Was the first man a baby or an adult?

[buzsaw]

Probably because you're in Mokele's[/i'] house now, brother. Did you forget this was Evolution / Morphology / Exobiology and not Philosophy / Religion?

 

Oh, so that's how it works? Forum guidelines, as stated apply only to creationists, or am I missreading them? ...Or missreading you?

[buzsaw]

I am not too knowledgeable of 'gods of the world'. I consider myself and evolutionist. The christian god wouldnt fit. If I was to believe in a god, i would pick the deist god.

 

What I don't understand is why an evolutionist even considers a god? For what? And wouldn't any god need to evolve to exist for the evo?? How does that work??

[joerdz]

What I don't understand is why an evolutionist even considers a god? For what? And wouldn't any god need to evolve[/i'] to exist for the evo?? How does that work??

 

we know gods are lawbreakers anyways. Its hard to explain the beginnigs of the universe through evolution, at least with biological evolution. But a god doesnt have to be a mighty mean. It can be a law, a spark, or something that got things started.

[buzsaw]

we know gods are lawbreakers anyways. Its hard to explain the beginnigs of the universe through evolution, at least with biological evolution. But a god doesnt have to be a mighty mean. It can be a law, a spark, or something that got things started.

 

.........Or, just maybe as per LTD 1, As per the Biblical record and as per my buzsaw hypothisis, everything, including unbounded space has forever existed in one form or another in the universe!

[Phi for All]

The Christian religion was, in fact officially created by Jesus the christ of Christianity and his apostles, was it not? We read in the NT that as many as were saved, were added (to the church) and we also read in the NT that [i']they were first called Christians at Antiock[/i]

I said nothing about who "officially created" Christianity. Both you and herme3 are changing the target of the argument which is a strawman tactic. Please stop it. I asked

Are you denying that what is now the Catholic Church was the first recognized, organized and canonized form of Christianity? (emphasis added)

You are able to read the NT because it was first put together with the OT as the Christian Bible at the Council of Laodicea by what is now called the Catholic Church. I'm sorry this seems to be such an ugly, deplorable truth for you "true" Christians, but it is historical fact. Deal with it.

1. Many protestant churches purge those from their rolls who become inactive and many baptized adherants such as myself are not even members of specific churches.

So what does this mean? Are they no longer Protestants? Do you bring this up because you are claiming there are many secret Protestants who are no longer recognized by their church but should be counted as Christians for the purpose of making herme3's statement about "most Christians" valid?

2. No, US Christians aren't the only ones who count, but I was making this observation since this is our nation, a significant one. I'm aware that in some nations the majority is Catholic.

The significance of the US as a nation has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the argument, which is quite simply about herme3 making this generalized, ill-conceived comment:

A lot of this was invented by the Catholic Church, and has nothing to do with The Bible and what most Christians[/b'] believe.(emphasis added)

All I have done is point out the fallacy of his statement, since Catholics ARE "most Christians". If you can't admit that this is a mistake, then you are showing everyone here you are only interested in arguing, not in an intellectually honest debate.

Ok, so you're right by a tiny majority. It looks like a more accurate assessment would be that roughly half are RC.

Alas, in two sentences my "tiny majority" slips to "roughly half". How convenient for you.

Can you name one thing that evolutionists credit Jehovah god of the Bible with having anything to do with designing or creating?

I don't like doing this because it seems like yelling but I'm going to put the bold on for this next sentence. Evolution doesn't need a divine hand behind it, but it also doesn't deny one.

My understanding is that the evolutionist adheres strictly to random mutation (rm) and natural selection (ns). Right? What role does this leave Jehovah god of the Biblical record with in creation?

What seems random and natural can be divinely guided, can't it? The evolutionist doesn't have to believe in any deity, but it's not ruled out. That is the difference you fail to grasp. The only thing that evolution really states is impossible from a creationist view is that the earth was created in 6 literal, 24-hour days. It seemed obvious to me that since God didn't create the sun and moon until the fourth "day", how could we take "day" to mean a literal 24 hour cycle? Light separated the darkness on the first "day" but had no moon or stars to distinguish the cycle.

