Adam & Eve had tails? Someone answer these:

reply to post by noobfun


As stated in one of your previous posts clearly you misunderstand that there is a difference between micro and macro evolution. You should notify the scientific community that there are no more missing links, and macro evolution is scientific fact and get them to discard that pesky term theory. Here is a more difficult question for your big brain. What is the scientific explanation for life.

reply to post by TheRedneck


science can be used and missued ill agree 1000(add abunch more 0's)%

reliegon can be to, but religeon also has its own rules and laws it places on its people

as political entities place rules and laws of its people


the rules in religeon can be used when highlighted to its people be used to force political change and vice versa as the outward face of religeon change to suit the climate it finds its self

its rules are still there it just chooses not to promote some of them at the moment(which is why i said why be half hearted about it just go all out and be honest about it)


god gave a set of rule(mostly who to kill and when to kill them)

jesus came gave some new rules(which contradict some of the old rules, and they are a dam sight better then gods efforts) but said to keep the old rules intact and follow them too

then paul/saul comes along adds some more rules starts evangalising for tithes and says we should still carry out the old laws too

how long before another christian pays attention to the antijewish (mainstream jew not jesus's jews) comments jesus and paul/saul made then takes it political mainstream like hitler did, it was religeous beleif long before he could make it politcal policy, it also helped the christain movments of germany jumped onboard whole heartedly(yes there were small exceptional groups and to them i have nothing but praise for thier actions)

if your going to preach the virtue and teachings of loving jesus at least cut away all the deadwood that goes against this what bits are left of the bible go with that and turn a big book of hatred into a small book of pro-humane meaning other wise its a time bomb waiting for the next zealot




[edit on 14/11/08 by noobfun]

[edit on 14/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by noobfun


[but does this still mean the devil had to hide a bunch of fossil bones in a giant easter egg hunt game we call palentology and anthropology?]


I will admit that I have no explanation of the Dinosaurs ...it is pretty obvious that they existed ..
The only thing I can come up with is they were experiments of the evil angels (pets created for the Giants maybe >) ......

Or they were a creation before the creation of the garden ....

Some say that Genesis may insinuate two creations (Maybe one inside the garden and one outside ) ...I think that could be possible .....it does appear to have some differences when describing things in Gen 1 and 2 ....
I dont know ..


I Know yesterday when I was reading I noticed something else .

Adam was created from the dust then he was PUT in the garden ...
I always thought he was created inside of the garden ..
Gen 2:8 And the LORD God planted a garden eastward in Eden; and there he put the man whom he had formed.

reply to post by Simplynoone


wait so dinsoaurs were apossible early experimental people

so our reliaty could have been

extinctionofjesus.ytmnd.com... ?

would this then be the second comming?

immaculatekomodo.ytmnd.com...

The word says any and all who will come can come ...
All are invited .....
It is his desire that all come to him ..

what even these ones?

Matthew
10:14 And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, when ye depart out of that house or city, shake off the dust of your feet.

what if where you live there is no one teaching the word of jesus you condemned becaseu his missionaries arnt working hard enough(hardly fair) or your to young to understand it?

John
6:64 But there are some of you that believe not. For Jesus knew from the beginning who they were that believed not, and who should betray him. (
6:65 And he said, Therefore said I unto you, that no man can come unto me, except it were given unto him of my Father.
6:66 From that time many of his disciples went back, and walked no more with him

... so you can only be saved if god already decided to save you or not? not very sporting

john
12:39 Therefore they could not believe, because that Esaias said again,
12:40 He hath blinded their eyes, and hardened their heart; that they should not see with their eyes, nor understand with their heart, and be converted, and I should heal them.

more people he decided cant get into heaven so he wont let them hear the truth

Are you SURE he wanted to save everyone?

reply to post by noobfun

I've got to hand it to you. you just gave so many misrepresentations of what is written in the Bible (the base document of the religion) that I could not answer all of them completely in a week. And seeing I have a power unit to work on right now, I don't think I am even going to try. I cannot impart to you a lifetime of knowledge in a single (or double, or quadruple, even) post.

