Curches Celebrate Darwin's Birthday

Revenge of the reasonable:

Churches celebrate Darwin`s birthday
By UPI
Feb 12, 2006, 19:00 GMT

NEW YORK, NY, United States (UPI) -- Nearly 450 Christian churches in the United States are celebrating the 197th birthday of Charles Darwin Sunday.

The churches say Darwin`s theory of biological evolution is compatible with faith and that Christians have no need to choose between religion and science, the Chicago Tribune reported.

'It`s to demonstrate, by Christian leaders and members of the clergy, that you don`t have to make that choice. You can have both,' said Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, who organized the 'Evolution Sunday' event.

A variety of denominational and non-denominational churches, including Methodist, Lutheran, Episcopalian, Presbyterian, Unitarian, Congregationalist, United Church of Christ, Baptist and a host of community churches, are participating in the event, which grew out of Zimmerman`s The Clergy Letter Project, another effort to dispel the perception among many Christians that faith and evolution are mutually exclusive, the newspaper said.

why did you post this?

Nice to hear from the less-interesting majority of Christians out here. Happy birthday, Chuck.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

why did you post this?

---

Because the creationism debate has been a recurrent theme here, these churches are trying to reconcile Darwinism and creationism, and he would like people's opinions on it?

Quote:

---

'It`s to demonstrate, by Christian leaders and members of the clergy, that you don`t have to make that choice. You can have both

---

Personally, I don't see how one can have both. You need to be able to believe in either two sets of conflicting ideas, or have a very imaginative sense of logic.
Good for them though.

Are you saying they're mutually exclusive, Louis? I don't see how they can be unless you're intepreting the Bible literally, which I don't think very many mainstream Christians over here do.

Edit: I see you snuck Creationism in there, now. You're right about that, but the article mentions 'religion,' not necessarily the c-word.

No legitimate Church would celibrate Darwin's birthday or make statements in defense of his ludicrous idea.

Those mentioned in the article are Apostate Churches that have no connection to God or anything that is good.

Oh dear

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

Are you saying they're mutually exclusive, Louis?

---

Oui. :yes:

Quote:

---

I don't see how they can be unless you're intepreting the Bible literally, which I don't think very many mainstream Christians over here do.

---

But you don't have to take the Bible literally to believe in creationism. I know not many Christians literally believe the earth is six thousand years old. But many believe that God created all life. All species. Rather than them having evolved from one kind to the next.

Either God created man, or humans are evolved apes. I find it difficult to reconcile the two.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

No legitimate Church would celibrate Darwin's birthday or make statements in defense of his ludicrous idea.

Those mentioned in the article are Apostate Churches that have no connection to God or anything that is good.

---

No legitmate Church does not understand the concept of turning the other cheek or that God judges not man.


You of course in your infinite wisdom know that Darwin was a man of God and after his world trip to see the majesty of Nature that He created, Darwin was going to become a minister.

I for one have no issues reconciling the two. Mind you I see God more like a scientist that is running a chem experiment or running Code

OS Universe 7.0 (6.66 was buggy as hell)
Application Earth 1.5 (Each Prophet being a major update, only some of which were needed, and this regional differentiation has a problem with leaking out and markets fighting each other)... Earth 2.0 is the second comming and like MS apps has been annouced but continously pushed back due to security flaw fears.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

Either God created man, or humans are evolved apes. I find it difficult to reconcile the two.

---

I find it difficult too, not for that reason. It's kinda cheap, but you could just blow that off by saying humans were created by God through evolution via apes.

The part that I find particularly fun is when it's argued that life is such a complicated thing it must've been created by a Higher Being. Tell that to a 12 year old in a hospitol with a rapidly mutating strain of HIV that won't react to any of our treatments.

Anyway, I'm in the medical field and in the land of the blind the one-eyed Prole is Queen. Therefore I hope they start teaching creationism in our public schools from kindergarten on.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by solypsist

why did you post this?

---

The debate seemed so natural, I really didn't feel it required an introduction. And as I said, it's the revenge of the reasonable.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

You of course in your infinite wisdom know that Darwin was a man of God and after his world trip to see the majesty of Nature that He created, Darwin was going to become a minister.

---

This is absurd. Darwin was an evil man who is surely not anywhere close to being with God at the moment.

Jesus warned about men like that. They are called "wolves in sheep's clothing".

No man who has committed the one unforgivable sin: committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by claiming the Word of God is a lie (as Darwin has done) can ever claim to be anything other than an enemy of God and a friend of "the world" (there is no way to be both).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Papewaio

You of course in your infinite wisdom know that Darwin was a man of God and after his world trip to see the majesty of Nature that He created, Darwin was going to become a minister.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

This is absurd. Darwin was an evil man who is surely not anywhere close to being with God at the moment.

---

Picturesque, almost.

If someone sells an idealogy that neglects facts and truth for a higher good they are the ones in sheeps clothing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

No legitimate Church would celibrate Darwin's birthday or make statements in defense of his ludicrous idea.

