We decended from apes and monkeys...FACT?

[Amazon 7]

  Quote

Perhaps you " descendents" of monkeys should take up another sport....like swinging from tree to tree.

Your evolution is a load of absolute CRAP.

Its hard to imagine so little intelligence in your minds. Who said all mean were created equal????

SOOOOO you are ready to swallow the whole story in the Bible.. hook line and sinker.

I guess you believe that men..in the Levite priest caste.(very SELF SERVING MEN) had a complete handle on everything that has happened on the Earth since GOD created it. I suppose you still believe HE created EVERYTHING in 6 days....

Do you have any proof that YOUR day and one of HIS days is even close????

I guess all our modern day preachers are just trying to get back to being the same status as the Levites..Its GOOD to hold all the power of being able to talk to GOD

  Quote

When the Israelites left Egypt, the ancient manner of worship was still observed by them, the eldest son of each house inheriting the priest's office. At Sinai the first change in this ancient practice was made. A hereditary priesthood in the family of Aaron was then instituted (Ex. 28:1). But it was not till that terrible scene in connection with the sin of the golden calf that the tribe of Levi stood apart and began to occupy a distinct position (Ex. 32). The religious primogeniture was then conferred on this tribe, which henceforth was devoted to the service of the sanctuary (Num. 3:11-13). They were selected for this purpose because of their zeal for the glory of God (Ex. 32:26), and because, as the tribe to which Moses and Aaron belonged, they would naturally stand by the lawgiver in his work.

The Levitical order consisted of all the descendants of Levi's three sons, Gershon, Kohath, and Merari; whilst Aaron, Amram's son (Amram, son of Kohat), and his issue constituted the priestly order.

The age and qualification for Levitical service are specified in Num. 4:3, 23, 30, 39, 43, 47.

They were not included among the armies of Israel (Num. 1:47; 2:33; 26:62), but were reckoned by themselves. They were the special guardians of the tabernacle (Num. 1:51; 18:22-24). The Gershonites pitched their tents on the west of the tabernacle (3:23), the Kohathites on the south (3:29), the Merarites on the north (3:35), and the priests on the east (3:38). It was their duty to move the tent and carry the parts of the sacred structure from place to place. They were given to Aaron and his sons the priests to wait upon them and do work for them at the sanctuary services (Num. 8:19; 18:2-6).

As being wholly consecrated to the service of the Lord, they had no territorial possessions. Jehovah was their inheritance (Num. 18:20; 26:62; Deut. 10:9; 18:1, 2), and for their support it was ordained that they should receive from the other tribes the tithes of the produce of the land. Forty-eight cities also were assigned to them, thirteen of which were for the priests "to dwell in", i.e., along with their other inhabitants. Along with their dwellings they had "suburbs", i.e., "commons", for their herds and flocks, and also fields and vineyards (Num. 35:2-5). Nine of these cities were in Judah, three in Naphtali, and four in each of the other tribes (Josh. 21). Six of the Levitical cities were set apart as "cities of refuge" (q.v.). Thus the Levites were scattered among the tribes to keep alive among them the knowledge and service of God. (See PRIEST.)

[skydyvr 0]

  Quote

I guess all our modern day preachers are just trying to get back to being the same status as the Levites..Its GOOD to hold all the power of being able to talk to GOD

Silence woman! You're speaking of things that don't concern you.

. . =(_8^(1)

[MiataMan 0]

  Quote

A fact is an observation, something that can be seen to be true or false with little or no interpretation.

  Quote

Science is about proving things wrong, not proving them right......Anyone trying to claim that science = proof doesn't understand science.

The definition of Science I use is "The observation, identification, description, experimental investigation, and theoretical explanation of phenomena."

Observations are science. I think we agree but there is a language/semantic problem. Or how Marg put it:

  Quote

The problem -- perhaps semantics or precision versus vernacular usage -- is that until you have lots of publicly available, independently repeatable physical *evidence* supporting casuality, what one has is hypothesis (at best), notional speculation, or bad rumors (at worse) not scientific theory.

A man without a mustache is like a hamburger without a bun, Un-American.

[billvon 3,085]

Careful there! Before you know it, you will be admitting that there is some validity to the scientific consensus, even when some scientists disagree and even though their models aren't 100% accurate!

[maadmax 0]

God must be real unfair, ......Do I need to go on, you are putting your energy into a lie my gullible friend, sorry but that is the truth.
Don’t think that I don't believe in a divine source of life, but Christianity is a lie, there is no two ways about it, if you can't see it you are blind.
.....

  Quote

Very arrogant load of crap. So are you proclaiming to the lost, that you of all people hold the light of truth? God not meeting your expectations is of no concern to anyone. God is accountable only to Himself. How God chooses to reveal Himself is up to Him, it is not something that needs a majority consensus to become reality.


____________________________________

• Quote

[pirana 0]

  Quote

A testable theory is generally not disproved by lack of evidence. We learn new stuff all the time.

