100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
|
|
|
Btw...Neanderthal man and Homosapien are of the same species...called MAN!!! Neanderthal is probably that first early man , who lived to be 930 years old... and of course the long age of his body , would create some physiological changes over time.... I mean, it is all just common sense really. Also...God created first man to live 900 years....and then it decreased to around 200 to 300 years.and has been decreasing ever since... meaning... man is not evolving but dying..as God said man would, after sin entered in. until he is born again(then he has eternal life once more). But Neanderthal and Homo Sapien(of the same species called man) , do NOT share a common ancestor with chimps( a WHOLE different species altogether ). And one more thing... for Neanderthal man to be able to have lived to be around 900 years of age, would have required God giving Neanderthal man a slightly different dna makeup than modern man(homo sapien). All just commom sense ..let's think here folks!! 
Homo sapiens and Neanderthals aren't the same species, try again. They're in the same genus, Homo. (insert giggle here) If you don't even understand how animals are classified how are you to understand how evolution works? With MS, it's not about trying to learn, it's about trying to get others to believe the same delusion as MS. . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Elephants and Evolution
|
|
why don't we take a look at the fact that carbon dating is severely flawed past 40-50,000 years? how can you tell if something is 2 billion years old when your practices are flawed... Probably the same way your "God" can kill his only son(who is actually "God") for a sin that didn't really take place, and is just "one of the stories" in the bible. . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously, one of the reasons why people believe what they believe is because they find it easier to live with what they believe. For some people, it is a belief that our lives are already planned out, for others it's a belief that they will "live on" after death. As far as I am concerned, I find it easier to believe that this life, isn't simply just a test.
It’s also scary to believe that this life is it and then once you die, it’s all done. I’m sure that scares the b-jesus out of people. I will even admit to that. Although when you really think about it, it should prompt you to make every last second on earth count because we really don’t have very much time at all. An 80 year life expectancy (barring anything else that can affect health adversely) is nothing. It’s not even a blip on the radar. Just look at the time span that Homo sapiens have occupied a place on this earth. It’s nothing. It’s totally insignificant. Every second counts. Live life to its fullest. We get no second chances. Aside from how we live our lives, as atheists, we can also accept people, and their actions, for who they are. None of this "You are a sinner, because this book says so" It just seems easier to be able to live, and let live. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I was going to comment but I pourd another glass of scotch instead.  "Trying to speak logically or rationally with Fundamentalists is like attempting to herd cats."
KerryO I think herding cats is easier. . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MorningSong, with post after post, you just prove what I posted earlier. . .
I could go on and on, like many others have, about the actual proof out there for Evolution, put you're not gonna read it, and just deny it anyway, so I don't see a point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whats exevuting ? Ive never heard that word. Jesus used water to baptize in many circumstances. That is my understanding. Can you explain why it says that he did baptize and then it says that he did not? Here are the versus in question. John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. John 4:2 Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. It is this one that is understood to be a later addition, thus creating the contradiction in the bible today. In verse 3 it says Jesus and his disciples... baptised. Later it says, Jesus himself deas not the one baptizing - but the disciples. What's the problem here? It is not explicit in chapter 3 that Jesus baptised. Interpreting it this way is contradicted by chapter 4 - meaning, it is the reader who is wrong, not the account. The problem is it clearly states that "he (Jesus) tarried with them and baptized And then Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. So later on for whatever reason they added in this verse. Im not sure who added it or why but then they decided that Jesus was not baptizing but instead only disciples were. Maybe he was such a rock star by then and he was too hot and heavy with MM. Who knows. Im not going to lose any sleep over it. 
So, the thread started out "discussing" Evolution, now whether or not Jesus did something is being discussed. How soon until we get to everybody's "favorite" person?  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to think more HIGHLY of yourself that that. I'm not really sure what you mean there, since all I really stated is that I don't see a point in trying to have a rational conversation with an irrational person. YOU are the APPLE of God's EYE.
God KNOWS The HAIRS on your HEAD. He KNOWS the PLANS he has for JUST YOU. Sorry, your invisible friend doesn't do a thing for me. He will NOT allow his creation called Man to go suddenly awry...and also produce chimps.
Not really sure what you are trying to say there. . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
cause that would be like saying God's Word is a lie.
Well, Since man created God in his image, yes, God's word is a lie. I could go on and on, like many others have, about the actual proof out there for Evolution, put you're not gonna read it, and just deny it anyway, so I don't see a point. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think I already covered So, we are supposed to take your interpretation of a book as a fact, but when you are presented with facts of the existence of something you choose not to belief, we are wrong? 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Jeanniebean, are there any particular questions you have so that I can clarify? (Still figuring out this posting system.) The science vs. religion debate is not my area of particular interest, but I teach a little on the area of religion and so have a working knowledge of the topic. And, of course, I have my own opinions. 
Yes. I have another topic going on in the general religion forum addressing the logic of the creation story of Adam being created by God or a supreme being from mud. It was said that evolution was not logical and did not make any sense. I don't know a lot about evolution but I regard and respect it as scientific theory. It does not have all the answers. But my thread assumes the premise that the creation story of Adam being made out of mud is true. My question is posed... how would you explain that logically? How did God (a supreme being) do that? What logical or reasonable explanation can you come up with? I am asking people to use their imagination as if they were writing a believable science fiction account of the event and the method used to accomplish this feat. Please visit my thread there if you have any ideas: http://mingle2.com/topic/show/203367 You know, JB, that is one thing I have never really understood. How you can have people, get so offended at the thought that that we "Came from"(to use their words) chimps, or apes, but be perfectly fine believing we came from dirt. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well if a person is of the mind that no one can tell her anything because they are not open to listening to the other side, no matter how logical or reasonable it is and no matter how much proof or evidence is presented, then they are not here to debate anything. Therefore there would be little reason to engage in a debate with them. The best one can do is small talk and a hello now and then, but when it comes to the subject of God or religion, it would now appear pointless. That does not mean we can't be friends of course.  
