Reggie Miller
Well-Known Member
Which is a theological position not an academic one.
That depends on who you ask. Paul was a well learned man as well as many of the great Church theologians. It is an academic stance as well.
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Which is a theological position not an academic one.
You refuse to accept the collectively understood definition of word. That makes you wrong about it, not everyone else. Sorry.Of course, ST is omniscient. How dare me not accept what he says.
Duh... because eye witnesses wrote the original accounts. Yeah.
I am pointing out that you are actually making 3 assumptions. NOT just one.Why do you try to change my one assumption to your 3?
I'd love to see that.Hmm.. There is direct evidence of God's Son. You interested?
It seems to me that the homo sapiens would have killed them, according to my extremely limited understanding of your evolution.Dolphins talk. They have a rudamentary language that even has distinct dialects. What is really unique in humans is our pattern recognition ability and how it has been reflected in our behavior. But it is unfair to simply take one single thing that we have as a species and cut off all the rest as though we were not related. Especially when it isn't true. We also had many other species capable of language but all but homo sapiens have died out at this point.
That is one theory yes. We do know that clashes with neanderthals were commonplace.It seems to me that the homo sapiens would have killed them, according to my extremely limited understanding of your evolution.
A retelling of an "eyewitness" account is not an eyewitness account. That would make it a secondhand account.
We don't even have original copies of the New Testament.
IOW you can't be specific, so forget it.Bloodline, childhood, census, birth place, birth date, virgin birth, resurrection account and slaughter of innocents.
A retelling of an "eyewitness" account is not an eyewitness account. That would make it a secondhand account.
We don't even have original copies of the New Testament.
Dolphins talk. They have a rudamentary language that even has distinct dialects.
What is really unique in humans is our pattern recognition ability and how it has been reflected in our behavior. But it is unfair to simply take one single thing that we have as a species and cut off all the rest as though we were not related Especially when it isn't true..
We also had many other species capable of language but all but homo sapiens have died out at this point.
Evidently you don't have a clue about the function of genetics. Let me says it slowly for you: the gene pool of the parents determine ALL of the characteristics of the offspring. If the parents of packicetus do not have THE gene for a blowhole they will never have a kid with a blowhole. If they don't have the gene for fins, they will neveR have a kid with fins. It is GENETICALLY IMPOSSIBLE.
The evidence is presented in the peer-reviewed paper I cited.Wonderful. Now instead of a picture, present the scientific evidence they use to make their case.
There will always be holes, since science isn't perfect. Rejecting an explanation just because there are holes is textbook example of hypercriticism, a feature of science denial.You have to fill in the holes with scientifically proven science. There is none to link humans with apes. You have just admitted there are holes. As long as ther are, you can make the connection.
If you really understood DNA, you would understand that different DNA, no matter how similar, separates the species, not link them together.
Basically, you're insisting that you're right without giving any argument. Great!I know but it should.
Show us where the human classification as great apes requires tweaking.It does until they need to tweek the classification to fit their preconceived ideas.
If you think having 2 eyes, arms, 2 legs 2 ears, one nose and one head is enough to link apes and humans you have drunk the evo kool ade.
A chapter from the Bible is your "direct evidence?" Really?
No the apposable thumbs, jaw structure, skull structure, 98% similar DNA, vocal chords and fossil record do that.Get real. What dolphins do is not in the same ball park with a language. You have no idea if he sounnds the make are dialects. Even if it is, it does not link apes and humans.
Both of these points simply ignore the evidence. It makes me feel like this conversation is over. I hope I am wrong.What is unfair is to make the link with no scientific evidence to support it. Without some evidence, you don't it is true.
What is unfair is making a statement like that with absolutely no evidence.
Not sure why you think so.What is in the gospels is not a retelling.
How do you know that, considering we don't even have the originals?We have reliable, accurate accounts. And it isn't a retelling. It's copies of the originals. That makes it eyewitness accounts.
A chapter from the Bible is your "direct evidence?" Really?
Well that was disappointing.
How do you know that, considering we don't even have the originals?
Besides the apparent fact that they were written decades after the events supposedly took place, by mostly anonymous writers.