---

I guess that means Catholics aren't Christians?

http://72.14.207.104/search?q=cache:...a&ct=clnk&cd=5

If it were impossible to simultaneously be a good Christian and a good scientist, a whole lot of groundbreaking research would've been left undone.

How people fit God into their world or don't is something I don't bother with so long as they don't bother others with it. I'm a big believer in the privacy of opinion.

...this is one of the few times I actually wholeheartedly agree with Watchman:laugh4:

Quote:

---

No legitimate Church would celibrate Darwin's birthday or make statements in defense of his ludicrous idea.

---

No legitimate Christian would support Muslim violence, riots, and intimidation against freedom of speech.

Those who do are Apostate Christians that have no connection to God or anything that is good.

Quote:

---

I guess that means Catholics aren't Christians?

---

To him, I bet they aren't. Heck, we've been believing in evolution for over 50 years, maybe before most people did!

I will say that I think Darwin was planning to become a minister before he left on the Beagle.

Crazed Rabbit

P.S. I wonder why Islam's position on creationism and evolution is? Anybody know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

No legitimate Church would celibrate Darwin's birthday or make statements in defense of his ludicrous idea.

---

So Artificle Selection for genetics is ludicrous. Interesting? Have you ever studied animal and the selective breeding process done to improve livestock?

These is just one of the area's that Darwin studied.

Quote:

---

Those mentioned in the article are Apostate Churches that have no connection to God or anything that is good.

---

Oh someone is showing their lack of knowledge aboute other faiths.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

This is absurd. Darwin was an evil man who is surely not anywhere close to being with God at the moment.

---

He is probably closer to God then you are at the moment.

Quote:

---

Jesus warned about men like that. They are called "wolves in sheep's clothing".

---

Darwin was not a false teacher of religion.

Quote:

---

No man who has committed the one unforgivable sin: committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by claiming the Word of God is a lie (as Darwin has done) can ever claim to be anything other than an enemy of God and a friend of "the world" (there is no way to be both).

---

From what I remember of my science and biology to be more spefic. I never read where Darwin stated that the word of God is a lie. Care to reference the work where he stated that?

Tsk Tsk - someone does not understand the teachings of Jesus.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Proletariat

I find it difficult too, not for that reason. It's kinda cheap, but you could just blow that off by saying humans were created by God through evolution via apes.

---

Well, I dont know any rational person that really thinks man evolved from apes. However, I certainly don't see the disconnect between evolution and the belief in God. It makes far more sense to me to believe that God would've laid down a framework, call it the 'big bang' or whatever, knowing it would function and grow into what we have rather than God just creating the world static, as it exist however many thousands of years ago that the fundamentalists say it was.

Quote:

---

The part that I find particularly fun is when it's argued that life is such a complicated thing it must've been created by a Higher Being. Tell that to a 12 year old in a hospitol with a rapidly mutating strain of HIV that won't react to any of our treatments.

---

I dont see how any of the arguments over disease, suffering, or tragedy suggest the lack of God, but I find this argument particularly bad. Has the 12 year old directly done anything to cause himself to get HIV? Most probably not. But, the prevelance of HIV among mankind is almost certainly as a direct result of human actions- promiscuity, IV drug use, ect. To wonder why God would allow a child to get infected isnt a whole lot different than asking why God would allow a murderer's bullet to hit its victim. If one can accept that we have free will, one must also accept that our decisions will have consequences.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurin_Rules

I guess that means Catholics aren't Christians?

---

According to Navaros? Certainly not. Personally, if you're going to start making a list of the "true Christian" churches, I think the Catholic and Orthodox Churches have a much better claim to it than the ones. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Well, I dont know any rational person that really thinks man evolved from apes.

---

Really?

I know hundreds of rational people who believe man evolved from apes. Many of them are also Christians.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Really?

I know hundreds of rational people who believe man evolved from apes. Many of them are also Christians.

---

Oh, I doubt that. :wink:
No serious scientist would suggest man evolved from apes.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Oh, I doubt that. :wink:
No serious scientist would suggest man evolved from apes.

---

Apes and humans had a common ancestor...

Darwin was quite a religious man, initially. Until his faith was destroyed by those who insisted on taking the Bible literally over what they could see with their eyes.

An interesting other example would be Gallileo. Does anyone still believe that the Earth is the centre of the universe? Remember it too the Church 200 years to remove one of his books from the Prohibited list. He regarded himself as a really good Catholic too, and had many friends high up in the Church.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BDC

Apes and humans had a common ancestor...

---

Hey, somebody gets it. ~;)
I would've also accepted 'homo erectus'. :book:

Maybe it's just me, but I find it ironically funny when so-called 'enlightened' folks try to look down on religious people for not believing that humans evolved from apes. Anyone who's looked at the issue at all realizes no one thinks that's true.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Hey, somebody gets it. ~;)
I would've also accepted 'homo erectus'. :book:

Maybe it's just me, but I find it ironically funny when so-called 'enlightened' folks try to look down on religious people for not believing that humans evolved from apes. Anyone who's looked at the issue at all realizes no one thinks that's true.

