seedplanter, Quote: You might be an atheist if… Quote: You say that Christians don’t think for themselves but then make fun of them when they disagree with you. Nice One!! agentorange: “In revelations it refers to falling stars.” Quote: AgentOrnery the Bible is full of imagery that is obviously not always intended to be taken literally (i.e. a sword coming ou...more

seedplanter,

Quote: You might be an atheist if…

Quote: You say that Christians don’t think for themselves but then make fun of them when they disagree with you.


Nice One!!


agentorange: “In revelations it refers to falling stars.”

Quote: AgentOrnery the Bible is full of imagery that is obviously not always intended to be taken literally (i.e. a sword coming out of Christ’s mouth). In this case in point it is apocalyptic imagery.


I would disagree about the literalness of the imagery. God may need to talk down to us because of the understanding gap between us, but he isn't going to insult our intelligence either. A sword coming out of Jesus mouth is either literal or an insult to reasonability. The Bible, in general, inclines me to believe God is reasonable and thus the sword must be literal. (And considering men are literally dying by this sword, I see no reason to doubt it literalness.)

Revelation 19:21 And the remnant were slain with the sword of him that sat upon the horse, which sword proceeded out of his mouth: and all the fowls were filled with their flesh.

Hebrews 4:12 For the word of God is quick, and powerful, and sharper than any twoedged sword, piercing even to the dividing asunder of soul and spirit, and of the joints and marrow, and is a discerner of the thoughts and intents of the heart.

Remember the Power of God, which is so often forgotten.

Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.less

oldguy, "If you refuse to consider the existence of Gravity, nothing I say or do will help you accept it." oldguy: Keruso, Are you sure you want to compare a natural process like gravity to a supernatural idea like heaven? Yes, it actually is perfect. God created all natural processes. Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly see...more

oldguy,

"If you refuse to consider the existence of Gravity, nothing I say or do will help you accept it."

oldguy: Keruso, Are you sure you want to compare a natural process like gravity to a supernatural idea like heaven?

Yes, it actually is perfect. God created all natural processes.

Romans 1:20 For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse:

Nor does it invalidate my point. There is no proof for anyone who chooses not believe. If you don't want to believe in Gravity, not even falling off a cliff will convince you it exist, but that won't stop the ground from killing you.

oldguy: That's an interesting idea. You think a world without God would be even worse than it is now? People would become savages if they didn't have a God to fear?

Yes, let's look a what then absents of God has done, the Holocaust, Socialist Communism (Russia is doing so well now), deadly tainted toys from China, etc and think what will happen if extremist get their hands on nukes. Even those things done in the 'name' of God, the Crusades, Witch hunts, the Inquisition, Jihad, etc. None of these are condoned by Jesus. "Love thy enemy" and "turn to them the other cheek" do not allow even Christian holy wars and persecution.

oldguy: Sorry, this idea of yours just makes me glad I don't have the god disease. What a horrible way to waste a life, believing that you need to avoid the wrath of an imaginary bloodthirsty god.

Yes, charity and love toward all humans is a terrible waste of ones life. Mother Teresa certainly wasted her life and I am sure as she breathed her last she felt very empty surrounded by those who loved her...

I am not the least afraid of God's Wrath. I'm afraid of my Father's disapproval and disappointment.

And people will not be condemned to eternal fire for what they have done, but because they wouldn't give it up, not even for paradise. That is what forgiven means.less

oldguy, oldguy: The insanity of Islam is not evidence for any other religion. But apparently it is evidence against them... How convenient.

agentorange, Part 3 and 4 are for you. I seem to be running into a posting limit. I'll post part 1 and 2 when the sight let's me.

oldguy Jesus: A woman is man's help mate. oldguy: That's typical of religions. Women exist to serve men. That's better than how Muslims treat females, but I'm not impressed. This is not as a slave but as a equal - a gift to be loved. Torturing and murdering women for failure to where a veil is not Judeo-Christian standard. oldguy: Jesus is the only way to heaven? P...more

oldguy

Jesus: A woman is man's help mate.

oldguy: That's typical of religions. Women exist to serve men. That's better than how Muslims treat females, but I'm not impressed.

