CreateDebate is a social debate community built around ideas, discussion and democracy.
If this is your first time checking out a debate, here are some quick tips to help get you started:
Arguments with the highest score are displayed first.
Argument replies (both in favor and in opposition) are displayed below the original argument.
To follow along, you may find it helpful to show and hide the replies displayed below each argument.
To vote for an argument, use these icons:
You have the power to cast exactly one vote (either up or down) for each argument.
Once you vote, the icon will become grayed out and the argument's score will change.
Yes, you can change your vote.
Debate scores, side scores and tag scores are automatically calculated by an algorithm that primarily takes argument scores into account.
All scores are updated in real-time.
To learn more about the CreateDebate scoring system, check out the FAQ.
When you are ready to voice your opinion, use the Add Argument button to create an argument.
If you would like to address an existing argument, use the Support and Dispute link within that argument to create a new reply.
I think what you are talking about is Theistic Evolution, and there are many Christians who subscribe to it.
Notable Christian evolutionary biologists include Martin Nowak and Ken Miller.
"Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution" - Theodosius Dobzhansky (Geneticist, Evolutionary Biologist and Eastern Orthadox Christian)
I think andsoccer basically said it all. Theistic Evolution, the believe that evolution is influenced by God or a divine being. That's a great example of being a true Christian and still believing in evolution.
There is also the fact that not every Christian has to believe every word from the Bible verbatim, but that's a different story.
I don't know what constitutes as a "true Christian" since there is no universal agreement among and between differing denominations. I'll leave that for the theists to figure out. I do, however, know a few Christians who actually believe in evolution.
It is true that the Catholic church made some vague remark about how God could have created complex organisms through evolution (sort of like the ghost in the machine)
But that is just them bending their own rules in my opnion. Catholic priests bend rules at least as much as they get small boys to bend over for them
Why yes that is the case, when I last checked in on the Catholic church their official stance was along the lines of Old Earth Creationism^1 (not a source, merely Wikipedia on the subject). As far as my experience goes with catholics is that they are the most hard-lined of Christians.
The Vatican agrees with the big bang, but think that nothing before that besides god, existed in their eyes it PROVES he exists.^2 (also covers their view on evolution)
The catholic church also teaches false doctrine. They think you have to go to a priest to be forgiven for your sins and have to make sacrifice. Jesus Christ gave himself for a sacrifice and said anyone that comes to me I will forgive. Apparently they thought he was just kidding. They pray to mary, pray to priests, pray to the saints. So you cant take their word for anything
Biology defines life along the lines as this... (From a textbook I have laying around on these sorts of things) EDIT: Wikipedia apparently uses the same definition as my textbook.
Homeostasis: Regulation of the internal environment to maintain a constant state; for example, electrolyte concentration or sweating to reduce temperature.
Organization: Being structurally composed of one or more cells, which are the basic units of life.
Metabolism: Transformation of energy by converting chemicals and energy into cellular components (anabolism) and decomposing organic matter (catabolism). Living things require energy to maintain internal organization (homeostasis) and to produce the other phenomena associated with life.
Growth: Maintenance of a higher rate of anabolism than catabolism. A growing organism increases in size in all of its parts, rather than simply accumulating matter.
Adaptation: The ability to change over a period of time in response to the environment. This ability is fundamental to the process of evolution and is determined by the organism's heredity as well as the composition of metabolized substances, and external factors present.
Response to stimuli: A response can take many forms, from the contraction of a unicellular organism to external chemicals, to complex reactions involving all the senses of multicellular organisms. A response is often expressed by motion, for example, the leaves of a plant turning toward the sun (phototropism) and by chemotaxis.
Reproduction: The ability to produce new individual organisms, either asexually from a single parent organism, or sexually from two parent organisms.
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."
--Albert Einstein
Science has provided many answers in the pursuit of knowledge, yet science is only created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration toward truth and understanding where faith must accompany knowledge and rational whereas religion has many faults throughout history due to the what little knowledge obtained, and science has provided to fill in these gaps and amend faith.
If you believe in evolution you have to have faith in that because there is no proof in it there is no scientific facts in it and there is no truth in it so you are also relying on faith.. Dr.Kent Hovind has an offer out for $250,000 if anyone can give absolute 100% proof that evolution is a fact. Noone can provide him that evidence. If you think you can then send your information to his ministry and he will prove it wrong if not I will gladly match his offer and pay you myself!
The scientific process eliminates faith, by design. You don't need faith, because the scientific process relies on a series of steps of validation.