What I will say is this: Science is the search for knowledge; religion is the search for wisdom. They are not mutually exclusive. The Bible is not a physics book. In science, mistakes are made, and finally corrected (usually after the supporters of the errors either die or get tired). In that process, we slowly approach the truth. In religion, as well, mistakes are made and later corrected (usually after the original supporters either die off or get tired). In that process we approach the truth.

Hitler used religious reasons to persecute. He also claimed a scientific stance, that the German people were superior genetically to other humans.

In politics, errors are readily accepted in order to gain power over others (something the Bible does not condone). Progress is made usually through war or oppression based on legalities or through the weight of (uninformed) public opinion.

Every war and every atrocity that has occurred throughout history can be attributed to political power of the rulers. Some can be attributed to religion, and a few can be attributed to science, both using misrepresentation to accomplish the end result. We have indeed found the enemy, but it is so much easier to focus our attention elsewhere, we tend to ignore the true evil in the world.

I am no prophet, but I doubt I need to be one to make the following prediction: you will not understand this, and thus will not accept it. In any case, more power to you, and I hope you come to realize someday what is really happening around you.

For those who do not learn the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat them.

TheRedneck

It has been proved that all human are descended from one original pair through the myochondrial DNA and there were three major migrations out of Africa. Lets assume the original pair was black, this would then show that we have evolved from one original pair into the different types we see today. Whites, Asian, Indian etc. So the science put to rest a lot of so called channeled information, shows we have a common ancestry and that we evolve or change over time to better fit our evironment. S&S

Originally posted by TheRedneck

I've got to hand it to you. you just gave so many misrepresentations of what is written in the Bible (the base document of the religion) that I could not answer all of them completely in a week

. thanks i aim to please ^_^

religion is the search for wisdom.

religeon is a set value of morality and wisdom there is plenty of room for manouvering within them but they are designed to stop you going outside of the main belief construct

when you ascribe to any one 1 religeon you also ascribe to its inbuilt rules and control structure

this personal view of religeon which for the most part you were taught by its clergy or by external sources promoting thier personal beleifs of christainity(there are exceptions obviously)

these rules govern parts of your life and tell you what you can and can not do and are governed by your beliefs and fears(i should be good like jesus, if i do that its sinful)

as a goverment is an external force that tells you what you can and cannot do but uses external enforcment, police military the list is endless

the only differance between the 2 is one is internally regulated for the most part (people will still point out your breaking religeous rules)

in many ways religeous and politcal belief begin to support each other

they are not differing flip sides of a coin, the are the flip sides of a two headed coin

people are regulated by both thier politcal and religeous motivations at the same time

Hitler beleived the bits of the bible that preach the anti jewish setiment,

he also disliked jews and gypsies for personal reasons that became part of his political belief

his politcal and religeous belief propped each other up and his drive powered him into politics where he could enact his personal religeous and politcal values

as many of his politcal plans(see Das Programme! the 25 point politcal agneda the nazi party was elected under) were good for the everyman of Germany(for the most part) he gained political support, even from jews as the negative anti jewish aspect was limited in its infancy and the pro's outweighed the cons

while jews were considered guest not citizens the many economical changes would bring more jobs wealth and a better standard of living for the guests as well as the citizens

his pro christian views brought even more support and any anti jewishness was glossed over Martin Luther was still bieng held up as a great figure of protestant faith at this time and he was very anti-semetic so it was all good, and with him being a catholic the 2 biggest churches were on board happily with the others joining in too

his politics supporting and premoting religeon and religeon supporting and promoting his politics

politics and religeon hand in hand

not politics leading religeon around to do its bidding, or religeon leading politics around. it was a joint venture

In science, mistakes are made, and finally corrected (usually after the supporters of the errors either die or get tired).

not usually, sometimes. but it gets corrected in the end as more and better supporting evidence is collected wether thats in the hypotesis's proposers life time or not makes no differance

In religion, as well, mistakes are made and later corrected

no its still there in the bible if thats were the inspiration came from, other wise it would have been removed after the crusades? the massacer at worms? before Martin Luther read those verses? or almost 500 years later when Hitler was taught them? surley now they must have been removed with us witnessing what they caused? nope still there