This is not as a slave but as a equal - a gift to be loved. Torturing and murdering women for failure to where a veil is not Judeo-Christian standard.

oldguy: Jesus is the only way to heaven? Prove it. Better yet, prove there's a heaven.

I can not prove that which you do not want to even concider. If you refuse to concider the existance of Gravity, nothing I say or do will help you accept it.

oldguy: Religious people never consider the possibility everything they believe is an invention, something an ancient person made up because he wished it was true.

Oh I have consider if it's not true. If it were not true, the world would have imploded years ago - as it will when God gives into to your wishing and bows completely out of human affairs.

But it also doesn't matter if I'm wrong. I won't know the difference in oblivion. However if you are wrong, you will hardly fail to notice the intense pain of being eternal burned alive. I'd rather be wrong and a person I can live with, than wrong and pay the price for all eternity.

oldguy: Heaven is exactly what a feeble person would wish to be true.

oldguy: A feeble person would also wish for a guaranteed ticket to heaven, so these gullible brainwashed people are happy to accept the idea that praising Jesus is the ticket they want.

Yes, feeble people have long been known to stick to their 'wishful thinking' even under the threat of ridicule, torture, and death.less

oldguy, Quote: Jesus: "Easy - I REALLY REALLY know the truth." Quote: Mohammed: "Same here." And what are those truths.... Mohammed: Convert to Islam or die Jesus: You choose, but know there are consequences Mohammed: Celebrate the murder of your enemy (anyone remember the 9/11 oversea muslim reactions?) Jesus: Love thy enemy, pray for those despitefully use ...more

oldguy,

Quote: Jesus: "Easy - I REALLY REALLY know the truth."
Quote: Mohammed: "Same here."

And what are those truths....

Mohammed: Convert to Islam or die
Jesus: You choose, but know there are consequences

Mohammed: Celebrate the murder of your enemy (anyone remember the 9/11 oversea muslim reactions?)
Jesus: Love thy enemy, pray for those despitefully use you

Mohammed: The ways to Heaven are arbitrary, dependent on Allah's mood - unless you die a martyr killing infidels like the men of 9/11 or other suicide bombers.
Jesus: is the only Way, by his sacrifice he purchased forgiveness for those who believe

Mohammed: Don't lie to other Muslims men
Jesus: Don't lie to anyone

Mohammed: Eye for an eye
Jesus: Turn to them the other cheek

Mohammed: Women are unworthy beings
Jesus: A woman is man's help mate

Mohammed: Infidels should own no property and be poor and needy
Jesus: Help the needy and poor, no matter what they believe

Gee, I could see how you might confuse the two.less

Part 3 Me: “And if you read, they are, in part, making my point for me” Quote: No they aren’t, they never claimed chimps have 10% more DNA. It’s an analysis of the 40 million differences within our both 3 billion base pairs. 40 million differences is barely over 1% difference in entire genomic comparison. Read it again. www.genome.gov/15515096 I was not talking about t...more

Part 3

Me: “And if you read, they are, in part, making my point for me”

Quote: No they aren’t, they never claimed chimps have 10% more DNA. It’s an analysis of the 40 million differences within our both 3 billion base pairs. 40 million differences is barely over 1% difference in entire genomic comparison. Read it again. www.genome.gov/15515096

I was not talking about the 10% and you know it, I was talking about the 96%.

Me: "And if you read, they are, in part, making my point for me. They agree that the 98% (or 96%) is not a comparison of the entire Genome. They even supply and example where only 38 base pairs of the 100 base pair mDNA sample match (that 38% identical as opposed to 96%). They agree the 96% number should be qualified, yet it still show up WITHOUT QUALIFICATION everywhere."

To quote the article: "The first comprehensive comparison of the genetic blueprints of humans and chimpanzees shows our closest living relatives share perfect identity with 96 percent of our DNA sequence..."

Let see, your quote of 1% difference (1.33% actually) equals 4% difference how? Seems to me that's 2.67% short, but then I'm from the old school of math. This new math, as I understand it, is a bit quirky.

