosaurs

answersingenesis.org

Redefinitions​

Dr. McLain and his colleagues have also considered questioning the meaning of the terms dinosaur and bird: “We must ask what the terms birds and dinosaurs actually mean, rather than reflexively say that ‘birds’ are--or are not--‘dinosaurs.’”2 That approach of questioning those terms, we claim, relies on evolutionary ideas and not on the careful analysis of the evidence or Scripture. And not only have YEE assertions borrowed the definitions of dinosaur and bird from an evolutionary perspective but also that of the word feather. Consequently, we have determined that they have interpreted the evidence of the so-called feathered dinosaurs through an evolutionary perspective.

Dinosaurs are land-dwelling animals. That means they were made on day six of creation (Genesis 1:24–25). Almost all birds are flying creatures to some degree, and they all have wings. Therefore, they most likely were all made on day five (Genesis 1:20–22). By saying or agreeing with the evolutionary claim that birds are dinosaurs or are most similar to dinosaurs, Dr. McLain is mixing groups made on different days of creation. Further, he is lumping groups that Adam would have been able to distinguish. Remember in Genesis 2that God brought the animals to Adam to name. This implies that Adam was capable of both naming them and distinguishing between them by sight. There is no reason why dinosaurs and birds should be considered similar unless it is presumed a priori that some dinosaurs had feathers. If that assumption is rejected (as it should be), there is little similarity between an Allosaurus or Stegosaurus and a penguin or cardinal. This fits with the scriptural implication that Adam could visually distinguish between groups.

Another significant problem with arguing that birds are dinosaurs is the cultural context of the claim. While Dr. McLain may think that making the above statement does not imply evolution, the public is inundated daily with evolutionists making the exact same claim. The public knows what an evolutionist means when he claims birds are dinosaurs: that birds evolved from dinosaurs. When they hear Dr. McLain say it, most will still understand it this way as he is making the same claim, although it is more palatable to Christians since it is coming from a young-earth Christian.

Further, Dr. McLain’s statement represents a rhetorical device known as motte and bailey. The motte is the more defensible position, the one harder to criticize, and the one rhetorically retreated to when pressure comes. The bailey is the fertile ground around the motte: a place where ideas can be easily planted. As an example of how this works, social justice activists push critical race theory (CRT) into the public schools—the bailey. Then, when parents object, the activists retreat to the motte and claim to only be teaching about racism, which no one should have a problem with. Dr. McLain is doing something similar here. “Birds are dinosaurs” is the bailey; “birds are more similar to dinosaurs than anything else” is the motte. Unlike the social justice example, Dr. McLain is likely not doing this deliberately or maliciously, but it is the rhetorical device in play nonetheless.

Structural Problems​

Dr. McLain’s primary argument is over whether dinosaurs had feathers. He believes they did and has coauthored several papers making this claim, the most famous of which was published in 2018.3 In this article, Dr. McLain and his coauthors argued from statistical baraminological analysis that there were groups of dinosaurs that were feathered. In so doing, they made some serious methodological errors and ignored the arguments of even evolutionist experts on the topic.4 Now this can be somewhat technical for some, but it needs to be stated. In the feathered dinosaur paper, Dr. McLain et al. made an edit to the baraminology program that had never been done before. They changed a parameter—something that had never been tested—and assumed everything would be fine. While that may be true, without testing, there is no way to know. Further, in baraminological analysis, a tetrahedral-shaped MDS plot is supposed to indicate the dataset is uninformative5 or biased,6 yet multiple plots within this paper show a tetrahedral shape. By precedent in statistical baraminology, at least these sub-datasets should have been rejected. Yet they were not, which brings major problems into their results.

Even laying aside the methodological problems, the claim that dinosaurs had feathers is extremely problematic, yet Dr. McLain is sadly not the only one to make it.7Feathers are highly complex structures. Many of the so-called feathers are not featherlike at all and are best described as “fibers.” Even some evolutionists argue against them being feathers.8 The only way to “make” them feathers is by redefining the word feather.

To confuse matters more, some so-called dinosaurs have unambiguous feathers. That does not mean that dinosaurs have feathers though, because these so-called dinosaurs not only have pennaceous feathers but also possess wing structures capable of either flight or gliding and a tail structure like the ones found in fossil birds—their anatomical structure is not at all like, say, a Tyrannosaurus.9 Therefore, these organisms represent extinct kinds of birds, not dinosaurs.

Using the evolutionary dinosaurian classification, which includes birds, is very problematic and represents an unnecessary ceding of ground to the evolutionary narrative as well as a confusing narrative for the churchgoer. When even members of the evolutionary community question the idea that dinosaurs had feathers with sound, peer-reviewed papers, it begs the question of why some in the creationist community would accept it. The only reason to do so is if some of the same assumptions that drive the evolutionary model are smuggled into the creation model—namely that some dinosaurs had feathers. And for what purpose? If the assumption that some dinosaurs had feathers is removed, the entire evolutionary argument falls away, as does the “young-earth evolution” argument dependent on it.

Dinosaurs had no feathers, and claiming they did actually requires reliance on evolutionary interpretations of fossils that should not be accepted by creationists.

Click to expand...

Desk trauma said:

Defending their execution of rivals is very much defending them. As I said, they have been doing this since they were consolidating power after the election in 06. This isn’t a product of social break down due to the war, its standard operating procedure.

Click to expand...

Oompa Loompa said:

Name something the protest accomplished?

Click to expand...

Oompa Loompa said:

Sounds like you are trying to reconcile the notorious flop that was the "No Kings Rally 2.0." Basically it was seen no differently than a large scale group of liberals shooting water guns at a picture of Trump to vent their frustrations without actually accomplishing anything.

Click to expand...

Always in His Presence said:

Do you mean the religious duty that glorifies martyrdom, and is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes”.

That jihad? Because that is the one I am referring to - well..... the one they are referring to.

Click to expand...

Always in His Presence said:

Do you mean the religious duty that glorifies martyrdom, and is its path and death for the sake of Allah is the loftiest of its wishes”.

That jihad? Because that is the one I am referring to - well..... the one they are referring to.

Click to expand...

Oompa Loompa said:

Who is going to strike? Most of the people protesting were retired white people.

Click to expand...

Valletta said:

“The two surviving ‘terrorists’ are being returned to their countries of origin, Ecuador and Colombia, for detention and prosecution,” Trump wrote in the social media posting.
The New York Times reports the two individuals have been transferred from the custody of the Pentagon to the U.S. State Department for their repatriation. They note that the U.S. has handed individuals in the past over to friendly countries when they were intercepted outside the country. The Coast Guard, in the past in the Caribbean, however, after stopping drug trafficking boats, has also arrested the individuals and brought them to the U.S. for prosecution.

U.S. Releases Videos of Attacks on Two Boats as it Sends Survivors Home

The White House released a video on Saturday of the attack on a semi-submersible in the Caribbean. It was the sixth attack reported by U.S. officials...

maritime-executive.com

Over 80,000 Americans died in 2024 as a result of a drug overdose.

Click to expand...

Oompa Loompa said:

Name something the protest accomplished?

Click to expand...