---

Yes.

Of course Homo erectus was only a human ancestor. ;)

Although this whole species thing is a little suspect. If you traveled back in time there wouldn't be a sudden divide, where one generation suddenly couldn't have offspring with the previous. And how do you class species in asexual organisms?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

This is absurd. Darwin was an evil man who is surely not anywhere close to being with God at the moment.

Jesus warned about men like that. They are called "wolves in sheep's clothing".

No man who has committed the one unforgivable sin: committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by claiming the Word of God is a lie (as Darwin has done) can ever claim to be anything other than an enemy of God and a friend of "the world" (there is no way to be both).

---

Youve got a log in your eye Navraos,

Darwin was himself a christian, all he did was show the method whereby different species came into being. An act no more blasphemous then any observation you make of the world around you, the bible did not contain all gods methods as they were unimportant to the central message, but by the order of creation occuring in genesis you can still see the pattern of evolution from simple sea creatures to mankind (and other organisms).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I dont see how any of the arguments over disease, suffering, or tragedy suggest the lack of God, but I find this argument particularly bad. Has the 12 year old directly done anything to cause himself to get HIV? Most probably not. But, the prevelance of HIV among mankind is almost certainly as a direct result of human actions- promiscuity, IV drug use, ect. To wonder why God would allow a child to get infected isnt a whole lot different than asking why God would allow a murderer's bullet to hit its victim. If one can accept that we have free will, one must also accept that our decisions will have consequences.

---

I think Proletariat was trying to say that it's silly to say life couldn't have been the result of evolution, while HIV viruses are so damn adaptive there's nothing we can do about it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I think Proletariat was trying to say that it's silly to say life couldn't have been the result of evolution, while HIV viruses are so damn adaptive there's nothing we can do about it.

---

Perhaps I misunderstood. But I dont get the argument that viruses adapt and 'evolve' so quickly as evidence that evolution can't have divine origins either...

I wasn't trying to make that argument. I don't claim to know what caused life, but that it has since then evolved is clear to me at least.

Those mentioned in the article are Apostate Churches that have no connection to God or anything that is good.
Just out of curiosity Navaros , what exactly is the true Christian church that you follow ?
Since you say that all the others have rejected their faith then which is the one that still has the faith ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

'It`s to demonstrate, by Christian leaders and members of the clergy, that you don`t have to make that choice. You can have both,' said Michael Zimmerman, dean of the College of Letters and Sciences at the University of Wisconsin-Oshkosh, who organized the 'Evolution Sunday' event.

---

Good, good. No religion will ever work without accepting science and knowledge.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I wasn't trying to make that argument. I don't claim to know what caused life, but that it has since then evolved is clear to me at least.

---

That is simply put, what I believe the gest of Darwin's Theory of evolution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Kralizec

I think Proletariat was trying to say that it's silly to say life couldn't have been the result of evolution, while HIV viruses are so damn adaptive there's nothing we can do about it.

---

Close, but I should've been a little more clear. I was more talking about the thought that simply because life is complex, it must've been designed by a higher intelligence. I wasn't saying that I thought evolution and the Bible were incompatible because of this (or for any reason.)

The concept of Faith usually seems to get ignored during these debates. God prolly wouldn't have placed such an emphasis on it if he expected Christians to try and find scientific evidence that he wasn't lying in the word he gave to us.

I personally don't believe in it because I have no faith in it. The whole thing sounds very unlikely to me for many reasons, but those reasons are neither the existence of complicated viruses or the evolution theory.

(Thanks for clearing up the ape thing, BDC.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

No man who has committed the one unforgivable sin: committed blasphemy against the Holy Spirit by claiming the Word of God is a lie (as Darwin has done) can ever claim to be anything other than an enemy of God and a friend of "the world" (there is no way to be both).

---

I believe you are making a mistake here... the "one unforgivable sin" is the failure to sleep with a woman (or a man, if you are a woman) when (s)he wishes you to.

From the holiest of holy books:
"'...he who can sleep with a woman and does not, commits a great sin. ...if a woman calls you to share her bed and you don't go, your soul will be destroyed! That woman will sigh before God on judgement day, and that woman's sigh, whoever you may be and whatever your fine deeds, will cast you into hell!'"

[Subtle thread hijack]

This one's for the Christians out there who believe in Original Sin. Man has Original Sin. In the Bible, it comes from Genesis, when Adam & Eve sin in the garden. Now, if Genesis can't be taken literally, when does Original Sin come into play? The first homo sapien? Did our first acsestors just develop Original Sin one day?

This is rather important. If there is no Original Sin, what did Jesus have to save us from?

Anyone have a good explanation how Original Sin jives with evolution?

Hope I have my theology all right...