Quote: Sorry, right you said they were ALL frauds and thus don’t count, so here are some, explain them away. Your exact words “The series of "Dino" birds that have ALL turned out to be frauds and other fossil frauds.”... Since I assume you think all or many of the fossils are fake, how do you explain these?

Yep, ALL the Dino-birds were frauds, of which I believe there have been exactly 3, the most famous of which was funded by National Geographic.

Ah yes, 'I assume', now what is that saying about assuming? I can't quite seem to recall... I do not believe all or even most fossils fakes. However, Nebraska Man anyone? How about Piltdown Man? Java Man? And, exactly where do Neanderthals belong in our family tree these days? It keeps changing. Oh and I do love how Lucy's seems to gain and lose an arm bone and how her rib arrangement changes.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,224363,00.html
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/aso/tryit/evolution/lucy.html
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australopithecus_afarensis

Quote: Here’s Theropod Dinosaurs with feathers, certainly not all frauds... Avialians (birds) look up Confuciusornis, ...

Aren't Avialians (birds) um considered true birds as the word in parentheses implies? And all the rest are hotly disputed, as either true feathered birds or dinos with quills or bristles but no feathers. The only dinos that were possibly both bird and dino have turned out to be cleaver frauds. (I do subscribe to pro-evolution science magazines - yes that is plural - you know. In fact I own the National Geographic Archaeoraptor issue and their imaginative but unrealistic feathered baby T-Rex and Deinonychus issue)less

Part 4 Quote: If you don’t like fossils, here’s some on genetic evidence. ERR’s and Human Chromosome 2 fusion. I see an incredible economy of design. “I'm sure many archeologists will be shock to discover they are not scientist.” They aren’t ‘scientists’ in the normal vernacular of what scientists do. Such as physics, astronomy, biology, etc...more

Part 4

Quote: If you don’t like fossils, here’s some on genetic evidence. ERR’s and Human Chromosome 2 fusion.

I see an incredible economy of design.

“I'm sure many archeologists will be shock to discover they are not scientist.”

They aren’t ‘scientists’ in the normal vernacular of what scientists do. Such as physics, astronomy, biology, etc. In a morbid sense archeologists do work within science, never the less their finds that back up archeological finds within the bible don’t back up literal quasi science readings in the bible. It's scripture not science. Case in point’ the earth moveth not’, where as mentioned already it certainly moves and in more ways than one...

morbid - suggesting an unhealthy mental state or attitude; unwholesomely gloomy, sensitive, extreme, etc. ex: a morbid interest in death.

Oh now there are levels of 'scientists'. And this 'morbid sense' within which archeologists apparently works within science disturbs me. Are they unhealthy in mental state? Or are they just a sensitive, unwholesomely gloomy bunch?

And we've already discussed 'the earth moveth not' quasi-bible knowledge, but I'll repeat. First the phrase 'the earth moveth not' does not appear in any English version of the Bible I can get my hands on - Biblegateway.com. Second, in English, earth with a little 'e' refers to ground - Earth, with a big 'E' is the planet. Hebrew is even stricter as it limits 'erets' (the transliterated Hebrew word) to only dry land, excluding soil and rock under bodies of water. Third, the closest match - 1 Chronicles 16:29-30 "Give unto the LORD the glory due unto his name... Fear before him, all the earth [or dry ground]: the world [or habitable part] also shall be [>>]stable, that it be not moved[<<]" - is clearly talking about earthquakes not orbits or planetary rotation. Forth, the original meaning of 'planet' is 'wanderer' or 'wandering star' (Latin and Greek) and included only 7 bodies: the Sun, the Moon, Mercury, Venus, Mars, Jupiter, and Saturn.

“And what is the common name for a falling meteor, is it not a shooting or falling STAR?”

Quote: And this proves my point of how ignorant they were of such things ... Calling them ‘stars’, doesn’t change what they actually are and it’s wrong. If you’re saying then perhaps the bible is referring to asteroids that will come down to earth, then would expect, with any revelation that such knowledge be accurate and describe what they meant, as opposed to leaving a revelation to be so ambiguous to be lost in translation.