However, a theory can absolutely be discarded if it is impossible to be proven wrong. If it is untestable, it is unacceptable for even being considered on its scientific merit (or lack thereof).

Very important distinction which fundamentalists don't get, or don't want to get. If something can not be proven wrong, (as is true of most dogma) then it does not even qualify as a theory. It is more like an opinion or idea, and one which can not be proven or disproven. It is a matter of faith and is outside the realm of science. It can not compete with and should not be compared to testable theories; and basically belongs in philosophy/theology classes.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[billvon 3,085]

>How God chooses to reveal Himself is up to Him . . .

Yet millions of people seem to spend a lot of effort writing, posting, lecturing, preaching and otherwise trying to do the same thing.

[kelpdiver 2]

  Quote

P.S. If a guy went to confession on Sunday, committed sins on Friday, and would have gone to confession again on Sunday but gets MURDERED on Saturday in a state of SIN, he goes to hell, right?

But his murderer gets to languish on Death Row for 22 years, finds Jesus, confesses his sins, accepts the Savior, and goes to Heaven.

THIS is the TRIPE that you people believe is the system set up by a fair, all-knowing, loving, forgiving God?

This is a very literal interpretation of Catholicism. And a bit simplistic - the killer would have to actually repent when he confesses his sin, not just do a death bed 'Hail Jesus'. As for the murdered man getting stuck in purgatory, I would think that the strict must confess was driven much more by the Church wanting people to show for confession regularly (in part to collect money in the older days), rather than a belief that God was that inflexible.

A few of you heathens (and I'm one) are just as crazed sounding as our Canadian Nostradamus. Live and let live. Everyone can have their own understanding of the universe, up to the point where they wish to impose it on the rest of us.

[christelsabine 1]

Just a reply to your thread title:

No, we do not. If we somehow would descend from apes or monkey, their race would've been died out since thousands of years.

Simple as that.

dudeist skydiver # 3105

[kelpdiver 2]

  Quote

Just a reply to your thread title:

No, we do not. If we somehow would descend from apes or monkey, their race would've been died out since thousands of years.

Simple as that.

Ancestral species don't have to die out. Most shark species date back millions of years.

As man moved out around the world, changes occurred. Not an actual species change, but I don't see why it would be impossible for both to continue.

[chuteless 1]

Yes...I certainly do accept the Bible as the WORD of Almighty God, every single word is there by His design, and it is NOT the work of man, but of God.
The only acceptable Bible is the Authorized King James version...all other versions are perversions.

Yes....He created everything in ONE day, which He saw fit to divide into 6 days. Each "day" is NOT 24 hours, but a time which we cannot know. However, having said that, we are still living in the 6th dayof creation, and man ( in God's image) was the final act of God's creation; making man in His own image, and man became a living soul .

After the end of this 6th day, will come the Day of The Lord, the seventh, which lies between this world and the next world. In case you are not aware of it, there have been countless worlds on this earth before this world, and there will be countless worlds after this world has ended....which is sooner than mankind realizes.

Yes....it is good to be able to talk with God....I do so every day, and I KNOW FOR CERTAIN that He hears me, and is aware of what I say to Him. Its not a question of holding " all the power", but being able to talk to God is something anyone can do, if he or she has faith and Spiritual understanding.

[BikerBabe 0]

  Quote

What a lot of creationists seem to forget is that evolution is not inherently atheistic. It doesn't explain how life got here, just what happened to it once it arrived.

Creationism doesn't really seem to be about creation, but rather, about disproving evolution. Because there is no proof for creation, Creationists attempt to indirectly prove it by disproving evolution, going with the logic of "if not A, then B". The "scientific creationist's" logic is that if they can disprove the Theory of Evolution then "scientific creationism" is the only explanation left for how we got here. However, it is impossible to prove one theory by disproving another. Disproving evolution does not validate creationism. Ruling out evolution does not automatically rule in creationism.

Which is what i've been trying to say and explain as to how i can be a christian and still believe that evolution is correct.

Thanks for stating it so succinctly

Never meddle in the affairs of dragons, for you are crunchy and taste good with ketchup!

[Remster 30]

  Quote

every single word is there by His design

...

  Quote

He created everything in ONE day

..

  Quote

Each "day" is NOT 24 hours, but a time which we cannot know

That is awesome!

Remster

[skydyvr 0]

  Quote

Each "day" is NOT 24 hours, but a time which we cannot know.

If we cannot know what a "day" is, then a "week" must be really tough.

With respect to that, tell us again how many "weeks" after the election until the US ceases to exist -- and how long is that really?

. . =(_8^(1)

[JackC 0]

  Quote

If we cannot know what a "day" is, then a "week" must be really tough.

Acording to the Bible, Adam (of Adam and Eve fame) apparently died when he was 930 years old. Since the world has only been around for 6 days (cos we're in the sixth day right now), Adam must have predated God by about oh... 930 years. And in God years that a bazzilion million trillion earth years.