Well, I cant provide the official line (dont know it), but Id think the argument would be that Adam's original sin would also be symbolic for the corruption of human nature rather than a particular act...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis

Because the creationism debate has been a recurrent theme here, these churches are trying to reconcile Darwinism and creationism, and he would like people's opinions on it?

---

I cannot say that this makes me happy, this only goes to show that when you attack religion you only make it stronger, in one way or the other. Probably if the "designers" were the majority, there will be more atheist. Anyway, at least it shows reason.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

[Overt thread hijack]

Man has Original Sin. In the Bible, it comes from Genesis, when Adam & Eve sin in the garden. Now, if Genesis can't be taken literally, when does Original Sin come into play? The first homo sapien? Did our first acsestors just develop Original Sin one day?

---

The best summation of Original Sin I ever heard went something like this: Remember Woody Allen's line about "Sex is only dirty if you do it right?" That's an aspect of it. The yearning for debasement, the appeal of ugliness and pain, that's a part of it too. There's a part of human nature that abhors perfection and goodness. That's why we are capable of spurning God's love.

Anyway, that's one way of looking at it. Another way would be to look at what exactly Adam and Eve did wrong. They grabbed onto knowledge. They raised themselves up from the animal state to a slightly different place. So by that reading, the evolution of a complex brain is our original sin. We've grabbed hold of comprehension and reason, but without the grace and goodness that ought to go with it.

I'm sure one can read it in any number of ways. If you're a real stick in the mud, you could even read it literally. Although I've always been puzzled by people who do that. God is very specific abotu how we're supposed to stone to death people who collect wood on the Sabbath. But you never hear the televangelists advising us to do so. Why not? I would like to stone a person to death for collecting sticks on the wrong day. Sounds like wholesome fun.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

From the holiest of holy books:
"'...he who can sleep with a woman and does not, commits a great sin. ...if a woman calls you to share her bed and you don't go, your soul will be destroyed! That woman will sigh before God on judgement day, and that woman's sigh, whoever you may be and whatever your fine deeds, will cast you into hell!'"

---

That's in the Book of Flava Flav?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Alexander the Pretty Good

[Subtle thread hijack]

This one's for the Christians out there who believe in Original Sin. Man has Original Sin. In the Bible, it comes from Genesis, when Adam & Eve sin in the garden. Now, if Genesis can't be taken literally, when does Original Sin come into play? The first homo sapien? Did our first acsestors just develop Original Sin one day?

This is rather important. If there is no Original Sin, what did Jesus have to save us from?

Anyone have a good explanation how Original Sin jives with evolution?

Hope I have my theology all right...

---

My church doesn't buy into the original sin doctrine, but as for the need for the salvation of Jesus, the commandments he sets are seriously rigorous (don't lust, be angry, etc.) and there are plenty of scriptural references for all having 'sinned and come short of the glory of God,' so for us the sin and the need is individual.

I'm also very glad to hear about the reasonable response to evolution. Many within my church are very anti-evolution and don't even realize we have no official stance toward the theory. Happy birthday, Chuck!

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

I believe you are making a mistake here... the "one unforgivable sin" is the failure to sleep with a woman (or a man, if you are a woman) when (s)he wishes you to.

From the holiest of holy books:
"'...he who can sleep with a woman and does not, commits a great sin. ...if a woman calls you to share her bed and you don't go, your soul will be destroyed! That woman will sigh before God on judgement day, and that woman's sigh, whoever you may be and whatever your fine deeds, will cast you into hell!'"

---

I believe you are making a mistake here...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matthew

Wherefore I say unto you, all manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men, but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be forgiven unto men

---

I am not knowing original meaning, so other rule may or may not be applied to women.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Maybe it's just me, but I find it ironically funny when so-called 'enlightened' folks try to look down on religious people for not believing that humans evolved from apes. Anyone who's looked at the issue at all realizes no one thinks that's true.

---

I thought that was straw man image of evolution created by creationists.
http://www.princeton.edu/~howarth/40...darwin-ape.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tribesman

Those mentioned in the article are Apostate Churches that have no connection to God or anything that is good.
Just out of curiosity Navaros , what exactly is the true Christian church that you follow ?
Since you say that all the others have rejected their faith then which is the one that still has the faith ?

---

I do not associate myself with any denomination, although there are many denominations who would agree with everything I've said in this thread. In fact, any & every Bible-believing Church would agree with everything I've said in this thread. If a Church is not a Bible-believing Church, then it is nothing other than a worthless den of lies & hypocrisy and a very grievous affront to God.

Things that the Bible makes abundantly clear, such as that the Earth was made in 7 days and Adam and Eve were the first humans made directly and instantly by God's hand are indisputable for anyone calling himself a believer in the Bible. God's Word is explicit on all of these things. Anyone who would agree with warped delusions formed in the infantile minds of men (ie: apes magically turning into men over time) rather than agreeing with what the Word of God explicitly states is certainly not a legitimate follower of God or Jesus Christ.