At this point, since it's the OP that has stated such, it's time to just let this thread die. No point in keeping it going when the OP isn't open to debate.(of course, one might even ask, Why even start the thread, if you aren't open to debate?) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay said: I'll bet you my salary for life that I can find the 900 christian scientists who stand opposed. The argument isn't that there aren't members of the scientific community who think the Biblical Flood did not occur - the argument is that the ENTIRE scientific community is NOT in agreement on this. It is contingent on WORLD VIEW.
I personally do not consider any of those Christian "scientists" legitimate UNTIL I can research each and every one of their backgrounds. My comment that the scientific community rejects the specifics of flood geology still stands as valid. You also failed to respond to my rebuttal post so here it is again. I find it difficult to believe that you can question the legitimacy of any scientist - reguardless of their world view. So.... Until you are in that position, how can you claim that "the scientific community accepts that the bibleical flod has been disproved through scientific fact"? When someone is referred to, or refers to themselves as a "Christian Scientist" I do question their legitimacy as a scientist. Mainly because how are they going about their "theories"? As a Scientist? or as a Christian? If the Scientist is referred to, or refers to themselves as a Scientist who happens to be(or who is) Christian, I don't have a problem with it. For example, I don't have a problem with the Scientist in the youtube link that voileazur posted, not because I agree with his science(which I do) but because he keeps his science and his faith(he is christian, I believe) separate. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Who is your favorite
|
|
My favorite songwriter would have to be Harry Chapin.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A vertebra of a modern Anaconda (left) and (right) a vertebra from the Titanoboa. 
I hate to run into that thing. . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
National Signing Day!!!!
|
|
Notre Dame Fan, here. Looks like we got a pretty good group of guys this year, and it doesn't hurt to steal 2 from USC. Yah, them Fighting Irish have a tendency to steal some guys from my USC Trojans. They stole Jimmie Clauson from us, too. How's that working for you guys by the way? 
I won't blame the offensive problems squarely on Clauson's shoulders. He did have something like 3 or 4 straight games of personal best's in the passing yards category. More Experience never hurts. It would be nice to see the Irish carry the momentum of the Bowl win into next season. One thing I think we can both agree on, is it's a stupid move on your QB's part to go pro, and it will hurt him in the draft. . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Abracadabra said: I think a lot of people who claim to be atheists actually mean that they are convinced that all mythological pictures of God are demonstratably false.
I can relate to this comment. I have gone through periods of my life where I was in such a tight knit secular group (university setting, students and scientists) that I just assumed I was an Atheist because they were all atheists. Yet at the same time, I couldn’t entirely grasp the idea that this life was it and we possessed no eternal soul. There was no one I could discuss this with. The Christian concept of "god" was horrendously disappointing. How could an almighty creator resemble such a blood thirsty, woman hating tyrant? That wasn’t going to work. Not for me anyway. Im too obstinate by nature to stand for that. I think now agnosticism is the only way I can go. I do believe in reincarnation and an eternal soul and so far there doesn’t seem to be any legitimate reason for me to give up that "security blanket." I will remain like Linus. I'll add to this that fact that even today's prominent Atheist, Richard Dawkins will readily admit that science, at this moment can't disprove the existence of God, so on his scale of 1-7(1= Full fledged belief in God, 7= full fledged Athiesm), he places himself at about 6.9, which is still technically an agnostic position. The other main thing that Dawkins points out is that everyone on the earth is an Atheist. We are all Atheist to the Gods of Ancient Egypt, Rome and Greece. Today's "Complete" Atheists just go one god further. I consider myself to be in the same area of the scale as Dawkins. I can't 100% disprove god(as I have mentioned on here many times), but with what I have seen, along with my personally feelings, I agree with Dawkins when he says that the existence of a Deity is very, very unlikely. Obviously, one of the reasons why people believe what they believe is because they find it easier to live with what they believe. For some people, it is a belief that our lives are already planned out, for others it's a belief that they will "live on" after death. As far as I am concerned, I find it easier to believe that this life, isn't simply just a test. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Go Ahead! PUSH my buttons!
|
|
<_<
>_> *Pushes buttons* (ducks, runs. . .) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
dmv/mvc
Edited by
Inkracer
on
Thu 02/05/09 06:36 PM
|
|
They ALL suck...They have 10 windows...maybe, 4 are manned...If, its not their "break" time... 
Gotta admit it though, I would love to have a job were 9-5 is not only the time I'm at work, but also the time on break. . . |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
Last movie you saw?
|
|
Lost movie I saw in theatres: Snakes on a Plane.
Last Movies I watched: RELIGULOUS, which was actually pretty good. The God that Wasn't There, Decent, but I could have done without the vendetta at the end of the movie. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Topic:
National Signing Day!!!!
|
|
Notre Dame Fan, here.
Looks like we got a pretty good group of guys this year, and it doesn't hurt to steal 2 from USC. |
|
|
|
|
Previous