 

I'm not interested in debating the literalness of the Genesis story here since it involves matters of belief. I merely point out the only real obstacle in the Evo/Creo argument.

[Mokele]

But my point was the problem of all the dinosaurs dying off, every last one, while nearly all of the rest belly crawler reptiles survived. What's wrong with that picture? I believe my hypothesis provides a viable answer.

 

Wrong. Badly so.

 

Lookie, it's a Ziphosuchid, a south american crocodilian group that walked fully erect and probably could run faster than most mammals. They lived *through* the extinction, and were not altered by it in any way.

 

The dinosaurs died off because they, as a group, shared some particular flaw that left them vulnerable, most likely their endothermy. Ectotherms, regardless of stance, survived for the most part. Your "hypothesis" addresses a non-existent problem with a 'solution' that answers nothing and complicates things even more.

 

The idea that all the dinos were killed by alien big-game hunters has more creedence and logical viability than your idea.

 

These are still basically belly crawlers. There's flukes in many areas of creation such as the flying squirrels.

 

Have you ever *seen* a chameleon. Not the things in the US, those are anoles and the use of 'chameleon' for them is erroneous. I mean *african* chameleons. Those are 100% fully upright, no in betweens.

 

You cannot simply dismiss data that contradicts your theory. That's the same intellectual dishonesty that we so often ridicule creationists for.

 

Evidently there exists a problem with mainstream's theory on this which I'm attempting to deal with here.

 

No, there isn't. Show me this "problem". Oh, wait, it's just a delusion of yours, like your beliefs.

 

Show me a single peer-reviewed journal article that would even consider factoring in anything in the Biblical historical record as a possibility. LOL!

 

We don't for the same reason that you don't see Nature re-running stories from The Weekly World News about dwarves shooting two-headed bigfoots.

 

And you failed to answer. You claimed that there is legitimate scientific concern over the use of radiometric dating. When I ask for you to back up the arguement, you dodge the question. Most logical conclusion: You are lying. Big suprise there.

 

Isn't it a tad against forum guidelines, accusing a fellow member of lying without sufficient evidence that there was intent to lie? It is indeed meanspirited for you to do so.

 

I never acussed you. I pointed out the FACT that you are lying. Until you offer a PEER-REVIEWED journal article that gives logical and credible reasons to doubt radiometric testing (and I am very sure no such article exists), your lable of liar remains accurate.

 

Oh, so that's how it works? Forum guidelines, as stated apply only to creationists, or am I missreading them? ...Or missreading you?

 

Well, you're a creationist, so I'll have to use small words explaining this:

 

You posted your bullshit in the evolution forum. That means it is *you* who is seeking to stir up shit, and that you should not be surprised that we're sick of hearing your delusions and lies.

 

Simple enough for you? You want to stop this? Either don't post, or post *facts*, not your moronic beliefs.

 

You are being ridiculed for one reason: because your beliefs are worthy of ridicule.

 

Mokele

[Daecon]

What do these creationists hope to achieve? Are they trying to trick/con/manipulate the scientific community into thinking it's wrong and they were right all along? For what purpose, to boost their own arrogant pride?

 

That's pretty pathetic.

 

And another thing: I believe it really is butter.

[Phi for All]

What I don't understand is why an evolutionist even considers a god? For what? And wouldn't any god need to evolve[/i'] to exist for the evo?? How does that work??

More meaningless handwaving, trying to force evolution to be at complete odds with creationism. Do you really not understand that evolution is all about passing genes along to the next generation? Do you subscribe to some apochryphal belief that God, through the Holy Spirit, passed His genes along to Jesus and that Jesus had children and passed his genes along to further generations? I've never heard this from a creationist before.

[Phi for All]

Its hard to explain the beginnigs of the universe through evolution, at least with biological evolution.

