ravensteve1961
New Member
- Joined
- Oct 28, 2004
- Messages
- 3,916
- Reaction score
- 0
Yes lev is a sick bastard.Why does he wanna fuck a male ape?
Reba said:I still don't see any proof of evolution. So some animals have parts or behaviors similar to humans, they still have a lot more differences. Similar does not mean same. Animals still lack the most important part of human beings--that is an eternal spirit. That might not make a huge genetic difference but it is the most significant difference nevertheless.
God is His wisdom designed all creatures to fit His plan. He gave each creature the parts and metabolisms to suit specific environments and serve specific purposes. They weren't random accidents or mutations. He created some as sources of nourishment in the food chain, some as beasts of burden and transportation, some as sources of fuel, some as companions, some as pollenators for plants, some as seeing-eyes for the blind, some as cleaners of carrion, some as visions of beauty, some to show God's sense of humor (the platypus), etc. They are important in their own selves, but they have nothing to do with the creation of mankind. God created man separate from every other creature.
Same here.IcedTeaRulz said:Sorry, i don't beleive in evolution.
I second that I believe in evolution.mld4ds said:History Channel: Ape to Man
Hmm, I do believe in evolution. May i remind you that Koko can sign in our sign language...
The DNA has the ancient gene of fruit fly and it even has some gene of bananas! Our DNA is billion years old edited over the time ( = evolution and reproduction cause change in DNA as well as virus ie: disease like Rubella such like that )cental34 said:Not really. Alot of scientist will argue that our DNA is 97% similar to apes. But ask them who our cloest match is, and they'll tell you we're closer to dogs. I'm not quite sure how I feel on Evolution. I haven't studied it truly enough to have an opinion on Macroevolution, but I do believe that Microevolution is a possibility, as suggested by Darwin's studies.
Of course Bible don't talk about evolution that's why you don't find in there.. You looked in wrong place. The Genesis is full of holes. A physical evidence is worth the proof. All over the world, we have found lots of fossils that dates back to billion, millions and more than 300 thousands years old.Safari said:Same here.
Genesis 1:24-28 (KJV)
Vs. 24 "And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.
Vs. 25 "And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good.
Vs. 26 "And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.
Vs. 27 "So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
Vs. 28 "And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth."
It doesn't say anywhere a word "evolution" in the Bible. We are created by God and we are all way back from Adam and Eve, not apes. Just give a message.
that's where ur wrong.Defee said:Well, in my opinion, only people who believe in evolution are the ones who dont believe in God.......thats ok, really. Im not gonna argue with people who believe in evolution.
Peace!!
uh I wasn't talking about lev...ravensteve1961 said:Yes lev is a sick bastard.Why does he wanna fuck a male ape?
Boult said:By the way, you avoided to post any from Chapter 2 of Genesis because it DOES contradict the Chapter 1!!!!!! Full of Holes I say!
nope it does not..babymakerdaddy said:Gen 2:18-23 (KJV)
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air (notice, not formed from another animal ((evolution)); and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man (notice, not from an ape), made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Here is your Genesis chapter 2 disproving evolution.
Amen!babymakerdaddy said:Gen 2:18-23 (KJV)
And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.
And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air (notice, not formed from another animal ((evolution)); and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof.
And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him.
And the Lord God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof;
And the rib, which the Lord God had taken from man (notice, not from an ape), made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.
And Adam said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man.
Here is your Genesis chapter 2 disproving evolution.
Are you not familiar with ancient Hebrew literary style? It was common to write the first chapter as a broad introduction to the sequence of events. Then, in subsequent chapters, to break down the broad sections into more details. Even now, people use different methods of story telling and writing. Chronological, order of importance, "flashback", acrostic (Psalm 119), various viewpoints (as used in the synoptic Gospels), building up points to a climax, etc.Boult said:nope it does not..
please read this: http://www.skepticsannotatedbible.com/contra/accounts.html
Tell me which chapter is correct about which was created first?
Thank you
Reba said:Are you not familiar with ancient Hebrew literary style? It was common to write the first chapter as a broad introduction to the sequence of events. Then, in subsequent chapters, to break down the broad sections into more details. Even now, people use different methods of story telling and writing. Chronological, order of importance, "flashback", acrostic (Psalm 119), various viewpoints (as used in the synoptic Gospels), building up points to a climax, etc.
I see nothing contradictory in the Genesis chapters.