Fossil Find May Be 'Missing Link' in Human Evolution

[Blake]

What a sad, sad state of affairs this country is in. No need to divulge on this. It is what it is with you supid kids these days, believing any and all crap that comes out of academia. You kids will buy anything that isn't bible-based yet turn your faces away from the book that will be read at your funerals.

No worries. You scientist's will get yours one day.

what a sad troll this appears to be.

Is your world still flat?

[Blake]

What I don't understand is why it's taken as a given that the knowledge we derive from science is necessarily contrary to scripture. Why is it a given to say the Earth is x-years old based on one man's contested interpretation of the Bible? Or that evolution is not the work of God? Or that our being made in the likeness of God means we are morphologically static beings?

I firmly believe in God, but I also believe science is a tool to help me better understand both scripture and my faith.

Do you believe the God of the Bible to be omnipotent and/or omniscient?

[admiralsnackbar]

Do you believe the God of the Bible to be omnipotent and/or omniscient?

Insofar as I can understand what it would mean to be either of those things, yes.

That said, I also know that people are neither, and given that people wrote the Bible, I'm forced to take a lot of scripture with a grain of salt -- even when what I'm being skeptical of is attributed to God himself.

[Blake]

Insofar as I can understand what it would mean to be either of those things, yes.

That said, I also know that people are neither, and given that people wrote the Bible, I'm forced to take a lot of scripture with a grain of salt -- even when what I'm being skeptical of is attributed to God himself.

that's the problem for me.

If God is omnipotent/omniscient, then the communication between generations and languages should withstand the test of time.

That's obviously not the case since people are currently guessing what 7 days means to them.

[TheManFromAcme]

what a sad troll this appears to be.

Is your world still flat?

The more you belittle all things Christian and go out of our way do discredit them or try to use science to answer all your questions of the universe with your so called "firm science" the more it shines light on your unhappiness there lad. Not mine. You just don's see it yet.

Troll? It's cool. I wouldn't want anyting to do with your Country Club anyway son. You can have it.

The world is flat line is lame Blake. Use a better one.

[Blake]

The more you belittle all things Christian and go out of our way do discredit them or try to use science to answer all your questions of the universe with your so called "firm science" the more it shines light on your unhappiness there lad. Not mine. You just don's see it yet.

I'm happy and I don't belittle Christians or go out of my way to discredit them.

You on the other hand have definitely gone out of your way to try to belittle "academia".

For whatever reason, you appear to be very bitter about science books.

Troll? It's cool. I wouldn't want anyting to do with your Country Club anyway son. You can have it.

I'm not in a country club. You are a troll though, and doing a poor job of it.

The world is flat line is lame Blake. Use a better one.

Since you can't seem to answer if the world is still flat or not for you, I think it worked just fine.

[TheManFromAcme]

I'm happy and I don't belittle Christians or go out of my way to discredit them.

You on the other hand have definitely gone out of your way to try to belittle "academia".

For whatever reason, you appear to be very bitter about science books.



I'm not in a country club. You are a troll though, and doing a poor job of it.



Since you can't seem to answer if the world is still flat or not for you, I think it worked just fine.

You know, I know the answer. That's the point. Don't be silly. You believe any aspects of the bible? Any? Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

I am not bitter on Science. I just a have personal descending order of things;

1. God THEN science.

How bout you?

[admiralsnackbar]

that's the problem for me.

If God is omnipotent/omniscient, then the communication between generations and languages should withstand the test of time.

That's obviously not the case since people are currently guessing what 7 days means to them.

I also wonder about the passage where God says "you shall have no other gods before me." He didn't say "you shall have no other gods but Me," or "I am the only God." So is He implying the existence of other gods? If so, how does that jibe with his omnipresence and omniscience when other gods would necessarily be a part of him? Why is he, then, a jealous God?

By the same token, the emergence of the Satan figure from Job to what he's become in modern Christianity indicates a being that is independent from the will of God despite existing within God and taking part in His consciousness.

And finally, the old saw about Adam and Eve's fall from innocence, in which we're told we're created with free will, and are thus responsible for suc bing to temptation. But if God is omniscient, and if he created us, then he already knows what we are, how we will react, and what the result of our life will be. Besides reducing free will to something that seems almost cosmetic, if you believe in an afterlife with heaven and , it also means some of us are born to burn in while others are not.