Kent Hovind is a con man. He purchased his unaccredited degree from a diploma mill, he is not a doctor, never was. He makes a reputation out of deceiving people. This is why he is sitting behind bars for Tax evasion.
Thats the point of evolution to try to eliminate the existance of God but theres no proof in it theres no getting rid of God.
The unscientific religion of evolution eliminates faith in God and creates faith in ignorance and false theorys. Dr.Kent Hovind is hated by people like you because he thrashes you in debates and shuts your mouth because you cant stand up to or beat the truth and cant take the truth, you claim evolution isnt a religion but your whole theory is based on faith because you literally have no proof of evolution the big bang theory or any other of your religions. You dont even know the whole story of why Dr.Hovind is in jail. He had the money to pay the taxes he normally when someone owes taxes they pay them and dont have to go to jail but he for some reason is in jail even though he offered to pay them and had the money to pay them. See all the stuff he was tellin about the government.
And Dr.Hovind does have a diploma that he recieved in college. He taught in public schools for 15 years, how many people do you know that can do that without a degree? You just get your information like the evolutionists to they make it up because they dont like the truth
Evolution (or science in general) does not try to disprove or eliminate God, the existence of God is not even a scientific matter, it is a philosophical matter. Why is it that creationists try to prove their God with science, but when science contradicts their claims they insist that the SCIENCE MUST BE WRONG!?
Creationists don't just reject evolution, they reject all science that contradicts their religious beliefs, and then they attack the science itself. They reject most of modern biology, geology, ontogeny, astronomy, and chemistry.
Kent Hovind, went to "Bible Patriot University" which was just a double-wide trailer that sells fake degrees. You can see a picture of his prestigious university in the link below:
He was never a public school teacher, in fact has has made comments that he doesn't believe in public schools. He was employed by three different private baptists schools (one which he himself started) for about 8 years, none of which required any kind of degree or educational background.
well duh they contradict the bible theyre wrong and when theyre proved wrong you evolutionist have nothing to say. study your religions youll see there is no proof its all theorys and guesses of what could have happened and Dr.Hovind explains to morons and proves them wrong clearly on video any ignorant person can see. Its not true science its a religion. And if Dr.Hovind is not accredited and educated whats that say for your so called experts that cant stand up to him or prove him wrong they must be pretty stupid if a dummy can shut their mouths
Thats the point of evolution to try to eliminate the existance of God but theres no proof in it theres no getting rid of God.
No the point of evolution is to explain the diversity of life. It doesn't even mention God.
"Dr." Kent Hovind is a joke. His doctorate is in Christian education and is from unaccredited universities. Even other creationist websites agree that the guy makes terrible arguments. In addition, your information about Hovind is incorrect. He taught at private Christian schools, and therefore was not required to have any actual teaching credentials. This man knows about as much about science as the average school janitor, yet claims to be an expert.
Hovind has never thrashed anybody in any argument unless he has been arguing with toddlers.
thats why he debates so called experts in the field of evolution and other religions men and women who have years and years of training and college (education). You say hes wrong even though he clearly states the truth and proves so called experts wrong cant be denied its on video. if theyre so right why are they not taking him up on his offer and collecting the money when his offer is a public offer and the evidence can be presented infront of everyone? Your just an evolutionist and nothing is going to change your mind because you cant accept the truth youd rather look at lies and take them as truth.
To my knowledge Kent Hovind hasn't debated anyone. If you have him debating someone on video I would like to see it.
Scientists don't debate Hovind for the same reason Historians don't debate conspiracy Theorists. It's a waste of time.
You say hes wrong even though he clearly states the truth and proves so called experts wrong
As I've said elsewhere. Your 'truth' looks a lot like most peoples opinions.
If theyre so right why are they not taking him up on his offer and collecting the money
Because his 'offer' is a scam. It's specifically designed to be un-collectible. He defines evolution is such a way as to make it impossible to empirically prove. You don't just need to prove evolution, you need to prove that "matter created itself" (his words) to collect, which isn't what evolution says anyway.
Hovind has no education in evolutionary biology. Period. This is not some opinion but a fact.
If you can show me one time he actually debated an real scientist then I would love to see it.
If you think he's right, dispute my points. I pointed out where he is wrong, and would be happy to point out more reasons. I actually have some education in astronomy, so if you wanted to look at why some of astronomical arguments are hilariously inaccurate then I would be happy to debate you on the evidence.
I look at evidence, not lies. Hovind is a conspiracy theorist, and even other creationists are embarrassed by some of the things he says.