Martin Luther was held up as a bastion of protestant faith until after WW2 but the bits he read in the bible are still there and in some places still taught, along with the anti homosexuality of the bibles message

it just becomes politically incorrect to teach them at the moment

Hitler used religious reasons to persecute. He also claimed a scientific stance,

a missguided fool using his personal religeon/politics to drag around and point science where he wanted it to go, unless your going to bring up eugenics and ill happily show it goes way back in time even plato suggested its use

In politics, errors are readily accepted in order to gain power over others (something the Bible does not condone).

where as the bible always says its right

Progress is made usually through war or oppression based on legalities or through the weight of (uninformed) public opinion.

like the bible convert them kill them or suppres them

1/2 of the old testament is all about moses leading gods people on a slaughtering conquering adventure to control the land and its people, the public opinion was unanimous god said it so it must be right ... now where did i leave my spear?

Every war and every atrocity that has occurred throughout history can be attributed to political power of the rulers

and thier personal religeous belief to make it morally right to them and thier fellow religeous group

and a few can be attributed to science,

when was the last science crusade to the holy land of science?

the last science inspired alchemist burnings?

the science inquistion forcing confessions from the average scientists that he believes t-rex was a hunter not a scavaneger under torture?

people have been killed to further sciences understanding (usually under guidance of the political powers that be) sometimes just to further science too admittedly , but never on the scales seen by religeon or personality cults

i will have to defer to your knowledge here, can you show me please?

We have indeed found the enemy, but it is so much easier to focus our attention elsewhere, we tend to ignore the true evil in the world.

evil is a construct of man, so what ever man describes as evil automatically becomes evil. there is no true evil we keep changing the scale its measured on

and the evil of one group is the virtue of another its all just opinion and politcal/religeous view for the most part

you will not understand this, and thus will not accept it.

sorry i cant ill be honest i have refused to believe what is right and it didnt help me much, id rather stick to what is right wether for good or ill to me

For those who do not learn the lessons of history, are doomed to repeat them.

on this we are deffinatley in agreement, its just a pity we dont

ill leave the finishing comments to man of greator oration and wisdom then myself

"Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing ever happened."

"The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is. "

thank you Winston



[edit on 14/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by rken2


the original pair were also 40-80 thousand years apart

its bottle necks and traced ancestry

originally yes we were probabily all black

local enviroments promted external changes

blond people have more body hair so better for cold climates (think the blond vikings)

dark skin is better for hot dry sunny climates

light eye colour is better for darker enviroments (think short days long winters of europe) dark eyes better able to deal with bright intense light

if we hadnt been so succesful and breed and migrated back and reintergrated our slightly altered genetics we would have eventually become seperate species

but we didnt and now everyone carries trace markers for almost every designated ethnic group on the planet

reply to post by noobfun



The carnal minded man cannot understand ...and you my friend are a perfect example of that ....

Just the fact that you continuously try and find fault with God and pervert and misrepresent what his word says ..says alot about what your real intentions are .
And it is not to find TRUTHS ...
It is to turn the truth of God into a lie ..(that is what the devil is the father of lies).....Your no different than those who are in charge of the organized religions have done to the word of God ...
Twisting it into a lie ..

Originally posted by Simplynoone
reply to post by noobfun

 

The carnal minded man cannot understand ...and you my friend are a perfect example of that ....

Just the fact that you continuously try and find fault with God and pervert and misrepresent what his word says ..says alot about what your real intentions are .
And it is not to find TRUTHS ...
It is to turn the truth of God into a lie ..(that is what the devil is the father of lies).....Your no different than those who are in charge of the organized religions have done to the word of God ...
Twisting it into a lie ..

thank you i enjoy a bit of carnality its quite a good strees reliever

please show me where and we can talk specifics

that view point relies on the fact god is always right and true, and we would blatantly have to ignore the immorality racism sexism homopobia and genocide he tells his followers to do in his name, and both jesus and paul/saul speak of in the new testament making reference to gods word and its righteousnes and need to be still carried out in his name

either god is true and righteous and the bible is wrong, or the bible is right and god isnt

i gave examples you called me a liar, ok then please show me where

but remeber if you quote the bible to prove your point you dont prove mine wrong just highlight inconcistencies in the bible

"The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is. " - which one are you? (we can both do personal insults ^^ )

[edit on 14/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by TheRedneck


But science still doesnt tell you what to DO! IF science finds that smoking harms human lungs, thats it. It doesnt tell you to not smoke or anything.