These are just three of the reasons that popped in my head to explain why I'm not called to be a literalist and feel compelled to try to look for other lessons from scripture. Sometimes (assuming I'm able to in the first place) I make sense of discrepancies anthropologically, sometimes poetically, sometimes logically, etc. simply because it can't all be right on a literal level and still work. Too many human pens with too many human frailties worked on the book before I ever read it, and it shows on every page I've read as much as the thousands I never will because they were omitted by the Vatican. For this same reason, I think science -- imperfect as it is -- is a great tool to try to separate truth from fiction.

[rjv]

I also wonder about the passage where God says "you shall have no other gods before me." He didn't say "you shall have no other gods but Me," or "I am the only God." So is He implying the existence of other gods? If so, how does that jibe with his omnipresence and omniscience when other gods would necessarily be a part of him? Why is he, then, a jealous God?

By the same token, the emergence of the Satan figure from Job to what he's become in modern Christianity indicates a being that is independent from the will of God despite existing within God and taking part in His consciousness.

And finally, the old saw about Adam and Eve's fall from innocence, in which we're told we're created with free will, and are thus responsible for suc bing to temptation. But if God is omniscient, and if he created us, then he already knows what we are, how we will react, and what the result of our life will be. Besides reducing free will to something that seems almost cosmetic, if you believe in an afterlife with heaven and , it also means some of us are born to burn in while others are not.

These are just three of the reasons that popped in my head to explain why I'm not called to be a literalist and feel compelled to try to look for other lessons from scripture. Sometimes (assuming I'm able to in the first place) I make sense of discrepancies anthropologically, sometimes poetically, sometimes logically, etc. simply because it can't all be right on a literal level and still work. Too many human pens with too many human frailties worked on the book before I ever read it, and it shows on every page I've read as much as the thousands I never will because they were omitted by the Vatican. For this same reason, I think science -- imperfect as it is -- is a great tool to try to separate truth from fiction.

also, just look at deuteronomy as a perfect example of a god that is about ethnic cleansing and genocide. this book is a major moral issue for christians who take the bible literally. some jesuits i was taught by often regarded these passages as allegorical reflecting the context of the authors of these books and the times they were written. not to mention that this is the book that fuels the zionist fire.

[clambake]

the rapture says he'll also be taking souls from the grave.

whats the deal? they didn't make the first cut?

[TheManFromAcme]

I also wonder about the passage where God says "you shall have no other gods before me." He didn't say "you shall have no other gods but Me," or "I am the only God." So is He implying the existence of other gods? If so, how does that jibe with his omnipresence and omniscience when other gods would necessarily be a part of him? Why is he, then, a jealous God?

By the same token, the emergence of the Satan figure from Job to what he's become in modern Christianity indicates a being that is independent from the will of God despite existing within God and taking part in His consciousness.

And finally, the old saw about Adam and Eve's fall from innocence, in which we're told we're created with free will, and are thus responsible for suc bing to temptation. But if God is omniscient, and if he created us, then he already knows what we are, how we will react, and what the result of our life will be. Besides reducing free will to something that seems almost cosmetic, if you believe in an afterlife with heaven and , it also means some of us are born to burn in while others are not.

These are just three of the reasons that popped in my head to explain why I'm not called to be a literalist and feel compelled to try to look for other lessons from scripture. Sometimes (assuming I'm able to in the first place) I make sense of discrepancies anthropologically, sometimes poetically, sometimes logically, etc. simply because it can't all be right on a literal level and still work. Too many human pens with too many human frailties worked on the book before I ever read it, and it shows on every page I've read as much as the thousands I never will because they were omitted by the Vatican. For this same reason, I think science -- imperfect as it is -- is a great tool to try to separate truth from fiction.