I'm afraid you are pointing your finger in the wrong direction. We, and by we I mean the English speaking nations, are the one who call meteors and comet debris falling stars. WE are the 'ignorant' ones of which you speak. The Bible doesn't speak about falling lights. The few times the Bible refers to fallen stars it refers to fallen angels, which are also called stars. Lucifer means 'morning star'.less

oldguy, Keruso "Has the Qur'an's message unchanged for 1850 years (Christian Testament) and for more than 2100 years (Hebrew Testament)?" oldguy: Are you suggesting the Bible is true and the Qur'an is false because the Bible is older? No sir, I am suggesting that its unaltered state and age are supporting evidence that it is true. The conistancy of its message is ...more

oldguy,

Keruso "Has the Qur'an's message unchanged for 1850 years (Christian Testament) and for more than 2100 years (Hebrew Testament)?"

oldguy: Are you suggesting the Bible is true and the Qur'an is false because the Bible is older?

No sir, I am suggesting that its unaltered state and age are supporting evidence that it is true. The conistancy of its message is the proof that it is true.less

agentorange20, “As the Florida article demonstrates (link below), evolutionist DON'T permit questioning and neither does the new Florida Science standard” Quote: Oh boy. They were already teaching the processes of biological evolution, however they didn’t refer to it by evolution, and instead used ‘biological changes over time’, which is ironically what evolutio...more

agentorange20,

“As the Florida article demonstrates (link below), evolutionist DON'T permit questioning and neither does the new Florida Science standard”

Quote: Oh boy. They were already teaching the processes of biological evolution, however they didn’t refer to it by evolution, and instead used ‘biological changes over time’, which is ironically what evolution exactly is. Not acknowledging a word for how a process occurs doesn’t negate the process, it ‘s just word semantics.

Interesting, you don't deny there is no freedom of choice when comes to evolution. The wording change was not limited to substituting evolution for 'biological changes over time', but adding "the fundamental concept underlying all of biology and is supported by multiple forms of scientific evidence." There are many in scientific circles that take exception to that statement.

www.christianpost.com/article/20080220/31263_New_Fla._Standards_Use_Word_%27Evolution%27.htm

“Most of the population was against this policy and the school board enacted it anyway,”

Quote: Most of the population is downright ignorant of science, let alone evolution and so ignorant to think changing ‘biological changes over time; to ‘evolution’ is a huge sea change.

Could you show me the exception of rights for the 'ignorant' in the American Constitution. I can't seem to find it.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution

Ahh, so this is how liberty and majority rule dies in America, under the label of 'sciencific ignorance'. The death knell of Democracy and the freedoms this country was founded on. How bleak the American future is. Our forefathers would be so proud that the country they fought and died to create and maintain is at this threshold.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Declaration_of_Independence

"We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are [>>]Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness[<<].

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, [>>]deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed[<<], That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor."

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gettysburg_Address

Four score and seven years ago our fathers brought forth on this continent a new nation, conceived in Liberty, and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal... that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom-and [>>]that government of the people, by the people, for the people, shall not perish from the earth[<<].

I fear the ignorance is not about science, but about history.less

ifeelfine72 Quote: "Can you explain away all the factual inconsistancies in the Bible? There are a lot of them. Anyway, your logic is flawed." Generally, yes I can explain (not explain away, which implies I would ignore them) those so called 'factual inconsistancies' I am aware of. The trend I find is those so-called contradiction are a problem with us. We forget the orig...more

ifeelfine72

Quote: "Can you explain away all the factual inconsistancies in the Bible? There are a lot of them. Anyway, your logic is flawed."

Generally, yes I can explain (not explain away, which implies I would ignore them) those so called 'factual inconsistancies' I am aware of. The trend I find is those so-called contradiction are a problem with us. We forget the original meaning of English words, we forget the Bible was original written in two other language (one radically different from our own), and we add constraints beyond those laid down by the Bible itself. agentorange20 has demonstrated several examples of what I mean.