Which particular Bible, specifically ? I understand it comes in quite a few versions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Watchman

Which particular Bible, specifically ? I understand it comes in quite a few versions.

---

100% of Bible versions are explicitly clear about everything I've said in this thread. :2thumbsup:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bartix

I believe you are making a mistake here...

I am not knowing original meaning, so other rule may or may not be applied to women.

---

Who said anything about the Bible being the holiest of holy books? :inquisitive:

That reminds me of the good old "Chick Tracts"...

Apes, Lies and Ms. Henn

Big Daddy?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

100% of Bible versions are explicitly clear about everything I've said in this thread. :2thumbsup:

---

Incorrect. A percentage of human interpation states what you have stated. Normally it is the interpation of fundmentalistic idealogues who use the Old Testiment to justify violence against others, while ignoring the teachings of Christ in the New Testiment.


I have seen your type of message before Navaros it usually comes from those who bomb abortion clinics, shoot doctors, burn negro churches and beat homosexuals to death.

Navros, as you might have seen in the game RTW, the Bible is as much a political work as a religious one. Masses of content was removed by the Roman Emperor against the wishes of many of the Bishops.

So, not only the first centralised Bible highly edited, it has then got several current editions all of which again are slightly different, even with some containing passages others don't.

But having gazed at some of the other... things you're written it seems that logic just isn't your thing, is it? :inquisitive:

~:smoking:

In fact, any & every Bible-believing Church would agree with everything I've said in this thread.
Really , could you name one ?
It does appear as if you are a one man "christian" version of the Taliban .

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Navaros

I do not associate myself with any denomination, although there are many denominations who would agree with everything I've said in this thread. In fact, any & every Bible-believing Church would agree with everything I've said in this thread. If a Church is not a Bible-believing Church, then it is nothing other than a worthless den of lies & hypocrisy and a very grievous affront to God.

Things that the Bible makes abundantly clear, such as that the Earth was made in 7 days and Adam and Eve were the first humans made directly and instantly by God's hand are indisputable for anyone calling himself a believer in the Bible. God's Word is explicit on all of these things. Anyone who would agree with warped delusions formed in the infantile minds of men (ie: apes magically turning into men over time) rather than agreeing with what the Word of God explicitly states is certainly not a legitimate follower of God or Jesus Christ.

---

Again i have to repeat, what gives you the right to judge other christians, YOU HAVE A LOG IN YOUR EYE

Not everything written in the bible should be taked literally, what did jesus say when his own disiples took his own statements literally and brought him a sword?

As an example you say that the bible says that the world was made in 7 days, well there is no amount of time alloted to the term day, there is when you speak of an Earth day or a Martian day but il wager that one of gods days is different!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

I believe you are making a mistake here... the "one unforgivable sin" is the failure to sleep with a woman (or a man, if you are a woman) when (s)he wishes you to.

From the holiest of holy books:
"'...he who can sleep with a woman and does not, commits a great sin. ...if a woman calls you to share her bed and you don't go, your soul will be destroyed! That woman will sigh before God on judgement day, and that woman's sigh, whoever you may be and whatever your fine deeds, will cast you into hell!'"

---

Is this quote from the old testament? the new testament makes the rules on sex outside marriage clear, perhaps sleep realy means sleep?

Is Navarros going to stone us to death for collecting wood on the Sabbath?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ser Clegane

That reminds me of the good old "Chick Tracts"...

Apes, Lies and Ms. Henn

Big Daddy?

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemur

Is Navarros going to stone us to death for collecting wood on the Sabbath?

---

:laugh4:

what a sad little world!

Is Navarros going to stone us to death for collecting wood on the Sabbath?
Thats a point , which day is the Sabbath , is it Friday , Saturday or Sunday ?
You would think the bible would make something so important absolutely clear , I can never understand how the religeons derived from the same book can have different days for the Sabbath .
Hey maybe its tuesday .:idea2:

Quote:

---

I do not associate myself with any denomination, although there are many denominations who would agree with everything I've said in this thread. In fact, any & every Bible-believing Church would agree with everything I've said in this thread. If a Church is not a Bible-believing Church, then it is nothing other than a worthless den of lies & hypocrisy and a very grievous affront to God.

Things that the Bible makes abundantly clear, such as that the Earth was made in 7 days and Adam and Eve were the first humans made directly and instantly by God's hand are indisputable for anyone calling himself a believer in the Bible. God's Word is explicit on all of these things. Anyone who would agree with warped delusions formed in the infantile minds of men (ie: apes magically turning into men over time) rather than agreeing with what the Word of God explicitly states is certainly not a legitimate follower of God or Jesus Christ.

---

I guess I must belong to one of those crazy little 'den of lies' sects; Catholicism. It only has more than a billion followers worldwide and the one institution dating from the time of St. Peter. But I guess conservative Catholics are really just hippies in disguise. :dizzy2:

Crazed Rabbit

P.S. The funny thing is you don't even attach yourself to a denomination.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Oh, I doubt that. :wink:
No serious scientist would suggest man evolved from apes.

