Refined by Fire - Latest Comments

Re: Bookmarks for September 2nd through September 3rd

Security Jobs NYC — Fri, 20 Jan 2012 06:17:54 -0000

Excellent Post.

I bookmarked this page.

Re: Contact

Jaime Jack — Tue, 22 Nov 2011 02:04:31 -0000

We noticed that you
are not at the top of the search engines for a number of your key terms. We
have helped companies similar to yours to achieve top organic rankings.
Please reply to this message and we will prepare a special proposal for you,
to show you how we can achieve similar results for you.

Re: New “Everything” Skit on God Tube

chrispalle — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 08:07:56 -0000

Hey Evelyn- Thanks for bringing this back up. Hadn't seen it in awhile. It really is awesome.

Re: New “Everything” Skit on God Tube

evelyntiffany — Thu, 05 Nov 2009 07:01:43 -0000

Oh my! I wasn't expecting to see something so moving. I especially liked the last part when everyone is trying to catch the leading actress and she finally decides to break free. It's sublime. These kids really made a point with this show.
___________
Evelyn Tiffany - dedicated servers programmer.

Re: Cultured Code’s Things Quick Tip- Creating “Rich” Notes for Your To-Dos

Scott McLemore — Wed, 19 Aug 2009 07:23:41 -0000

Cannot seem to get this trick to work. Maybe it's only available in 10.5?

Re: Flesh and Disobedience

Nicole — Sat, 14 Mar 2009 16:45:45 -0000

One key thing to remember, there is a spiritual war fare going on. There will always be a struggle. As demonstrated in the recent "skit" God is giving us our "free will" and Jesus is petitioning for us to the Father... and many people, even Christians, do not give Satan the credit he does deserve. He is tough and powerful too. Its a daily fight. And God will "WIN" if we realize we need to ask HIM to help us with this battle. Satan is crafty... he knows our weakeness... the "pink toes" was not an "accident."

That scripture... "take my yoke for it is light..." Yokes were used to lead and control the oxen... heavy wooden things. on their necks - Jesus says take HIS yoke... which means... its still a challenge and not going to be easy to walk His walk... but His is lighter and more gentle in leading us. So if we continue to ask for His guidance... the struggle will be less. Pulling in our own way causes much more pain for sure. I have tried to pull away from His yoke. I have to remind myself which "yoke" to take. Its just not worth the struggle.

Re: Social Media: I Think My Buffer is Full

radialmonster — Sat, 28 Feb 2009 01:08:48 -0000

Good post, if I remember right this was at WalMart
Take care

http://flickr.com/photos/radia...

Re: “Everything” Skit on God Tube

craig30 — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:01:04 -0000

this is such an awesome, heart pounding, impacting, drama brought to real life. This drama you did was brought to the world to see for themselves just how God loves us soo much. Ok I admit, I watch it about 4 times a day. Its so impacting. We have a group of young people (including myself) that are coming together to do this in our church. You are all God gitfed to do what your doing here. Dont ever stop!!!! God gave you all a gift. God bless you all!!!!!!!!!!

Re: Google Chrome Announced

chrispalle — Tue, 03 Feb 2009 18:03:50 -0000

You bet. Glad it was helpful.

Re: Launchability Presents CoTweet at NYTM, Makes me Butt of Joke :-)

chrispalle — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 22:56:05 -0000

lol. oh yeah. so much better... :-)

Re: Launchability Presents CoTweet at NYTM, Makes me Butt of Joke :-)

Jesse — Tue, 13 Jan 2009 21:31:12 -0000

I wouldn't say you were the butt. More of a pawn. Doesn't that feel better?
Thanks for being such a sport, Palle!

Re: It’s Charles Darwin’s Birthday, Celebrate Academic Freedom Day

Walt LeRoy — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 15:09:57 -0000

You are misinformed as to the working of planned parenthood. Providing abortions is only ~10% of their services. They're more concerned with educating people about reproduction, something this country direly needs. Abstinence only does NOT work. If planned parenthood were more prevalent there would be much fewer illegitemate welfare babies due to increased use of contraception.

Re: It’s Charles Darwin’s Birthday, Celebrate Academic Freedom Day

Kira — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 17:51:41 -0000

"which became Planned Parenthood (kill ‘em if they inconvenience you)."

Planned Parenthood isn't an abortion factory. They provide birth control and sex ed to couples to prevent unwanted pregnancy.

Oh and happy Anniversary!

Re: It’s Charles Darwin’s Birthday, Celebrate Academic Freedom Day

Marcus — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:45:17 -0000

I just noticed some grammatical errors and some sentences were the meaning got kind of vague and obscured in my previous comment. I apologize for that, but I hope you can understand what I meant all the way through. English isn't my first language and it's almost six in the morning here (insomnia is harsh at times), so I feel I have an excuse ;)

Sorry anyway :)

Re: It’s Charles Darwin’s Birthday, Celebrate Academic Freedom Day

Marcus — Tue, 02 Dec 2008 23:36:44 -0000

We just established that Darwin _rejected_ eugenics, and you turn that to saying that he "did not completely drive the eugenics movement". That's some pretty slick maneuvering. In saying that he did not "completely" drive it, you imply that he DID play a large part himself; he just didn't drive it "completely".