It's not just hard, it's completely impossible, because evolution doesn't attempt to explain the beginnings of the universe. Nothing in the theory suggests how life started, only how it changes from generation to generation.

[buzsaw]

I said nothing about who "officially created[/i']" Christianity. Both you and herme3 are changing the target of the argument which is a strawman tactic. Please stop it. I asked

 

Hi Phi. Ok, I'll drop the word "officially." You still loose. In all due respect, Christianity was not created by the RCC!. It was created by the christ of Christianity and the apostles, as per the Biblical record, regardless of when that record got into the hands of the RCC segment of Christianity. Christianity existed for three centuries before Roman Catholicism's version of the church. I've documented that. If you reject the Biblical record on that, I can't help you, but please don't ask me to stop posting documented facts. The references, btw, for the verses I cited are Acts 2:47 and Acts 11:26

 

You are able to read the NT because it was first put together with the OT as the Christian Bible at the Council of Laodicea by what is now called the Catholic Church.

 

What has that got to do with the creation of Christianity, which had historically been in existence for 300+ years and in the fact that the RCC was instumental in taking some early manuscripts of a 300 year old religion and publishing them? And, btw, the early manuscripts were being read and preached by Christians since the first century when most were first given to the churches, churches which physically existed in many cities those first three centuries. Much of the church, went underground during the dark ages of the RCC bloody inquisitions, purging out all nonofficial churches.

 

I'm sorry this seems to be such an ugly, deplorable truth for you "true" Christians, but it is historical fact. Deal with it.

 

In all due respect for your authority here, I do think you need to deal with your own dogged buligerency in this matter. Are you trying to create your own personal bully pulpit here or something?

 

So what does this mean? Are they no longer Protestants? Do you bring this up because you are claiming there are many secret Protestants who are no longer recognized by their church but should be counted as Christians for the purpose of making herme3's statement about "most Christians" valid?

 

I brought it up because these, including myself are not included in the tally of Protestant Christians, whereas all persons who were ever baptized in the RCC are indeed officially counted in the tally, unless they are officially excommunicated, and that is rare, indeed.

 

The significance of the US as a nation has ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with the argument, which is quite simply about herme3 making this generalized, ill-conceived comment:

. Fine. Scratch that. I concede to your point here.

 

Evolution doesn't need a divine hand behind it, but it also doesn't deny one.

 

Did I miss something? Please apprise me as to where I said evolution needs a divine hand or that I said it doesn't deny one. Please reread. I did neither, that I'm aware of. I simply asked why any evolutionust would want or need a diety, since many evolutionists are theists as well as deists.

 

What seems random and natural can be divinely guided, can't it?

 

As I understand rm and ns, it is strictly a random and natural process, without the intervention of id/intelligent design. Please apprise me if mistaken here.

 

The evolutionist doesn't have to believe in any deity, but it's not ruled out. That is the difference you fail to grasp. The only thing that evolution really states is impossible from a creationist view is that the earth was created in 6 literal, 24-hour days. It seemed obvious to me that since God didn't create the sun and moon until the fourth "day", how could we take "day" to mean a literal 24 hour cycle? Light separated the darkness on the first "day" but had no moon or stars to distinguish the cycle.

.

 

Fyi, I am not a yec, and I don't subscribe to the 24 hour day until day 5, since there's no Biblical indication that sun, moon and stars determined the length of the first four days, including the day the sun, moon and stars were created, stars here, likely those closest to earth and maybe the Milky Way galexy. The specifics on all this are not given in the scriptures, nor need they be, since it's info we really don't need to know.

[AzurePhoenix]

The specifics on all this are not given in the scriptures, nor need they be, since it's info we really don't need to know.

Well then, is there anything you really need to know at all?? "I'm here, I've sinned, I love you Jesus, the book is all, I'm ignorant of reality!"

 

EDIT: Sorry, that was rude of me

[buzsaw]

Wrong. Badly so.