---

Sorry, got caught in the semantic trap.

:shame:

No, humans did not evolve from modern apes. But we did evolve (as did modern apes) from a creature that was so apelike in its appearance if any layman were to see one today he would refer to it as an ape.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Goofball

Sorry, got caught in the semantic trap.

:shame:

---

Hey, don't beat yourself up too bad- it couldve happened to anyone. :wink:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Hey, don't beat yourself up too bad- it couldve happened to anyone. :wink:

---

*wishes there was a better way to send sound effects to other Org members*

pfffffffffttttt!

I think you might've been looking for 'thphbthbthpthtbthbbthtp'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

Hey, don't beat yourself up too bad- it couldve happened to anyone. :wink:

---

It took me more than a day before to figure it out too. :idea2:
Nice one, Xiahou.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Byzantine Mercenary

Is this quote from the old testament? the new testament makes the rules on sex outside marriage clear, perhaps sleep realy means sleep?

---

Why does everyone automaticlly assume that's from the Bible? I just said "holiest of holy books"!

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

I'm trying to make a point here... my opportunity has not yet arisen.

Ah! Zorba the Geek, holy book of Zorbastrians?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Zorba

I just said "holiest of holy books"!

---

I believe the quote was from Pimps 3:16.

I believe the quote was from Pimps 3:16.
No you are a little out , its Pimps half past 3.

:laugh4: Bartix got it. But now I can't remember what my point was... something about the fact that everyone has their own beliefs and noone has the right to push their beliefs on anyone else... then it had something to do with God laughing at man after creating him, because he thought man looked so ridiculous that it had to be a mistake.

Why do churches celebrate Darwin NOW?
Modern science is now leaning AWAY from darwins theory,
And now claim there were 3 or 4 diferent species of humans all alive at the same time.
And We did not evolve from apes as they were here at the same time as well.
(apes evolved from apes, we evolved from a species of humans. the sealacanth was the fish that linked darwins tree together, and that things still alive. it did not start walking on land its still in the sea Is still alive And above all is still Exacty the same as its 350 million year old fossils, Apart from the fact its still alive and swiming Not walking about)


Seems DUMB to accept this theory Now 1ce its being disproven...
"Is being disproven a nessecity for addition to religious circles? ."

And i see you guys are doing it again...

World was made in 7 days. "Well 6 and a day off"
you say a God day is diferent length to ours.

Then he made light (not the sun)
"We already know there were a WHOLE bunch of suns before ours came about, Guess they dint produce any light before he switched the power on or something"

Then he made adam Who lived HOW LONG???!
And god days are Thousands of years long.
(lets say 1 thousand to keep the figures down)
so thats 365.2 Thousand years old in one god year...

and with adam living almost a thousand years...
That makes him 365200000 Years old.
Either that Or the bull about god days Is just bull.

Im prety sure moses was in his 200's So no better there.
all this is with-in the new testament,
so time spans would be the equivalent of those 1st 7 days.

Its prety dumb reading.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Crazed Rabbit

P.S. The funny thing is you don't even attach yourself to a denomination.

---

How is that funny?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Incorrect. A percentage of human interpation states what you have stated. Normally it is the interpation of fundmentalistic idealogues who use the Old Testiment to justify violence against others, while ignoring the teachings of Christ in the New Testiment.


I have seen your type of message before Navaros it usually comes from those who bomb abortion clinics, shoot doctors, burn negro churches and beat homosexuals to death.

---

Ouch!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

Incorrect. A percentage of human interpation states what you have stated. Normally it is the interpation of fundmentalistic idealogues who use the Old Testiment to justify violence against others, while ignoring the teachings of Christ in the New Testiment.

---

I wonder what will happen if Jesus himself made a few human mistakes in his preaches? Then we could justify our apathy or outright intolerance on the words of the old master...right?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

Why do churches celebrate Darwin NOW?
Modern science is now leaning AWAY from darwins theory,
And now claim there were 3 or 4 diferent species of humans all alive at the same time.
And We did not evolve from apes as they were here at the same time as well.
(apes evolved from apes, we evolved from a species of humans. the sealacanth was the fish that linked darwins tree together, and that things still alive. it did not start walking on land its still in the sea Is still alive And above all is still Exacty the same as its 350 million year old fossils, Apart from the fact its still alive and swiming Not walking about)

---

Dude, Darwins theory said that the specie most able to respond to change, survives. The ape controversy is a consequence of that.
Darwins theories still counts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Viking

Dude, Darwins theory said that the specie most able to respond to change, survives. The ape controversy is a consequence of that.
Darwins theories still counts.

---

Don't worry about it Viking lots of people don't know that Darwin used selective breeding practiced on farms to prove artifical selection that breeds traits into animals for certain qualties, and that the proof of artifical selection proves natural selection as a theory is worth looking at - and as a theory is valid, and remains valid. Science will improve upon Darwin's Theory of Evolution, but as a base I don't think science nor religion will defeat the basic concept of what Darwain stated in the theory of evolution.