In reality he is as little to blame for eugenics as the inventor of the TV is for reality shows. But anyway, that doesn't matter. Darwin could have been a huge racist and a wife-beating misogynist and it wouldn't have mattered. To my knowledge he wasn't; he was pretty enlightened for his day, but it wouldn't have mattered if he was.

Scientific theories stand on their own. And even if some really stupid people totally misunderstood Darwin's theory and developed eugenics, that says _nothing_ about the validity of it.
That people who defend "intelligent design" continually attack Darwin in this way says a lot about how many real, scientific arguments they have though... If there were more real arguments they could let up on the "Darwin caused Hitler!"-type spurious arguments and concentrate on science. Because they do claim that ID is science, somehow.

Anyway, scientific theories stand and fall on their own merits. All the fossil records and the DNA evidence and observations of short-lived life forms over many generations tell us that evolution is something that is happening (by the way, this doesn't automatically negate ID taking place in some part, but ID needs some evidence of its own before we consider it).
Saying "Darwin's theory caused evil things to happen!" does nothing to negate all this evidence.

It's like if we would attack the theory of relativity by saying "Einstein used it to make atom bombs!".. It's precisely the same level of argument really.

And seriously... Your view on planned parenthood is so.... Infuriating. First of all, what did Darwin and Eugenics have to do with planned parenthood?
Second of all, it's not a freaking abortion factory telling people to kill fetuses. It's about providing the option of termination when it is seen as prudent, yes, but it is also about _preventing unwanted pregnancies in the first place_ (through proper education and birth control), thereby lessening the need for abortions.

Oh well. I also must mention that your implication that there isn't any academic freedom in regards to evolution is unfounded.

ID isn't "censored". It isn't "expelled". It is discussed _extremely_ much for being a something that isn't a scientific theory at all. So far it is a hypothesis with no testable predictions, no real, scientific description, no falsifiability and so on.

Parts of it, like the idea of irreducible complexity for instance, is founded in real science. And guess what? It has been thoroughly discussed by many leading scientists. And ID still hasn't got a leg to stand on.

Science isn't a club were every idea is given equal room. An idea has to prove itself worthy. If ID ever does it will be let in to play. Until then people shouldn't whine; do some research and prove your claims instead. That's what scientists do.

Re: It’s Charles Darwin’s Birthday, Celebrate Academic Freedom Day

chrispalle — Sat, 29 Nov 2008 11:27:08 -0000

I said that Charles Darwin's book, the Descent of Man is the "backdrop" for eugenics. While Darwin himself, to your point, did not completely drive the eugenics movement, his sons and cousin, Galton did. And many other Eugenics proponents of the early 20th century used Darwinian philosophy from that book to promote and proselytize. In the eugenics programs, tens of thousands of people were innocently sterilized based on human judgement that they should not breed - this injustice is what I speak against.

Note, I carefully said, "Descent... provided a back-drop" making no mention that Darwin himself publicly supported eugenics. Please, research the facts about what was propagated out of his works, not necessarily Darwin himself.

From, New Oxford Review: http://www.newoxfordreview.org...

"Thirdly, Darwin prepared the way for eugenics. Indeed, his immediate family would soon be involved in that movement -- his sons George and Leonard became active in promoting it (Leonard serving as 'president of the Eugenics Education Society, the main eugenics group in Great Britain'), and his cousin Francis Galton became the founder of the 'eugenics crusade.' Evidently, Darwin was sympathetic to eugenics: West quotes him as vowing 'to cut off communication' with his disciple Mivart when the latter 'criticized an article by Darwin's son George that advocated eugenics.' "

You can also read, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T...

Goto the section "Social implications of Darwinism"

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

Pastor Martin — Tue, 25 Nov 2008 21:21:42 -0000

"The entire account for Creation is handled in Gen. 1-2 and that account is *not* being re-told in Gen 2. It's being reinforced that He created the animals in Gen 2:19; it's not necessarily chronological. "

Oh, Genesis 2 is not chronological?

Here is the relevant passage:

"Gen 2:15 And the LORD God took the man, and put him into the garden of Eden to dress it and to keep it. Gen 2:16 And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, Of every tree of the garden thou mayest freely eat: Gen 2:17 But of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, thou shalt not eat of it: for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt surely die. Gen 2:18 And the LORD God said, [It is] not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. Gen 2:19 And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought [them] unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that [was] the name thereof. Gen 2:20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. Gen 2:21 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; Gen 2:22 And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man. "

I will now number the events, and it will remain for you to place them in their proper chronological order.

1.God places Adam in the garden.
2.God tells Adam that he can eat from every tree except for the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
3.God says that it is not good for Adam to be alone and declares that He will provide Adam with companionship.
4.God creates the animals.
5. God brings the animals to Adam and Adam names them.
6. God puts Adam to sleep.
7. God removes one of his ribs and makes Eve out it.
8. God brings Eve to Adam.