[vortexring 0]

  Quote

I just watched this news clip

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/itn/20080805/video/vwl-world-primates-facing-extinction-15af341.html

in which they take Darwins theory of evolution as fact. Do you feel that this piece should have been less biased towards evolution and mentioned the other side of the story with equal regard? Should evolution be the one and only accepted theory? Is it time to consign Creationism to the history books?

Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,566]

  Quote

Darwin confessed, "To suppose that the eye with all its inimitable contrivances for adjusting the focus to different distances, for admitting different amounts of light, and for the correction of spherical and chromatic aberration, could have been formed by natural selection, seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Yes he did write that. As an introdction to the passage where he lays down, with a quite amazing degree of accuracy for a first effort, the processes by which the eye evolved.

Unfortunately it has been seized upon by the myriads of cretinous creationists who base their entire arguments on out of context quotes, and has in turn been swallowed by those too lazy and gullible to do any decent fact checking.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

Well, here's the full text here, with an argument too!

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,566]

  Quote

Well, here's the full text here, with an argument too!

Ok.

Answer me this. Do you think that what is written in "Origin" is the be all and end all of evolutionary knowledge?

Further, even if Darwin had actually thought that an eye could not have evolved (though this is obviously not the case) does that mean that the eye could not have evolved? Would it also trump the modern day evolutionary scientists, with the benefit of 150 years more research, who would say that actually yes, we know a great deal about how the eye evolved?

Finally, of course there's an argument. Creationists would argue that the sky was yellow if it said so in the bible.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

I'm evidently no expert on the subject. NASA says: "the method for ensuring that all of the right components find each other in the right quantities and under the right circumstances has yet to be identified." Perhaps this mystery will be answered sooner rather than later - I can't quite grasp how we could evolve to where we are today, without some form of intelligent input, that's all.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,566]

  Quote

I'm evidently no expert on the subject. NASA says: "the method for ensuring that all of the right components find each other in the right quantities and under the right circumstances has yet to be identified." Perhaps this mystery will be answered sooner rather than later - I can't quite grasp how we could evolve to where we are today, without some form of intelligent input, that's all.

Talking about abiogenesis? Its a fair comment. We don't know how it actually happened here on earth.

However, it does not mean that have have no idea's about how it could have happened, just that we don't yet know how it did happen. The distinction is important.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

  Quote

  Quote

I'm evidently no expert on the subject. NASA says: "the method for ensuring that all of the right components find each other in the right quantities and under the right circumstances has yet to be identified." Perhaps this mystery will be answered sooner rather than later - I can't quite grasp how we could evolve to where we are today, without some form of intelligent input, that's all.

Talking about abiogenesis? Its a fair comment. We don't know how it actually happened here on earth.

However, it does not mean that have have[sic] no idea's about how it could have happened, just that we don't yet know how it did happen. The distinction is important.

Have you any idea why this knowledge hasn't been discovered yet?

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[jakee 1,566]

I made a mistake with "idea's" too I used sic to make sure you realised it was a direct quote, not one of those paraphrases you hate so much!

Anyway, probably because we don't have a time machine. But there's loads of stuff we don't know for sure yet. We haven't found a Higgs Boson, but no one is saying that until we do find one, we should just assume that gravity is a myth and it's just God pulling us down (well, no one except The Onion).

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[vortexring 0]

  Quote

I made a mistake with "idea's" too I used sic to make sure you realised it was a direct quote, not one of those paraphrases you hate so much!

Cheers mate. Sorry for being petty then.

  Quote

Anyway, probably because we don't have a time machine. But there's loads of stuff we don't know for sure yet. We haven't found a Higgs Boson, but no one is saying that until we do find one, we should just assume that gravity is a myth and it's just God pulling us down (well, no one except The Onion).

Yeah, fair enough. I'm calling it a night. I've discovered enough links today to keep me occupied for a while. Later dude.

'for it's Tommy this, an' Tommy that, an' "chuck 'im out, the brute!" But it's "saviour of 'is country" when the guns begin to shoot.'

[Conundrum 1]

  Quote

Yes...I certainly do accept the Bible as the WORD of Almighty God, every single word is there by His design, and it is NOT the work of man, but of God.
The only acceptable Bible is the Authorized King James version...all other versions are perversions.

Yes....He created everything in ONE day, which He saw fit to divide into 6 days. Each "day" is NOT 24 hours, but a time which we cannot know. However, having said that, we are still living in the 6th day of creation, and man ( in God's image) was the final act of God's creation; making man in His own image, and man became a living soul .

After the end of this 6th day, will come the Day of The Lord, the seventh, which lies between this world and the next world. In case you are not aware of it, there have been countless worlds on this earth before this world, and there will be countless worlds after this world has ended....which is sooner than mankind realizes.

Yes....it is good to be able to talk with God....I do so every day, and I KNOW FOR CERTAIN that He hears me, and is aware of what I say to Him. Its not a question of holding " all the power", but being able to talk to God is something anyone can do, if he or she has faith and Spiritual understanding.

Holy shit dude, I'm dyin' over here.