Many get wrapped around the axel about what they think Darwin's Theory of Evolution is about, verus looking at what the man actually stated.

Hence individuals like Navaros and it would seem Just a Girl find themselves confused about what the theory states.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Soulforged

I wonder what will happen if Jesus himself made a few human mistakes in his preaches? Then we could justify our apathy or outright intolerance on the words of the old master...right?

---

Well, he did...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GoreBag

Well, he did...

---

Wich notorious mistake you've to show?

Darwins theory of evolution is the same as his theory of natural selection.
They both tie in together.

Darwin Linked the selercanth as the 1st fish to walk out of the sea then showed diferent types of scelital structures that then adapted,
Then he showed how they could have mutated in to apes, and then on in to humans.

He then went on to say that Natural selection and adaptation is what lead to Humans evolving from apes.

This is wrong.

Survival of the fitest,
And adaptation to enviroment were Known factors for survival before darwin.
He just added on that we evolved from apes.

If you had bothered to read what some of the other posts had said, you wouldn't be claiming Darwin said humans came from apes.

The idea of evolution existed before Darwin but he was the first to formulate a scientific theory about it.

Time for EDUCATION AS I KNOW IT.
feel free to tell me im wrong.
Knowlage is good.

Creation

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

It is now assumed that the universe itself burst into existence some 15 billion years ago. For the first few hundred thousand years matter and radiation intermingled to form a thick fog. Then, around 300,000 years after the ‘Big Bang’ temperatures fell and electrons began to bind into hydrogen and helium nuclei to form the first stable atoms. Soon the universe began to fill with gas clouds and these eventually formed galaxies. Four billion years after the Big Bang, these galaxies spawned the first stars and as these stars aged and collapsed, new generations of stars were born from newly created elements.

After a further 10 billion years, a small star ignited on the third spiral arm of our unremarkable galaxy. This star gave light and heat to dust and rubble caught in its gravitational pull, and from this debris four rocks formed in gravitational eddies, each attracting other space ‘leftovers’ as their own gravitational pull developed. The star also led to the formation of larger ‘gas’ planets further out in its ‘solar’ system.

The first of these rocks, Mercury, became a barren planet, similar to the size of the Earth’s Moon. It was first photographed in detail in March 1974 by the Mariner 10 spacecraft and, although having craters mountains and ridges, it’s massive temperature fluctuations, (which can be as high as 425° C on the equator at noon, and plummeting to -180° C just before sunrise) make for the existence of life there ‘as we know it’ being more than improbable.

The second rock from the Sun is Venus. This planet is the closest to Earth and the brightest object in the sky, apart from the Sun and Moon. This light is due to its covering of dense clouds that reflect over three-quarters of the sunlight received by the planet.

These clouds actually conceal a deadly atmosphere, for although the main atmospheric gas is carbon dioxide, traces of other substances have been detected, including hydrogen sulphide, carbon monoxide, sulphur dioxide and hydrochloric acid.

The surface was photographed for the first time in October 1975 by the then Soviet Spacecraft Venera 9. This showed the planet’s surface to be rocky with stones scattered across it with what appears to be soil in between. Conditions on Venus also suggest that it could not support life as we know it.

Then there is the third rock from the Sun. A planet different from all others in the Solar System; for it is teeming with life, vegetation, water, and incredible scenery (– at least to human eyes.)

The blue planet is almost 8000 miles in diameter, and moves around the sun in harness with its Moon at a distance of approximately 93 million miles.

Images from space show the familiar face of the planet, however the continents have not always occupied their current positions. Up to 225 million years ago, most of the land on the planet was combined into one ‘super-continent’ named ‘Pangaea’ by geologists.

This composite land-mass made for the easy and rapid spreading of life forms and vegetation.

periods

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

The planet’s historical periods have been broken down by geologists into the pre-Cambrian period (4600-590 millions of years ago) when there were few fossils. The Paleozoic (590-225 millions), by the end of which reptiles were dominant. This period also saw a major extinction when many species of plants and animals died out. The Mesozoic period (225-65 millions) ended with the Earth probably being struck by a huge asteroid that wiped out the dinosaurs and allowed mammals to dominate through the subsequent Cenozoic period which ended two million years ago with modern type animals scattered across the planet surface.

Throughout its history, the planet has also seen many ice-ages, with the Mendenhall Glacier in Alaska formerly reaching well into the United States and as far south as present day London, England during the last of these periods.

How's and questions of life and origin

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Until the 18th Century however, few were curious about the planet’s history, nor did many question the tradition that all life on it had been created in 4004 BCE; a date calculated by Archbishop Ussher, who merely added up the ages of figures in the Christian Bible back to Adam and Eve. This orthodox Christian view demanded literal acceptance of the origin of all things as described in the book of Genesis in the Bible. Each and every thing on the planet – and only on this planet – was especially created by God, and humankind was the crowning achievement of this rather hectic six days.