As used by the Bible:
earth is dry land not planet (which, in English, is Earth, with a capital E not a little e). Genesis 1:9-10
heaven/firmament is everything from the surface of the dry land to the edge of the Universe. Genesis 1:6-8 & Genesis 1:14-15
'star' is also used to refer to angels. Isaiah 14:12-13
birds/fowl actually refers to anything that flies, including insect, bats, and pterosaurs Genesis 1:20

Quote: Who said anything about a fable? I hope I didn't, because if I did, I used the wrong word.

So if concider the Bible is not factual, what term would you then call it? Any term that implies it is not factual leaves the quandary how can it then be the Word of God, a God who can not lie?

Quote: "And if the message never changed then why the 1000's of different translations (in English alone) of the Bible"

First, the Hebrew Bible and Greek message has never changed. The number of English translations has nothing to do with that. Translating that into English is another matter.

Second I like to something that says that there are "1000's" of English translations, because to my knowledge there are less than 100 and probably less than 50. Translating the Bible isn't an undertaking one does overnight. It requires many years of Hebrew and Greek language and grammar study followed by years of translations work.

Quote: It doesn't add up. It feels like you need it to be completely literal for your faith but I know you don't take it literally - no one does.

I am afraid you are incorrect. I do take it literally, even the parables have a literally meaning.less

oldguy Me: "The Bible, in its entirety, seems pretty important to God." Quote: That's what the Muslims say about the Qur'an. Has the Qur'an's message unchanged for 1850 years (Christian Testament) and for more than 2100 years (Hebrew Testament)? Do it's laws remain the same from one chapter or book to the next? Is the Qur'an consistant from beginnin...more

oldguy

Me: "The Bible, in its entirety, seems pretty important to God."

Quote: That's what the Muslims say about the Qur'an.

Has the Qur'an's message unchanged for 1850 years (Christian Testament) and for more than 2100 years (Hebrew Testament)? Do it's laws remain the same from one chapter or book to the next? Is the Qur'an consistant from beginning to end?

I know the Bible has and is.less

ifeelfine72, Quote: 'Not a single one of those verses says to take the Bible literally.' Let me put it another way then, since 'all Scripture is God breathed', his 'word is true from the beginning' and God can not lie, how then can one take any part of the Scripture, the Word of God, to be a fable? A fable is a fictional tale to teach a lesson but, even though ...more

ifeelfine72,

Quote: 'Not a single one of those verses says to take the Bible literally.'

Let me put it another way then, since 'all Scripture is God breathed', his 'word is true from the beginning' and God can not lie, how then can one take any part of the Scripture, the Word of God, to be a fable? A fable is a fictional tale to teach a lesson but, even though its intention may be good, it is still a fabrication, i.e. a lie. The Bible is a book of absolutes. It can not bury the truth behind lies, behind fiction and fantasy, and still be the Word of God.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV) "All Scripture is God-breathed..."
Psalm 119:160 (KJV) 'Thy word is true from the beginning'
Titus 1:2 (KJV) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Proverbs 14:5 (KJV) A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
Proverbs 19:9 (KJV) A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.

If you are Christian, then you should also remember that Jesus upheld the authority of the Hebrew Scripture, from beginning to end. However he had no qualms about challenging Jewish Traditions that had come to supersede and overturn the Scriptures. If Jesus believed the Hebrew Scriptures, then why don't you?

Matthew 22:29 (KJV) Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.

Nor should one forget that the Bible comes to us through 2100 years (Hebrew Dead Sea Scrolls) and 1850 years (Christian with 24,000+ different text) with a proven unaltered message. This is impossible in the hands of fallible men. Dozens of authors and tens of thousand of copyist never changed the message of the text. The Bible, in its entirety, seems pretty important to God.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscriptless

agentorange20, Quote: No, no, no. Perhaps we misunderstood each other. You gave the implication that he bible referred to the actual word ‘dinosaur’ when indeed it doesn’t and that was what I was trying to point out. Exactly how does "So you know the Genesis 1 says God created birds before dinosaurs" imply the word "dinosaur" is in the Hebrew Bible? The Heb...more

agentorange20,

Quote: No, no, no. Perhaps we misunderstood each other. You gave the implication that he bible referred to the actual word ‘dinosaur’ when indeed it doesn’t and that was what I was trying to point out.