Science doesnt have any rules that tell you how to live your life, it doesnt tell you what to do.

Attrocities have been commited in the name of science, ok. But so what? Science isnt a religion that tell you how to act.



Pfff its laughable.. things have been done "in the name of science"
When the crusades was on and the knights wielded swords, they may have learned that their weapons were weak against enemies.

So in the name of science they had to find a better way to kill, by for instance sharpening.

GREAT.. that works better.. to bad we had to kill in order to find that out? I dont think you in any way can say that science TOLD them to do anything. Even writing this feels wrong because its nonsence.

It only tells you how things ARE, not how they should be.


Are you grumpy because science is killing the soul?

Originally posted by Daniem

Are you grumpy because science is killing the soul?

mind if i borrow that thats a brilliant comment

could you just imagine a scientific holy war

both armies stood poised in their uniforms of lab coats the harsh sunlight of the chosen battle field glinting on the rims of thier specs, absoulte silence and then a suddenly flurry of noise oand movment and both sides charged into each other with mighty screams of "for the electric universe!!" and "the multi dimensions of string theory or death!"

the armies met in a flurry of test tubes and pipettes one army got distracted by an interesting rock formation and the other began calculating how much energy they had expended charging into battle and imediatley began designing energy saving devices for the next big charge

[edit on 14/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by Daniem

Are you grumpy because science is killing the soul?

Grumpy? Nah, not a bit. You cannot 'kill' a soul with opinions. Frustrated, yes, to an extent.

Why frustrated? Because you have an actual believer in Jesus, someone who attends church, who reads the book (along with science textbooks), and you know more about the religion than I do. Wow... it must be great to be so omni-intelligent.

Simplynoone said it very well. You have your opinion, based on hearsay and rumor and innuendo, and you won't accept eyewitness accounts that might conflict with those opinions. You are, in effect, blinded by ignorance to truth.

What makes it so much worse is that those arguing this position of ignorance so adamantly are the same people who are obviously skilled in critical thinking, judging from their other arguments. So, yes, frustrated is a much better word. What a waste of intelligence.

And worse, what a waste of my time to even try and hold a conversation about this.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by TheRedneck

You have your opinion, based on hearsay and rumor and innuendo, and you won't accept eyewitness accounts that might conflict with those opinions.

im always willing to learn i havnt filled my brain yet

eye witness accounts of what exactly?
and where are they?

And worse, what a waste of my time to even try and hold a conversation about this.

TheRedneck

it never a waste of time to find better understanding for your self or to guide others, im sorry to hear you feel this way

i know it wasnt aimed in my general direction but like i say im interested so thought id ask

reply to post by noobfun
OK, I'll make one more attempt, since you asked. I quote from one of your previous posts:

Originally quoted by noobfun
when you ascribe to any one 1 religeon you also ascribe to its inbuilt rules and control structure

this personal view of religeon which for the most part you were taught by its clergy or by external sources promoting thier personal beleifs of christainity(there are exceptions obviously)

these rules govern parts of your life and tell you what you can and can not do and are governed by your beliefs and fears(i should be good like jesus, if i do that its sinful)

No, I was not indoctrinated into any religion, and no, I do not have to ascribe to anyone else's personal interpretation or misinterpretation of the tenets in it (instead I read the book ). I made my choice, believe it or not, based on science. I also do not 'belong' to any denomination. I believe if you study the religion and talk (respectfully) to others of the Christian faith, you will find those who do not subscribe to a denomination, but to the religion itself, will be the ones who are most 'Jesus-like'.

The clergy are not the ultimate source for learning. The Bible is. Clergy give lessons designed to point out scriptures they feel may be being overlooked by the congregation or to provide their insight (translation: opinion) into those scriptures. Now, you may have some point where the Pope is concerned (Catholicism), but I cannot speak to that, since I have many Biblical arguments with the Catholic faith. You have to ask a Catholic for that.