Any suggestion that living things could change through time inherently suggested that they were imperfect, and God would not have created something imperfect unless s/he was imperfect as well. Creationists also argued that God would not create an animal or plant only to let it become extinct later.

Yet the fossil record throughout the world could not be ignored. Shells, teeth, coiled ammonites, and bones, all made out of rock, were constantly being unearthed to provide a challenge to the creationist theory. Early ideas on their origin were vague and diverse. Some believed that the fossils were the workings of a life force in the Earth, straining to make images of the creatures of God’s creation. Others suggested that the eggs of real animals had lodged in the rocks and developed as rocky tumours (1). In order to explain these findings in religious terms, the fossils were said to be the remains of creatures drowned in the flood, a theory which also explained how the fossils of sea creatures were found on the top of mountains. (2)

Evolution

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Whilst this remains the position of many Christians throughout the world, others recognised that living things do change, and the concept of ‘evolution’ was born. This theory has generally been credited to Charles Darwin, although, in fairness, others made significant contributions to the idea: They just didn’t happen to be English so were, in the main, forgotten about.

Eight years after publication of Darwin’s book, naturalist Ernst Haeckel made one of the first attempts to deal with the specifics of evolution. Although his genealogical chart , starting with a blob of protoplasm and continuing to a ‘modern’ Papuan is filled with misconceptions and fictitious characters, the concepts were broadly accurate considering the paucity of knowledge in his day.

The general concept of Darwin’s evolution is that there is a continuous struggle for existence and those species which adapt (evolve) are the most likely to survive.

This is no longer an accepted view of the theory. Many now agree that some changes are merely random mutations, which happened to suit the environment and survived. However such mutations would only have taken hold if they occurred in small, isolated populations. (3)

Evolution. and multiple humans.

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

Whatever its process, evolution has led to the development of approximately 30 million separate species on Earth at the present time and it is estimated that a further 3 billion species may have previously existed but become extinct (4).

Evolutionists contend that small living organisms first appeared on Earth 630 million years ago and some 500 million years later a tiny shrew-like creature appeared on the planet’s surface. About 60 million years ago, after the dinosaurs’ extinction, the early primates on the planet diversified rapidly and by 50 million years ago monkeys and apes had evolved.

The ape-human divergence happened relatively recently, between five and eight million years ago (5) and the first members of our genus, Homo, evolved from the African australopithecines approximately 2 to 1.5 million years ago. The number of skulls and skeletons that have been found indicate that most Australopithecus died before they reached the age of 20 suggesting a large number of orphaned children who would have been raised by surviving ‘elders’. (6)

It is generally recognised that "two million years ago, this first certain ancestor of man walked with a foot which is almost indistinguishable from the foot of modern man. The fact is that when he put his foot on the ground and walked upright, man made a commitment to a new integration of life…" (7)

This first real man is known as a maker of simple stone tools and the upper cavity of his skull suggests a brain volume of only half that of a modern human, but with a zone of the cerebral cortex known to be responsible for speech production (8). This man could walk upright and talk.

Then one million years ago, Homo erectus appeared and spread far beyond Africa. One find of this kind was made in China and called ‘Peking Man’; a 400,000-year-old creature that was the first to use fire.

By this time a ‘brain explosion’ had occurred with the human brain inexplicably expanding by another third, with most of that growth occurring in the cerebrum, the area of the brain used for thinking.

Neanderthal man then appeared some 150,000 years ago, however this line of man died out to be replaced (or displaced) as Cro-Magnon man established himself as the enduring human life form on the planet some 100-90,000 years ago.

(Some have speculated that Cro-Magnon man, Homo sapiens, actually destroyed Neanderthal man.
It is an unattractive thought that our race may have survived because we were prepared to kill our fellow man.)

Taken from
http://www.violations.org.uk/index.htm
(Book 1. A Briefer history of time. Part 1.)

http://www.violations.org.uk/book1/t.../Image169a.gif <--- Top left corner came 1st in darwins theory. Bottom right Last.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Just A Girl

Time for EDUCATION AS I KNOW IT.
feel free to tell me im wrong.
Knowlage is good.

---

Yes, knowledge is good. Just posting a link is even better, mf.

Go to: Book 1. A Briefer history of time. Part 1.

I tried the link, but it kept going back to the Index.
I found it in google so didnt know which link from the index it was.
So posted like so.
(then made it easier to digest, and locate individual sections of the text)
this is prety much exactly my stance on the matter.
So it works well enough for me.

Like i said Link took me back to the index, and i didnt know which link it was from there.

but now i know which link it would be from the index. (thanks to your post above)
I added it to the post.

LV... don't use the my friend acronym it gets people in trouble.

Also even if it means my friend most people read that as sarcastic.

If you do it in the Entrance Hall you would get a 1 or 2 point warning BTW.