 

Lookie' date=' it's a Ziphosuchid, a south american crocodilian group that walked fully erect and probably could run faster than most mammals. They lived *through* the extinction, and were not altered by it in any way.[/quote']

 

So, pray tell, my friend, why it's called a croc and not a dino.

 

The dinosaurs died off because they, as a group, shared some particular flaw that left them vulnerable, most likely their endothermy. Ectotherms, regardless of stance, survived for the most part. Your "hypothesis" addresses a non-existent problem with a 'solution' that answers nothing and complicates things even more.

 

The idea that all the dinos were killed by alien big-game hunters has more creedence and logical viability than your idea.

 

Most likely doesn't cut it with stuff I say, and I don't think so with yours either, so that leaves our conjectures about equal, imo, since millions of other endotherms also survived.

 

Big gamers gotem all, every last one, little ones, big ones and all, in every obscure nook & corner of the planet? Them critters must've been DELLLLICIOUS!!

 

 

 

Have you ever *seen* a chameleon. Not the things in the US, those are anoles and the use of 'chameleon' for them is erroneous. I mean *african* chameleons. Those are 100% fully upright, no in betweens.

 

You cannot simply dismiss data that contradicts your theory. That's the same intellectual dishonesty that we so often ridicule creationists for.

 

......And these lizzards too, not called dinosaurs either, are they? I'M being intellectually dishonest?

 

We don't for the same reason that you don't see Nature re-running stories from The Weekly World News about dwarves shooting two-headed bigfoots.

 

.........And most of us creationists don't subscribe to a teensy submicroscopic bit of space, far, far tinnier than the proton of an atom, expanding to become the entire existing universe that we observe! Who's tale is most believable? We all need to observe and decide that for ourselves, realizing, of course, alas, that the secularist rules the science forums and classrooms where the youthful minds are programmed, at least for this moment in time.

 

And you failed to answer. You claimed that there is legitimate scientific concern over the use of radiometric dating. When I ask for you to back up the arguement, you dodge the question. Most logical conclusion: You are lying. Big suprise there.

 

Go back and reread, my friend. I cited pre-flood atmospheric conditions, et al which, to go into in depth, would require a new topic. Likely that's been discussed before here, but I don't know. At any rate you can find stuff on it on google.

 

I never acussed you. I pointed out the FACT that you are lying. Until you offer a PEER-REVIEWED journal article that gives logical and credible reasons to doubt radiometric testing (and I am very sure no such article exists), your lable of liar remains accurate.

 

PLEASE, PLEASE, cut and paste documentation of my specific lie, Mokele. You can't and you know it!!

 

Well, you're a creationist, so I'll have to use small words explaining this:

 

You posted your bullshit in the evolution forum. That means it is *you* who is seeking to stir up shit, and that you should not be surprised that we're sick of hearing your delusions and lies.

 

Simple enough for you? You want to stop this? Either don't post, or post *facts*, not your moronic beliefs.

 

You are being ridiculed for one reason: because your beliefs are worthy of ridicule.

 

Mokele

Put up or shut up, by documenting where you've sufficiently refuted any of my statements, my friend. C'mon, produce the goods! It's your turn for a bonafide refute. I've refuted so much of some of you people's stuff that I'm becoming refutingly weary.

[buzsaw]

Well then, is there anything you really need to know at all?? "I'm here, I've sinned, I love you Jesus, the book is all, I'm ignorant of reality[/i']!"

 

Knowledge of the history of our planet, the historical stuff which pertains to humanity on earth, imo, is important knowledge to have. That's why we're all here in these discussions and debates, is it not, to arrive at the truth in that persuit of knowledge, and yes, that includes the knowledge of that dimension of existence which some of us have experiantially evidenced and which we call the supernatural dimension of existence. True science, imo, involves the possibility of much of which has yet to be discovered and understood. True scientists keep their minds open to every avenue of possible existence relative to their fields of study, do they not? Who would've believed three centuries ago that as per the Biblical prophecy of Revelation 11:9 and other similar prophecies that all the nations could at one time observe an event happening in one specific location of the planet. Heck, few laymen thought that was possible back in the '30s when I was born.