As a non-Catholic, and believer of Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ, this is where I stop. I don't give a hoot what the Vatican does and what that shmuck Pope does. I have my beef with Catholics and all that is Rome but I'll save it for another topic. I do know this; they're not Christians in the personal defintion of it. I am not arguing the tool that is science. I just take an approach of science being a tool to understand God. No need to elaborate on it. it's that simple. I think of it as God saying, "Alright kids, you don't know what I am about, where I come from, What my M.O. is, so I'll give you kids a thing called "Science" to give you a glimpse of what I am about". I just don't believe science explains it all. Face it, there are things in science that have yet to be proven, duplicated or flat out defeated. That was God's plan.

[mouse]

you have been provided proof over and over again.

you can't seem to grasp it.

Are you saying you have provided evidence as to why the earth is supposed to be billions of years old and yet there are no million year old barrier reefs, no million year old trees, no million year old waterfalls,etc.....

Are you saying you provided evidence that stalac es do take millions of years to form?

Are you saying you have proof that the moon does not move four inches away from the earth each year?

I don't remember any proof posted at this site about what I am talking about can you please post the links?

You constantly digging up stuff from creation websites and going round and round

Why do I need to go to a religious site to prove stalac es don't take millions of years to form? why would I need a religious website to tell me there are no coral reefs older than 20,000 years?

Why must you try and mix in religion on every debate? I base my opinions of fats and common sense I don't use the Bible or God when talking about 9/11-Evolution,NASA, and the age of the earth.

Why do all you Darwin lovers think young earth science has to be religious motivated? Save all your bible thumping comebacks and smack talk for Angel_luv my agenda is to find the truth and expose the lies in our children's textbooks your agenda is to support Darwin and to do the will of Satan.

is comedy up to a point. After that, it's sad.

It depends how you look at it. You laugh at Angel_luv when she talks about Noah and all those animals on a homemade boat. I laugh at you when you try and tell me I evolved from a hot liquid 4 billion years ago, so it evens out.

I kinda wonder what you guys did before Darwin came around.

[mouse]

what are the truths that should be left in the text books?

How hard is it to Just say "many years ago".....thousands of years ago......a long long time ago?
....but don't start every science book in school about man and or the earth with the same bull tag line......"25 Million years ago" this............."25 Million years ago".......That..........these guys can't even figure out how to cure Cancer and they have the nerve to tell us what happened 4 billion years ago? Nigra please!!!

[mouse]

Do all minerals dissolve in water at the same rate?

Are you a part time politician? When you enter a cave and the guide tells you not to touch the 25 million year old stalac es, and when you read a school text book it reads.."stalac e take million years to form" they don't go into detail about how much fluoride is in the water. They make a point.

The earth is very old it has to be so the Bible can be proven wrong.

If you admit it only takes 20 thousand years to do something your giving in to creationism. If you stay hardheaded and insist the earth is 4 billion years old you find yourself always having to explain things that don't make sense so you find a warm happy place and participate in the discussion.

But I must warn you this is one of my stronger areas, even more than the NASA debates so proceed with caution...





you tree hugging underwater tea bagging man-seed drinking ......oops.....sorry, I was just warming up for the next Mavs vs Spurs debate...

dude your going to pull out the H2O X the power of one...bull ? Why would you cave in so fast? The books clearly read Stalac es take millions of years to form, I posted a "stalac e" that was formed in 40 years..what part of scoreboard do you not understand?

[Blake]

You know, I know the answer. That's the point. Don't be silly.

you first

You believe any aspects of the bible? Any?

some historical aspects and some good words of wisdom

Do you believe in Jesus Christ?

as the son of God? not so much

I am not bitter on Science.

really?

You scientist's will get yours one day.

Im not sure what that means.

I just a have personal descending order of things;

1. God THEN science.

How bout you?

I tend to think they should be mutually exclusive.

If you find God through science, good for you.

Putting God before science opens the door for bias, imo.

[The Reckoning]

Science is God's fingerprints

Science rulz


just wondering...

does anybody know why water doesn't freeze at a certain depth (without it, life wouldn't be possible)?

i have no idea why, and ive always been curious about that.