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

logic_police — Fri, 21 Nov 2008 13:55:19 -0000

> The reason he was able to develop so many solid ideas was because he believed there was a very distinct, finite order to the Universe.

That's a wholly baseless assertion.

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 23:33:33 -0000

Well, we're talking about both. I agree that they are two different things, but the notion is, if we follow the trail of evolution backwards, we eventually get to a point where we have to ask, "how did it begin?" and EBs cannot, with any degree of certainty, tell us how life began. It will always be hypothetical, but never arguable or unprovable. Scientifically speaking, EB believers can only speculate.

Common Descent in the proper sense? I do believe we were, you and I and everyone else, were _created_ for a purpose. I can only seek God's Will as to what that purpose is as that purpose is far greater than I can know. Did we all descend from one common ancestor? The Bible says we did, but I'm sure it's not the same "Common Descent" of which Darwinists speak.

I guess if you need to have the framework of theistic evolution in order to believe, then that's where you stand. I personally don't need to accept or challenge this belief. When you have "Christian movements" and "denominations" teaching the acceptance of theistic evolution, it's going to cause confusion, dissension, etc, but I would submit, that one should not intend to follow a denomination or movement, but rather Jesus Christ Himself. And hopefully it's detectable in my writings, but I believe Christians are hurting the ID movement by way of association.

Regardless of all that, my point is that the Theory of Evolution (note caps) when taken seriously will lead to a disbelief in God and a disbelief in God will lead to ungodly behavior. The behavior may fit social mores and be acceptable, but it will be ungodly.

Re: Atheist Support for Intelligent Design

Samuel Cripps — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:24:13 -0000

Chris,

Please accept my apology for my hastiness. For the record, I have never received an email notifying me of any new responses on your blog.

When you get time, I'd still like to hear your thoughts on this.

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

Samuel Cripps — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 17:21:05 -0000

"Actually, Sam, I never said "evolution precludes the existence of God."

So then do you agree that the idea of common descent is compatible with belief in God? This is a pivotal point.

"The Theory of Evolution as basis for the origin of life requires the _presupposition_ that there is no God. It's not me who says it, though. This is what Richard Dawkins, Steven Jay Gould and other EB contemporaries say."

Wait a second, Chris. Are you talking about the origin of life (abiogenesis), or evolution? There is a big difference between the two. I think we had better clear this up now, lest confusion and repetition take the place of an intelligent and productive discourse. I will say that if you are talking about abiogensis rather than evolution, then we have probably been in agreement all along.

"Would you say that Theistic Evolutionists believe God is at work in day-to-day dealings or is like the watchmaker; that is, "built and let it run"?"

Theistic evolution is logically compatible with both deism and panentheism. What do you think?

Re: Atheist Support for Intelligent Design

chrispalle — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:48:24 -0000

I did respond a couple days ago. DOn't know why you weren't notified.

Re: Atheist Support for Intelligent Design

Samuel Cripps — Wed, 19 Nov 2008 13:40:02 -0000

Chris,

I finished listening. Fascinating. New avenues have certainly been opened for me to explore further. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts.

"This was not intended to continue from the last post..."

Okay, no problem. I thought that you had intended this to be a continuation of the previous discussion based upon this comment: "To further the discussion regarding Intelligent Design and Evolutionary Biology..."

I must admit that I'm a bit disappointed that you have not followed through on our discussion regarding atheism and evolution. Do you feel that we've reached a dead-end, or are you still chewing on it? Let me know.

God bless,

Sam

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:16:59 -0000

Actually, Sam, I never said "evolution precludes the existence of God." The Theory of Evolution as basis for the origin of life requires the _presupposition_ that there is no God. It's not me who says it, though. This is what Richard Dawkins, Steven Jay Gould and other EB contemporaries say.

Would you say that Theistic Evolutionists believe God is at work in day-to-day dealings or is like the watchmaker; that is, "built and let it run"?

Re: Evolutionary Biology = Atheism?

chrispalle — Sun, 16 Nov 2008 23:02:23 -0000

The post itself was not intended to open discussions re: Biblical interpretations. Just my personal account that Evolutionary Biologists cannot also believe in god as creator. Evolutionary Biology as a field comes with the presupposition that all evolutionary processes are of natural cause.

I guess it's better stated that the reasons a believer cannot accept EB is Genesis 1-3, not just Gen. 1. That's the account that everything was perfect at one and it's all gone down hill from there due to our disobedience.

I'm saying a "true believer" (as opposed to your word, "real") believes God created, not that we came from nothing.

The entire account for Creation is handled in Gen. 1-2 and that account is *not* being re-told in Gen 2. It's being reinforced that He created the animals in Gen 2:19; it's not necessarily chronological.
http://www.answersingenesis.or...

It's a really awesome picture when you think about it.

Yeah, not sure where geocentric and flat-earth perspectives are about.