[AzurePhoenix]

So, pray tell, my friend, why it's called a croc and not a dino.

Because it's a frickin' crocodile, not a dinosaur. They are distinct taxonomic groups. Dinosaurs had nothing to do with the era they lived in, but were defined by a number of anatomical features that they inherited from common ancestors. As do crocs

 

Most likely doesn't cut it with stuff I say, and I don't think so with yours either, so that leaves our conjectures about equal, imo, since millions of other endotherms also survived.

Not so much, very few survived, and evolved into many after the extinction

 

Big gamers gotem all, every last one, little ones, big ones and all, in every obscure nook & corner of the planet? Them critters must've been DELLLLICIOUS!!.

Actually, a few got out scotfree, and are successful to this day. And yes, many prove to be quite tasty; Kentucky Fried Chicken has built an empire on this fact.

 

......And these lizzards too, not called dinosaurs either, are they? I'M being intellectually dishonest?

Actually, yes, you'e creating absurdly false assumptions based on a complete ignorance of what you're arguing, and then display them as logic. The Lizard rebuttal? Same as the croc.

 

Go back and reread, my friend. I cited pre-flood atmospheric conditions, et al which, to go into in depth, would require a new topic. Likely that's been discussed before here, but I don't know. At any rate you can find stuff on it on google.

I've yet to see any proof there actually was a world-wide flood at any point in time (seeing as the entire thing is 100% impossible). Atmospheric conditions themselves change constantly due to many factors. Yet, they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

C'mon, produce the goods! It's your turn for a bonafide refute. I've refuted so much of some of you people's stuff that I'm becoming refutingly weary.

You've failed to refute anything whatsoever, indeed, you've only proven that you have no knowledge of the concept you're battling. That is intellectually dishonest, because how can you deny it's authenticity without even learning what it is? That proves that you don't care what anyone says, because you made your decision based on what you'd prfer to believe, as opposed to fact.

[Phi for All]

Hi Phi. Ok, I'll drop the word "officially."

You're dropping the wrong word! I never said anything about who CREATED Christianity, which is what you're arguing. I said what is now the Catholic Church was the first officially recognized, organized and canonized form of Christianity. I'll say it again, I'm not talking about the creation of Christianity. This must be a misunderstanding on your part.

In all due respect for your authority here, I do think you need to deal with your own dogged buligerency in this matter. Are you trying to create your own personal bully pulpit[/i'] here or something?

I think I make it very clear when I'm posting as a Moderator and when I'm posting as a member. My "authority here" has not been needed.

 

If I seem belligerent (although, as a Taurus, I prefer your bull-igerent )it's because of two points:

1. You seem determined to misread what I write, even though it's very plain. You target arguments I have not made. In fact, most of the discussions we have had in this and other threads have all been because I tried to clarify or object to a specific point you made. You then proceed to argue all around the point rather than admit you might have exaggerated or misspoke.

2. When I responded to herme3's statement about what the Catholic Church had done and how it didn't reflect what most Christians believed, it was to correct his use of the majority and also because it frustrates me no end to hear one group of Christians talk about how another group of Christians have it all wrong. This is a problem with religions in general, but I find it specifically bothersome among people who believe in the words of Jesus. It is appalling to me the amount of misery and strife that has arisen from discrepancies about what it means to "believeth in Him".

I brought it up because these, including myself are not included in the tally of Protestant Christians, whereas all persons who were ever baptized in the RCC are indeed officially counted in the tally, unless they are officially excommunicated, and that is rare, indeed.

The population statistics aren't necessarily gathered from the Churches themselves, which would obviously be tainted. More often it's from census information where people are asked personally which religion they belong to.

As I understand rm and ns, it is strictly a random and natural process, without the intervention of id/intelligent design. Please apprise me if mistaken here.