Exactly how does "So you know the Genesis 1 says God created birds before dinosaurs" imply the word "dinosaur" is in the Hebrew Bible? The Hebrew Bible was written in Hebrew, so the whole accusation was ridiculous from the start, designed only to ridicule and belittle and it backfired. And now that I've shown how silly that assertion was, it becomes misunderstanding.

“You will not believe Archeology,”

Quote: No, I DO accept some of what the bible supports for archeological HISTORY, alas that isn’t science, that is archeological history and there is a difference there.

I'm sure many archeologists will be shock to discover they are not scientist.

Dictionary.com
archeologist - an anthropologist who studies prehistoric people and their culture
anthropology - The [>>]scientific[<<] study of the origin, the behavior, and the physical, social, and cultural development of humans.

Me: “as I've said, the Bible say the Universe was expanded, but then you ignored that too”

Quote: Right, the same bible that refers to ‘heavens’ in which it refers to both where the stars are and where rain comes from, ya that scientifically non accurate bible again. There is no 'water above the firmiment/atmosphere', nor can stars come falling down to earth, etc.

And here again you show you overwhelming Bible knowledge. Heavens and firmament, as used by the Bible, covers everything from the surface of the dry land and seas to the edge of the Universe. Hebrew makes no distinction between the Earth's atmosphere and the vacuum of space (and last time I checked, no one has seen the edge of the Universe). Further, nowhere does the Bible claim the birds fly among the stars nor does it claim the rains come from 'above the firmiment/atmosphere'. And what is the common name for a falling meteor, is it not a shooting or falling STAR? However, since you are probably referring to a Revelation verse, I should point out that angels are often referred to as stars in the Bible. In fact, Lucifer means morning star. Revelation is referring to fallen angels.

Quote: I am not contending that the universe hasn't expanded, the evidence shows it IS expanding (it’s not done yet pal) but that a literal 6000 year old universe and earth and amny other verses don’t conform to what science shows. Again, it’s scientifically wrong in this regard and so it’s more like a mixed bag.

Exactly where did I say the Bible says the Universe had stopped expanding? However this is side-stepping the point, isn't it? The Bible say the Universe was expanded 4000 years before the Big Bang Theory, and that is the point. You ask for science and when you get it you attack grammar like it changes the revelation.less

Part 2 Me: “The Bible doesn’t not 'declare by fiat” Quote: What! The bible is its own source of vindication; this is why it declares by fiat that IT is correct in all regards whereas anything contradictory isn’t, as this is its very nature. In regards to science you said you couldn’t trust them, you tried to say that men are bias and fallible, well NEWSFLASH pa...more

Part 2

Me: “The Bible doesn’t not 'declare by fiat”

Quote: What! The bible is its own source of vindication; this is why it declares by fiat that IT is correct in all regards whereas anything contradictory isn’t, as this is its very nature.
In regards to science you said you couldn’t trust them, you tried to say that men are bias and fallible, well NEWSFLASH pal, the same fallible and bias men penned the very book you gush over, so whatever you contend of men being ‘bias and fallible’ swings equally back onto your argument for the veracity of the bible.
Since you enjoy testing science, explain the genetic evidence I gave for evolution. Namely ERV’s and Human chromosome 2 fusion.

Yes, ignore the fact that the Bible DEMANDS YOU TEST IT, which you clearly have not done. Fiat statement do not permit testing and they do not give you a choice. The Bible does not force you to believe, it lays it out like it is and allows you to choose (and suffer the consequences). There is no law requiring you to learn the Bible. However, how does this compare with evolution? As the Florida article demonstrates (link below), evolutionist DON'T permit questioning and neither does the new Florida Science standard. Most of the population was against this policy and the school board enacted it anyway, where was the choice, the Democratic majority rule? What was the definition of fiat, again? "An arbitrary decree or pronouncement, esp. by a person or group of persons having absolute authority to enforce it." When did Democracy come to mean 'evolution rules'? America is dying and you are applauding.

www.christianpost.com/article/20080220/31263_New_Fla._Standards_Use_Word_%27Evolution%27.htm