[tlongII]

LOL mouse

[Blake]

As a non-Catholic, and believer of Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ, this is where I stop. I don't give a hoot what the Vatican does and what that shmuck Pope does. I have my beef with Catholics and all that is Rome but I'll save it for another topic. I do know this; they're not Christians in the personal defintion of it. I am not arguing the tool that is science. I just take an approach of science being a tool to understand God. No need to elaborate on it. it's that simple. I think of it as God saying, "Alright kids, you don't know what I am about, where I come from, What my M.O. is, so I'll give you kids a thing called "Science" to give you a glimpse of what I am about". I just don't believe science explains it all. Face it, there are things in science that have yet to be proven, duplicated or flat out defeated. That was God's plan.

Science doesn't explain it all, but simply saying "God did it" and stopping there is lame.

[The Reckoning]

As a non-Catholic, and believer of Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ, this is where I stop. I don't give a hoot what the Vatican does and what that shmuck Pope does. I have my beef with Catholics and all that is Rome but I'll save it for another topic. I do know this; they're not Christians in the personal defintion of it. I am not arguing the tool that is science. I just take an approach of science being a tool to understand God. No need to elaborate on it. it's that simple. I think of it as God saying, "Alright kids, you don't know what I am about, where I come from, What my M.O. is, so I'll give you kids a thing called "Science" to give you a glimpse of what I am about". I just don't believe science explains it all. Face it, there are things in science that have yet to be proven, duplicated or flat out defeated. That was God's plan.

obviously you dont know about Catholicism. its as diverse as Protestantism in its sects and customs. this post clearly shows your ignorance.

[Blake]

How hard is it to Just say "many years ago".....thousands of years ago......a long long time ago?
....but don't start every science book in school about man and or the earth with the same bull tag line......"25 Million years ago" this............."25 Million years ago"

you are good with thousands of years, but not
millions?

.......That..........these guys can't even figure out how to cure Cancer and they have the nerve to tell us what happened 4 billion years ago? Nigra please!!!

the ones that tell us what happened billions of years ago aren't the same ones that are trying to cure cancer.

You'd know this if you would have cracked open the crazy science books instead of mocking them.

You're an idiot.

[DMX7]

That..........these guys can't even figure out how to cure Cancer

Really.... What a ing stupid thing to say. Because all the world's problems haven't been science must be wrong.

But of course we know from the bible, which was or was not written by a bunch of charlatans, the precise age of the Earth.

[LnGrrrR]

The danger of the 'staight-line' assumption, i.e. assuming conditions in the future/past are/were identical to those of today.

If one were to calculate, in an identical manner using current population growth rates, how many people there will be in 20,000 years, the total mass of human flesh would be more than the mass of the known universe.

Mouse's ignorant assumption (one of them at any rate) in that statement is actually quite similar to his ignorant assumption in the stalag e statement.

He assumes that all the rock formations that the river flows over dissolve at the same rate.

He also assumes that rivers do not change courses, yet another provably false assumption. Ask any good civil engineer if rivers always stay in the same channel.

(hint: they don't)

Both assumptions underpin the question about 'dividing by age'. If your underlying assumptions are false, then the question is meaningless.

It is like asking: "how many leprachauns can I fit in my van?" The question assumes that leprachauns exist and can therefore be measured.

You know, from birth to 2 years old, I grew 3 feet.

Using this assumption, I should now be 42 feet high.

SCIENCE DOESN'T WORK!

[LnGrrrR]

And of course science can't explain everything. That's why philosophy exists.

[TheManFromAcme]

obviously you dont know about Catholicism. its as diverse as Protestantism in its sects and customs. this post clearly shows your ignorance.

I'll be glad to continue my ignorance with Catholicism. Ignorance is bliss regarding this. I have a relationship with my creator. No customs. No traditions. No rosary. No saint "this". No statues. YOU don't get.
You display sheer, pure, unadulterated ignorance regarding what Christianity means and what it entails regarding a intimate relationship with Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ. Get a clue guy.

[LnGrrrR]

I'll be glad to continue my ignorance with Catholicism. Ignorance is bliss regarding this. I have a relationship with my creator. No customs. No traditions. No rosary. No saint "this". No statues. YOU don't get.
You display sheer, pure, unadulterated ignorance regarding what Christianity means and what it entails regarding a intimate relationship with Jesus Christ and only Jesus Christ. Get a clue guy.

No customs? I would say obeying the Commandments, and praying, are both forms of custom/tradition.

Only Jesus? Did you mean Jesus and God? Just looking for clarification.