Arguably, randomness and nature could be God working in mysterious ways, no? I was pointing out that evolution isn't concerned with what is behind the changes in allele frequencies over time, only that they are observable and verifiable.

Fyi, I am not a yec, and I don't subscribe to the 24 hour day until day 5, since there's no Biblical indication that sun, moon and stars determined the length of the first four days, including the day the sun, moon and stars were created, stars here, likely those closest to earth and maybe the Milky Way galexy. The specifics on all this are not given in the scriptures, nor need they be, since it's info we really don't need to know.

That is an interesting belief system, and I mean that sincerely. It was never my intention to argue what your faith was about, only that you not ascribe to evolution things it has nothing to do with.

[darkkazier]

Wow, mention religon here and you get sent to the firing squad lol. I never saw so many morons and idiots in all my life used in a single thread. LOL

[buzsaw]

You're dropping the wrong word! I never said anything about who CREATED Christianity, which is what you're arguing.

 

OK, my friend, now let's you and me stop right here and get one thing straight. Did you, or did you not post in message 86 of this thread the following statement?

 

I don't think you know very much about the Christian religion, which was created by what is now the Catholic Church.

[Phi for All]

OK, my friend, now let's you and me stop right here and get one thing straight. Did you, or did you not post in message 86 of this thread the following statement?

You're right, I did not go back far enough in rereading. I apologize. I started the misunderstanding.

 

Let's end the misunderstanding here. Jesus and his followers created Christianity. What has come to be the Catholic Church was the first officially recognized and canonized form of Christianity. It's followers outnumber (however slightly) all other Christian denominations. It was incorrect of hermes3 to claim that what Catholics believe is not what most Christians believe.

 

Can we go on from here?

[elfstone]

I said what is now the Catholic Church was the first officially recognized, organized and canonized form of Christianity.

 

That's not entirely correct. There was no "catholic" church before the schism (which was between 1050-1100 AD I think) that ended up with the Catholic (west) and the Orthodox (east) churches. I may not care for religion much but I still see orthodoxy as the "true" christianity

On topic, the first man was a baby, duh .&-

[buzsaw]

Because it's a frickin' crocodile, not a dinosaur. They are distinct taxonomic groups.

 

This, I'm well aware of. You need to please go back to where I said it, read Mokele's statement to which I was responding to see why I posted the question. My point was that Mokele was, imo, erroneously using the croc thing to refute a previous statement of mine, which you also need to read in order to adequately respond to my post. You seem to brush over a few statements and respond out of context with what comes to your mind, misconstruing my point.

 

Actually, yes, you'e creating absurdly false assumptions based on a complete ignorance of what you're arguing, and then display them as logic. The Lizard rebuttal? Same as the croc.

 

Again, please read all the context carefully of both me and my counterpart before rushing to judgement.

 

I've yet to see any proof there actually was a world-wide flood at any point in time (seeing as the entire thing is 100% impossible). Atmospheric conditions themselves change constantly due to many factors. Yet, they have nothing to do with the topic at hand.

 

Ditto to above Go read. I did not address whether the flood was proven, but that if there was a flood, conditions before it would have been different.

 

You've failed to refute anything whatsoever, indeed, you've only proven that you have no knowledge of the concept you're battling. That is intellectually dishonest, because how can you deny it's authenticity without even learning what it is? That proves that you don't care what anyone says, because you made your decision based on what you'd prfer to believe, as opposed to fact.

 

.......And you're yipping yada, my friend, without carefully reading context. I believe darkkazier has made a valid assessment of at least sizeable blocks of this thread. So far it's been a turkey shoot. You and your friends need to challenge me with some more substantive arguments, don't you think?

[buzsaw]

You're right' date=' I did not go back far enough in rereading. I apologize. [u']I started the misunderstanding[/u].

 

Let's end the misunderstanding here. Jesus and his followers created Christianity. What has come to be the Catholic Church was the first officially recognized and canonized form of Christianity. It's followers outnumber (however slightly) all other Christian denominations. It was incorrect of hermes3 to claim that what Catholics believe is not what most Christians believe.