Seriously though, I will debunk any argument of his you wish to present (astronomy or not). Go ahead...if he's right you should have nothing to fear.
By Christianity's core ideals itself we believe that every thing in this universe was created by the grace of god. Now we, as a developed species have discovered our history and the big bang etc. etc but none of that could have occurred with out a higher power. By your own arguments we have to observe that there is no way adam and eve ever existed and the closest thing to a miracle is gods creation of our pathetic planet in the first place
How else would you explain how chickens have the same bone structure as the t-Rex? I believe that God created evolution and everything else along those lines
You refer to bone structure as being similar, let me ask you could that mean that dinosaurs evolved into birds which is a common evolutionary idea. Yet in the millions of years of evolution from dinosaurs to birds we don't have one "transitional" form. Evolution is a long slow process which supposedly has many transitions. Yet we can not find any in the fossil record. All we see is horses have been horses, birds have been birds, and everything else the same. That no evolving has led to an increase in genetic information. Only mutations that lose certain genetic traits. This is a downgrade not "evolution".
I dont think that the whole creation story was meant to tell us the exact science of the creation of the world. Like we know from hard evidence that the world was not created in six literal days. Even the bible does not refer to a day as 24 hours.
There is no evidence that the world is millions of years old, if so what is the evidence? you only have mans opinions crappy one at that! The bible does say that God created the world in 6 literal 24 hour days, it says he created the light and divided it from the darkness and the darkness is night and the light is day that tells that one day is 24 hours 12 hours of night and 12 hours of day! Its been that way since he created it and its still that way now! If you say you believe in God and the bible how can you believe he can create everything and not be able to do it in the time he said he did? You believe people come from apes but God said he created man, and beast he never said he created a monkey and waited 10 billion years till he turned into a man!
There is no evidence that the world is millions of years old.
You're right. But we do have evidence that it is billions of years old.
Following the scientific revolution and the development of radiometric age dating, measurements of lead in uranium-rich minerals showed that some were in excess of a billion years old. The oldest such minerals analyzed to date – small crystals of zircon from the Jack Hills of Western Australia – are at least 4.404 billion years old.
If you are going to recommend radiometric dating. Then how do you suppose we find carbon 14 inside some diamonds which are supposed to be at a minimum one billion years old. Especially since C 14 has a half life of 5,750 years. That is quite a descrepancy.
There are several things wrong with this statement.
1. C14 is not used to measure anything over 60,000 years old. Anyone who attempts to do otherwise is not being very scientific.
2. C14 isn't the only radio-isotope utilized to measure the age of a sample.
3. Diamond's aren't alive, they are minerals, so only a complete imbecile would use c14 to measure the age of a diamond.
This all, only goes to demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about. please take the time to educate yourself on the topic in which you are attempting to debate by going to this educational website:
What I was saying is that we find carbon atoms inside some diamonds, which if they are a billion years old we would not see any carbon at all. If C14 isn't used to measure anything over 60,000 years old, then why do they use it on dinosaur fossils? They are obviously much older then 60,000 years. According to an evolutionary theory.
As far as research goes, look into the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) and see for yourself the scientific research. What I want to ask you is if you believe the dating methods you believe in are accurate? Keep in mind you are relying on consistent atmospheric conditions since the time your test sample originated until present day.
If you believe in consistent atmospheric conditions for milllions and millions of years. Then why have we seen a 10% decrease since a renowned German mathematician, began tracking our magnetic field since the 1800s. If you know anything of cosmic radiation then you must know the magnetic field has everything to do with our atmosphere.
Perhaps you should educate yourself to the truth of scientific methods. Think critically don't just follow the ideas of men.
What I was saying is that we find carbon atoms inside some diamonds, which if they are a billion years old we would not see any carbon at all.
[Sigh] Must I teach you everything? Yes, there is carbon in diamonds, but you can't just use any carbon to date a sample, you need two different types of radioactive carbon isotopes to compare against each other. We can date organic samples containing C-14 and C-12 because we know they all start out with the same ratio.
If C14 isn't used to measure anything over 60,000 years old, then why do they use it on dinosaur fossils?
Simple. They don't. Researchers use other methods to date dinosaur fossils.
As far as research goes, look into the RATE group (Radioisotopes and the Age of The Earth) and see for yourself the scientific research. What I want to ask you is if you believe the dating methods you believe in are accurate? Keep in mind you are relying on consistent atmospheric conditions since the time your test sample originated until present day.