In any church I have ever been to, there were all types of people there, from all walks of life (I should mention a couple did not allow blacks; and those I did not return to because of their inherent hypocrisy. But those are the exception rather than the rule). That includes waitresses, mechanics, construction workers, factory workers, doctors, lawyers (OK, that's a joke waiting to explode), and yes, even scientists. The Bible does not dismiss science; it gives some insight as to why, where science is interested in the how.

in many ways religeous and politcal belief begin to support each other

To answer this, I have to get a bit Biblical:
In Genesis, when discussing the creation of man, God gave his man dominion over the whole planet. But He did not just say 'over everything'. He specified, the plants, the insects, the fish, the beasts, etc. This is because there was one thing He left out, one thing that man does not have divine control over, and it is the one thing mankind has since sought out and lusted for above all other things: control over each other.

In the NT, Paul admonished a church that they are not to fight against 'flesh and blood', but against 'powers and principalities in high (spiritual) places'. Translated into simple words: quit fighting each other.

Jesus Himself said that one was not to 'remove a splinter from his brother's eye while ignoring the log in his own eye' (paraphrased). Again, translated into simpler and more modern terms, quit telling others what to do until you are perfect (Christianity is based on a principle that none of us are perfect).

Nowhere in the Bible does it say we are (today) to kill anyone or to harass anyone or to oppress anyone. But it does indicate throughout that we are to not do so.

That said, it is easy to see that any oppression or violence coming from the Christian religion is based not on the Bible, but on a loose (and usually warped) interpretation of it. Therefore, once this type of behavior surfaces, it more closely resembles politics than an adherence to the religious principles of the Christian religion. Secular society unfortunately does not have a lock on desiring power and control.

they are not differing flip sides of a coin, the are the flip sides of a two headed coin

No, they are different coins. One can just be twisted to look like the other.

people are regulated by both thier politcal and religeous motivations at the same time

People are motivated by self-interest usually. The ones that are regulated by religion (as opposed to incorrect interpretations of such) are the same ones who forgive others, who donate great amounts to charity, who try to take care of the sick and downtrodden, and who believe that all humans are special and precious. Would you call that a bad thing?

Hitler beleived the bits of the bible that preach the anti jewish setiment,

he also disliked jews and gypsies for personal reasons that became part of his political belief

Exactly my point! Hitler used the Bible, taken out of context and without any knowledge of the religious aspect of it, to excuse his personal beliefs... which were political because they concerned control over others. There is no place in the Bible that shows anti-Semitism. The mistakes as well as successes of the Jewish people are simply recorded in a historical text.

My chemistry book lists the corrosiveness of hydrochloric acid. That does not mean it says hydrochloric acid is bad.

politics and religeon hand in hand

not politics leading religeon around to do its bidding, or religeon leading politics around. it was a joint venture

Tricking someone into doing something for you does make them a joint partner. Hitler believed in the genetic superiority of the German people. In order to carry out his personal political goals of making Germans the 'master race', he used science (Dr. Mengele?), religion (both pro- and anti-semite, as you mentioned), and charisma. The problem was not science, religion, or the presence of charisma, it was his political goals.

no its still there in the bible if thats were the inspiration came from, other wise it would have been removed after the crusades? the massacer at worms? before Martin Luther read those verses? or almost 500 years later when Hitler was taught them? surley now they must have been removed with us witnessing what they caused? nope still there

Nope, it never was 'in there', still isn't, and thus never will be. You are referring to out-of context verses, misread and misunderstood by men.

I'm sure I could drag out my physics book and with a little imagination, manage to quote something that could be interpreted as saying the earth is not a sphere. that wouldn't make it true, and it wouldn't make the book false. It would make my interpretation of the book false.

a missguided fool using his personal religeon/politics to drag around and point science where he wanted it to go, unless your going to bring up eugenics and ill happily show it goes way back in time even plato suggested its use

That is exactly what I am saying, except that he twisted religion as well as science to achieve his ends.

where as the bible always says its right

I don't get what you are saying here. Are you insinuating the Bible says it is right, or that the Bible says political activity is right?