 

Can we go on from here?

 

Yah, fine, and thanks for the apology, though your relatively insignificant majority, when we're talking billions makes the tally roughly equal, given there could be some plus or minus for either groups. You do make a valid point, however, in that the tally may have been taken from census interviews rather than from church roles. I don't know about that, as how it's done. I do know that the various denominations do have their own count as to the number in their various groups.

 

I have other stuff to do and will get back when I can. Take care.

[AzurePhoenix]

This, I'm well aware of. You need to please go back to where I said it, read Mokele's statement to which I was responding to see why I posted the question. My point was that Mokele was, imo, erroneously using the croc thing to refute a previous statement of mine, which you also need to read in order to adequately respond to my post.

I have been following along, and most certainly have read what both of you have said. Perhaps the context of your question escaped me. You continue to point out that these suriviving reptiles are not dinosaurs, but to what ends? Do you feel that pointing out the fact that these creatures aren't dinosaurs somehow indicates that dinosaurs were specifically targeted/cursed by the Powers that Be? Yet you fail to notice that nearly all creatures larger than 25 kg at that time supposedly went extinct (many of them non-saurian); the only possible exceptions that come to mind are crocodiles, (large turtles possibly ) all while some dinosaurs did survive in the form of birds. If dinosaurs, as you claim, were specifically targeted, why pass up a whole distinct group of dinos in favor of creatures that have little to do with dinosaurs?

 

You continue to make erratic claims without taking the time to explain your theory in detail, thereby leaving a series of possible gaps in your intent. And when someone does point out the flaws, you continue to use irrelevant points to support your case.

[herme3]

The only thing that evolution really states is impossible from a creationist view is that the earth was created in 6 literal' date=' 24-hour days. It seemed obvious to me that since God didn't create the sun and moon until the fourth "day", how could we take "day" to mean a literal 24 hour cycle? Light separated the darkness on the first "day" but had no moon or stars to distinguish the cycle.

 

I'm not interested in debating the literalness of the Genesis story here since it involves matters of belief. I merely point out the only real obstacle in the Evo/Creo argument.[/quote']

 

No, the reason your version of evolution isn't compatible with Christians is because The Bible says that God created man from dust. It says he created animals and all other wildlife separatly. How is that compatible with your version of evolution?

 

When I responded to herme3's statement about what the Catholic Church had done and how it didn't reflect what most Christians believed, it was to correct his use of the majority and also because it frustrates me no end to hear one group of Christians talk about how another group of Christians have it all wrong. This is a problem with religions in general, but I find it specifically bothersome among people who believe in the words of Jesus. It is appalling to me the amount of misery and strife that has arisen from discrepancies about what it means to "believeth in Him".

 

I'm sorry if this bothers you. I have read The Bible, and I really don't think Catholics follow the Christian faith correctly. They make up stuff, like the Earth is flat, and claim it is part of the Christian faith. They are always harming the reputation of Christians. When people say Christians are "fundamentalists" it is normally because of something the Catholics said.

 

I'm not Catholic, and I'm tired of people saying stuff like, "Christians once believed the Earth was flat, the Earth was the only planet, and the stars went around the Earth." This was created by the Catholics. There are actually pages in The Bible that explain how the Earth is round. I have not found any parts of The Bible that disagree with anything that has been scientifically proven.

[Psion]

I would think baby.

 

I personally think there were different type of environments that existed way back in time that we don't truly know about, things that could have altered and mutated DNA that effected the next offspring.

[atinymonkey]

I'm sorry if this bothers you. I have read The Bible' date=' and I really don't think Catholics follow the Christian faith correctly.[/quote']

Wow. You have actually read it. I am in awe. Martin Luther would be proud. You truly are the one voice of God on this planet. Thank God that you understand it, otherwise we would have remained lost in the wilderness.

 

Tell us more, oh most enlightened one.