And what you fail to understand is the Bible has done the impossible, dozens of writers and tens of thousands of copyist over the span of four millennia have never changed the fundamental laws of Judeo-Christian beliefs, EVER. No text has survived so unaltered (no errors change the message of the text and the errors are few) and, in the case of the Christian Testament, in so large a number (over 24,000 in three languages). The Bible is in harmony from beginning to end and remains unaltered for a provable 2100 (Hebrew) and 1850 (Christian) years. This is an impossible feat for fallible men. Only an influential God could cause both the Bible to remain intact and insure the needed proof survives the degradation of time. This God would also be more than capable of guiding the hand of the fallible writers away from their fallibility and to his infallibility.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_manuscript

And why is it, when you write the word 'pal' it feels so negative? Like an appellation of disgust hidden behind an otherwise friendly word? We do not practice what we preach, is that it?less

Part 3 “So, I showed you the article, and you admit it, and yet you still insult me and call me a liar.” Quote: Your article was from 2002! And refereed to the Chimps genome length as an ‘estimated’ 10% larger, not that this is confirmed and it certainly wouldn’t be confirmed till it’s mapped and analyzed! Nevertheless, you made some [>>]horrid claim[<...more

Part 3

“So, I showed you the article, and you admit it, and yet you still insult me and call me a liar.”

Quote: Your article was from 2002! And refereed to the Chimps genome length as an ‘estimated’ 10% larger, not that this is confirmed and it certainly wouldn’t be confirmed till it’s mapped and analyzed! Nevertheless, you made some [>>]horrid claim[<<] that 'Chimps have 10% more DNA that humans', and then the only thing to back it up was an ESTIMIATE that was dated at 2002, or prior to the mapping of the Chimpanzee genome. The nature and Harvard articles I pointed out are from 2005 and 2006 and show that their DNA is 96+% identical to ours (which was after all what the initial argument was about and why you referred to some [>>]bogus claim[<<] that Chimps have 10% more DNA).

With proof, you still call me a liar. And you call a well respected geneticist a liar, just because of the YEAR on the article? My, my, we certainly practice what we preach about respect and dignity.

Dignity looks something like this -- Well, yes you are correct, the article does say that chimps have 10% more DNA, but I feel the article is a little outdated. Perhaps that has changed?

You do realize that the estimated size of the Human DNA predates the completion of the Human Genome Project by at least 8 years (and probably more)? That human DNA, when uncoiled, is 6 feet long and that 10% is more than half a foot? The Genome projects were not need to determine this nor has the estimate changed since the completion of the Genome Project.

Here are two 1992 articles declaring the DNA 6 feet long and 3 billion base pairs.
http://www.lbl.gov/Science-Articles/Archive/human-genome-mapping-sequencing.html
http://www.accessexcellence.org/RC/AB/IE/Whose_Genome_is_It.html

Me: “First, as before, this Nature article says nothing about the size of Human or Chimp DNA.”

Quote: Oh, I agree but it does explain the relative genetic issues. Back on that Harvard article (which cites the Nature article mind you) it refers to this –

“Among the 3 billion base pairs in the DNA of BOTH humans and chimpanzees, researchers found differences in 40 million sites. It is in those sites where the differences between the two species lie.”

The Harvard Article adds something, which you agree is not part of the Nature article, and this improves its reliability how?less

Part 4 Quote: Here’s another: http://www.genome.gov/15515096 Quote: “Despite the many similarities found between human and chimp genomes, the researchers emphasized that important differences exist between the two species. About 35 million DNA base pairs differ between the shared portions of the two genomes, each of which, [>>]like most mammalian genomes[<<], contains a...more

Part 4

Quote: Here’s another: http://www.genome.gov/15515096

Quote: “Despite the many similarities found between human and chimp genomes, the researchers emphasized that important differences exist between the two species. About 35 million DNA base pairs differ between the shared portions of the two genomes, each of which, [>>]like most mammalian genomes[<<], contains about 3 billion base pairs”

So then now you content that 'most' mammals have only 3 billion base pairs? Because that is what this article contends. And again no credentials on the author...

