Humans did NOT evolve from the common ancestor of Apes

[sojourner]

Baby gorilla and baby chimp.

Are they named "Cling" and "Clang?"

 

[idav]

Dear idav, There is NO need to spread the good news to Apes since they won't know what you're talking about AND they are already assured of Heaven. This is because they were "created" by the Trinity Gen 1:21 and brought forth from the water, as innocent creatures. Anything God (Trinity) CREATES is an Eternal Creation. Have you been "created" in God's Image or in Christ Spiritually? God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Aman but they can understand, which means they can't have a free pass!!!

 

[jonathan180iq]

Apparently, you know about the Kroft brothers, too. But you appear to be young and naive enough to believe that stuff is documentary...

Next, you'll be telling us you've found fossils for H.R. Puffinstuff in the Land of the Lost...

That mash-up should never happen...

 

[sojourner]

That mash-up should never happen...

A lot of things shouldn't happen here that have...

 

[Aman777]

Aman but they can understand, which means they can't have a free pass!!!

Dear idav, I will tell the Creator of your disagreement with Him. Should I wait until AFTER your Judgment? I'm certainly not waiting around for you to account for all of your idle words. Rom 8:22 God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

 

[idav]

Dear idav, I will tell the Creator of your disagreement with Him. Should I wait until AFTER your Judgment? I'm certainly not waiting around for you to account for all of your idle words. Rom 8:22 God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

Oh my....me and the creator have a disagreement...Well then, since it is God your talking about then I guess I should take your argument from authority serious.:no:

 

[angellous_evangellous]

Could you narrow that just a wee bit?

Belief without the dogma.
I can believe....I just don't need the dogma.

Sure.

I said:

faith is the only way out of Christian fundamentalism.

Christian fundamentalism is based on the assertion that the Bible is perfectly God's word, inerrant and infalliable in every way. All kinds of irrational and destructive teachings are based on this principle.

Here, it's creationism. If Aman777 rejects creationism, the core tenant of his belief system is completely destroyed. He's taught then that the entire Bible is useless if one part of it is useless - if creationism isn't true, then nothing in the Bible is true because the Bible is supposed to be perfect. If it's not perfect, then it's all useless.

OK, so that circular logic is established...

My point - faith is the only way out of Christian fundamentalism - assumes that Christian fundamentalism requires no faith because the Bible is established as perfect through *faulty* theological reasoning. Once the Christian fundamentalist realizes the impossibility of this perfection, s/he must deny Christ or actually have faith in Christ -- or adopt a culture of lying like our friend Aman.

 

[jonathan180iq]

Indeed - the false god of religion.

 

[The Neo Nerd]

Dear Quaxotic, What gives you so much Faith to believe the Lies of the ToE? Answer: It's YOUR faith that Science knows more than God told us in Scripture. That is your Scientific method. Since I already know that the ToE is terribly Flawed because it preaches that we evolved from Apes, WHY should I believe ANYthing man's flawed Science teaches? Your Faith is in Human knowledge, which will soon be burned. God Bless you.

In Love,
Aman

How would you change it?

Perhaps you could suggest a different methodology for investigating the world around us.

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Baby gorilla and baby chimp.

Awesome. Thought it might be just a shy larger than a bonobo....

 

[Sonofason]

Delusions of grandeur.

If your going to have a delusion, nothing beats a delusion of grandeur.

 

[Sonofason]

Yes but your model assumes the hypothesis is the conclusion and refuses to investigate or accept any evidence to the contrary. That is not science, that is not enquiry.

That is just you reinforcing your own preconceptions.

Hopefully your hypothesis is the conclusion. If you hypothesis is the conclusion, then your hypothesis was correct.

 

[Sonofason]

Nope.:no: You can't change order of the scientific method to fit your own personal bias. The order is still question => hypothesis.

Sorry, I don't accept you finding fault with my methods. Whether or not your understanding of the scientific method is correct or not, the methods I use are indeed correct. And you have no authority to correct me on this subject.

 

[Bunyip]

Hopefully your hypothesis is the conclusion. If you hypothesis is the conclusion, then your hypothesis was correct.

Sadly not. If your hypothesis is the conclusion - then you can never know if it is correct, and are demonstrating that you do not care if it is correct or not.

 

[Sonofason]

so, you're admitting that you are being dishonest? So, when you said you didn't lie, you were being dishonest?




Got it.

No, I'm embarrassing you with my honesty.

 

[angellous_evangellous]

No, I'm embarrassing you with my honesty.

.....
:biglaugh:

 

[Bunyip]

No, I'm embarrassing you with my honesty.

I can't help but say that I am very glad you are not on the atheist side here.

 

[Sonofason]

The whole break down in conversation is very simple.

If you want to make a claim, support it. If your support does not stand up to scrutiny, then you should probably try something else to support your claim. If all of your claims are shot down, then you should probably give up on the claim... If you continue to post the same book-end argument over and over again, then it will be scrutinized, over and over again, ad infinitum, until something worthwhile is posited.

Think of it like a peer-reviewed journal.

If I walked into a Bible College and said "The Bible says that it's OK for me to kill people" And I quoted passages that referenced people killing people, that claim would be subject to scrutiny, would it not? Professors and students alike would come up to me and ask me to support my claim. They would then refute my claims with passages of the Bible stating that killing people was not OK. They would show me, in multiple places, where my passages were being read out on context. They would collectively make a very strong case that I was simply wrong.

If their scrutiny was met with things like "You're a venomous liar. THIS is what the BIBLE really says!" And then I continued to quote the same passages again and again - then I would be mocked for my ridiculousness, would I not?

If, after a while, another murder apologist walked in and wanted to support me by saying things like "I see your evidence, bible scholars - but I'm not convinced. I'll let you know when I am. I think you're all a bunch of liars!" Then that person too would be mocked for amusement and the people who study the bible at the bible college would go back on their merry ways, occasionally looking over to see if the crazies were still over there advocating for murder and getting really butt-hurt about no one believing them...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

See how this works?

This is an open forum. Call into question anything you want called into question. Refute it where it needs refuted - but you'd better expect the same. If your personal claims can't stand up to even the slightest of poking by believers and non-believers alike, then be aware that there is only one common denominator.

I find it interesting how atheists always want to mention people killing one another, but that is just an observation.

I'm confused, are you actually allowed to call me a liar on this website? Never-mind, I'll check on that myself. Shouldn't you have to support that claim. Isn't that what you just ranted about, people not giving evidence to support their claims?

Perhaps you should practice what you preach.

Anyhow, did you have a point to make? Did you have a question? I'll be happy to help you in any way I can.

 

[Sonofason]

I'm sure others have answered this by now....but you're incorrect. Now you and I just had a discussion about how much science you took in high school and college and one would think that you learned enough not to mess this up especially since you said you took Chemistry and presumably (advanced) courses on the subject.

But to start....You DO NOT first "Assume" the answer to your question is true before doing any experiments. This is illogical within the scientific method. Here are the steps to the method....

Ask a question
Do the research
Construct a hypothesis
Test the hypothesis by doing experiments
Analyze the data and draw your conclusion
Share your results (This is done so others can analyze your data)

Get over yourself. You think this matters? People are going to hell, and your worried about asking a question?

 

[Sonofason]

This statement is more profound than I think this forum will give it credit for.

Amazing statement coming from an atheist.