We'll start with that, and see how it goes. Hopefully you won't run out of brain room.

TheRedneck

Originally posted by Aggie Man
Some people are still born with tails. It is rare, but it still happens. Here is a picture to use as an example. Yet another example of an evolutionary throwback that shows we have a common ancestor with other primates. It kinda looks funny IMO.

Christ dude, if they were gay they could possibly hump themselves

I now want to be ape woman, whoopee

reply to post by Malevolent_Aliens


Alas, these images are showing your ignorance of the nature of mutations.

Do you know any identical twins? They are the same kind of mutants as the ones in these photos. The simple explanation is that when an embryo splits you get identical twins. But when the embryo doesn't split completely you get these infused mutants like in those photos.

However the mutations that we are talking about are completely different, they are mutations in the genetic code.

The photos you are showing are a completely different phenomena, had you shown albinism then you would be in the field.

Originally posted by TheRedneck


I do believe that species can mutate over time to form adaptations to environmental changes. This has been sufficiently proven by scientific observation and experimentation. I only question the limits of such evolution.

OK I see what you mean. You havent seen one race of animal or plant become more and more different to the point that it looks, acts, lives (etc) differently than when you originaly saw one (and thus is an new race of creature). And therefore you dont believe it happens. (How bout them larvas that evolve into a butterfly?)


Ive been wondering: There seems to be a genetic relationship between different species of animals and plants in the world. For example that lions are said to be more related to tigers than elephants.

Now: if different kinds aren't related genetically, what't the explanation for the huge and tiny similarities between living races? I mean.. why did the creator make such a complex pattern rather than just resulting in all races being equally related to all the others?


[edit on 15-11-2008 by Daniem]

Originally posted by TheRedneck
(there are exceptions obviously(



i broke my reply >_< was all finsihed press post and got this silly bit above ill redo it after ive eaten

[edit on 15/11/08 by noobfun]

reply to post by Daniem

Now: if different kinds aren't related genetically, what't the explanation for the huge and tiny similarities between living races? I mean.. why did the creator make such a complex pattern rather than just resulting in all races being equally related to all the others?

Well, firstly let me say that this is my opinion and not the Word of God...

The way I see it, each animal (and plant for that matter) has a unique place and purpose in this organized mass of apparent chaos we call nature. By the erm 'organized', I refer to not the various man-made species categorization, necessarily, but the way each animal/plant has their unique role to play in the local ecology. In your example, yes, a lion has much more in common with a tiger. Both fulfill similar roles in their particular ecological arena, so both need similar skills and attributes. Cats are exclusively predators, and almost exclusively rely on stealth and agility to stalk, ambush, and finally chase down their prey. Their very bone structure, right down to the elasticity of their spine and the flexibility of their tails, is designed for this type of activity. Bears, in contrast, rely on brute strength and size for protection and food, and are omnivorous. Bears also have a much more rigid spine.

Remember that I do believe that evolution is possible, just not that it is the sole reason for the complexity of life. For example, a particular type of large cat can change to evolve more efficiency in certain attributes. It is completely possible that a single species evolved both into lions and tigers, with each one following differing paths along the way to better fit into their unique environmental niche. It's when I hear that a man came from a primate, which came from a small mammal, which came from a reptile which came from... you get the idea... that I tend to back off the theory and question it.

The very fact that we have seen animals adapt to changes in their environment says much to me about how wonderfully designed an animal really is, and again points me to the concept of some sort of intelligent design being involved somehow. No intelligence that I can fathom would
simply allow things to happen at random, but they would design their creations to adapt to changes around them. Is that not the leading edge of robotics technology today? We even do this with our creations, although in a pretty primitive manner (so far).

So while I cannot say I believe bears and tigers came from a single creature through evolution, I can say that I would find the same argument much more likely (although not a given fact) in the case of lions and tigers. If you extend the argument to say that there is a single common ancestor to both lizards and tigers, I would question it even more. For me, it's a matter of extent and practicality, not a matter of absolute fact.

TheRedneck