Quote: Want another, here: - www.cs.ucr.edu/~eamonn/DNA/

Again, you want me to believe three Computer Science & Engineering professors and one Anthropology doctor and professor over a doctor and professor of Genetic and Anthropology? And I find it interesting that you fly off the handle about use of an approximate number made by an expert in Primate Genetics, however I am expected to accept the approximate number from persons completely outside the field of Genetics.

And if you read, they are, in part, making my point for me. They agree that the 98% (or 96%) is not a comparison of the entire Genome. They even supply and example where only 38 base pairs of the 100 base pair mDNA sample match (that 38% identical as opposed to 96%). They agree the 96% number should be qualified, yet it still show up WITHOUT QUALIFICATION everywhere.

Quote: Since you mentioned there are no bird to dinosaur transitionals, refer a page or two back & research the list of all those and then tell me that again.
Same goes for the vids and liknks I put up on hominids and their transitionals.

I have never refer to 'transitionals', so you are confusing me with someone else. All I have said (and proved) is that the Bible puts Dinos (and all land animals) after Birds (and all flying creatures). However, your transitionals are hotly disputed and the proto 'feathers' look more like quills or bristles than feathers. Anything with true feathers are birds, not a dinos. I do get popular science magazines (yes plural) and they haven’t missed a so called dino-bird yet.less

Quote: No where in the Bible does it say we are to take it literally. Actually it does. 2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV) "All Scripture is God-breathed..." Psalm 119:160 (KJV) 'Thy word is true from the beginning' Titus 1:2 (KJV) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began; Matthew 22:29 (KJV) Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err...more

Quote: No where in the Bible does it say we are to take it literally.

Actually it does.

2 Timothy 3:16-17 (NIV) "All Scripture is God-breathed..."
Psalm 119:160 (KJV) 'Thy word is true from the beginning'
Titus 1:2 (KJV) In hope of eternal life, which God, that cannot lie, promised before the world began;
Matthew 22:29 (KJV) Jesus answered and said unto them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God.
Proverbs 14:5 (KJV) A faithful witness will not lie: but a false witness will utter lies.
Proverbs 19:9 (KJV) A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall perish.

Since Scripture is God breathed and God can not lie, all Scripture must be literally true.less

MuggleBorn Thanks for the cool article! http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070227-ocean-asia.html To quote it: If things changed, he said, "we'd have Pike's Peak boat tours." Hehe, that's priceless.... Ok goodnight, and this time I really mean it...

agentorange, I think post you made Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:35 pm demonstrates so well the point I have been making (I have had to mixed the order of the points to get them and my responses to fit in only three post and will enter them so that Part 1 is highest not lowest). Part 1 Me: “I can not condense twenty years of pro-evolutionary source reading into one paragraph. I have discussed t...more

agentorange,

I think post you made Sat Mar 08, 2008 4:35 pm demonstrates so well the point I have been making (I have had to mixed the order of the points to get them and my responses to fit in only three post and will enter them so that Part 1 is highest not lowest).

Part 1

Me: “I can not condense twenty years of pro-evolutionary source reading into one paragraph. I have discussed the 98% identical chimp/human DNA”

Quote: "Yes, and wrongly. You pointed out an ‘estimate’ from a 2002 article that they contain 10% more DNA (base pairs then us) to which you still haven’t backed up. Again, [>>]I call BS[<<]."

So, I showed you the article, and you admit it, and yet you still insult me and call me a liar.

agentorange link: www.nature.com/nature/journal/v434/n7034/abs/nature03466.html

First, as before, this Nature article says nothing about the size of Human or Chimp DNA.

agentorange link: by Alvin Powell www.hno.harvard.edu/gazette/2005/09.15/11-chimp.html
vs
my links: by Jonathon Marks www.ucpress.edu/books/pages/9172.php
personal.uncc.edu/jmarks/
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jonathan_Marks

Second, let's see, Alvin Powell, a writer for a University paper of unknown background (probably a journalism student), verses Jonathon Marks, a well respected professer, Genetist, and Biological Anthropologist with 25 years of experience, and you want me to believe which one?less