First of all, the RATE group was started by the ICR (institute for creation research) attempting to prove their biblical views. They sought to prove a pre-conceived conclusion, this VIOLATES the scientific method and thus cannot be regarded as scientific. If you have something specific in mind that you think best supports a young earth (thousands of years) from this RATE group, please provide it in your own words and a source, and I will look at it and give my analysis.
Second of all, atmospheric conditions account for less than %1 of radioactive decay rates. No matter how you slice and dice it, this will still give us 4 billion year old earth give or take a few million years. The numbers don't lie.
How can you say that cosmic radiation only accounts for 1% of radioactive decay rates? You should know UV rays are essential to splitting the atoms in the atmosphere to create unstable elements.
Mt. St. Helens lava dome and potassium-argon dating. This study was real science it was observational. Not speculative like the theory of evolution.
What is wrong with ICR they are scientists with degrees from secular universities, much like the ones whose studies you defend.
By the way it was C14 they found in diamonds, not the stable non-decaying C12 I am sure you are leading too.
How can you say that cosmic radiation only accounts for 1% of radioactive decay rates? You should know UV rays are essential to splitting the atoms in the atmosphere to create unstable elements.
I didn't say anything about cosmic radiation, I said "atmospheric conditions" in regards to the decay rate of known elements. UV rays do not split carbon atoms, or argon atoms or any other atom used for radiometric dating, as far as I know. UV rays split oxygen MOLECULES (not atoms), which is an important process in the earth's ozone production. If you were to split a carbon atom (or most any atom for that matter), you would have an effect similar to the Hiroshima bombing.
By the way it was C14 they found in diamonds, not the stable non-decaying C12 I am sure you are leading too.
[sigh] Conversing with you on this subject is like trying to teach a 4th grader quantum mechanics. First of all there is a huge difference between a carbon atom and a carbon isotope. You don't seem to have any understanding as to what an isotope is and in order to explain this it's really important that you understand this. C-14 is a carbon isotope. Carbon atoms are not normally radioactive. There is little to no C-14 in diamonds. All living things absorb C-14 from the air at a fairly steady rate, and when they die this process of carbon absorption stops, we use the ratio of c-14 to c-12 to determine age and this is the reason we use c-14 for organic materials. Diamonds do not absorb c-14 from the air, and so this process would not work for diamonds.
There you go again saying you have proof and yet again you have no proof raidometric age dating? Come on youve got to be kidding. thats about as terrible and off as carbon dating. But if youre so sure that it works and you think have proof Go to www.drdino.com and theres phone numbers emails and mailing addresses on there. Send your so called proof or you can go in person and show your proof and walk away with $250,000 then come to me and I'll match the payment. Dr.Kent Hovind offers $250,000 for actual proof scientific evidence that evolution is true, the earth is millions or billions of years old or the big bang theory. It has been showed that raidometric dating is not accurate. When your going to the websites copying and pasting the stuff that your putting on here and dont know what your talking about why dont you take a second stop and read a little about it and read some other things about it not just one mans opinion on the subject
raidometric age dating? Come on youve got to be kidding. thats about as terrible and off as carbon dating.
Carbon dating is radiometric, you idiot. There are various radiometric dating techniques, both argon-dating and carbon-dating being prime examples of those techniques.
Every one of your posts are comic gold! You're not doing much to fight the stereotype that creationists are vastly unintelligent. "Dr.Dino" is not a doctor nor does he have any expertise on paleontology whatsoever. The challenge is specifically designed so that collecting the reward money is impossible. His definition of 'evolution' is both incorrect and unprovable. 99% of scientists in related fields already accept that the theory of evolution is true beyond reasonable doubt.
If theyre the same thing why do they say carbon dating only goes back to 66,000 years and they had to use radiometric dating to go back further. They saw that error and had to find another idea. they cant even get a date right they have to guestimate the age then do their test. The challenge is made to show that collecting the reward money is impossible because they cannot show proof simple as that, if they could show proof they would but they cant so the money stays with Dr.Hovind. His definition of evolution isnt incorrect i agree. the definition is "Theory without proof or common sense"
Radiometric dating, is any dating system which uses the known radioactive decay rate of isotopes to measure age. Carbon dating is a TYPE of radiometric dating, c-14 is one of those isotopes I was talking about. There are several types of radiometric dating. I'm probably wasting my time, I doubt you even know what radioactive decay means or what an isotope is.
Which is why I find it slightly humorous that you insists so ardently that it's wrong even though you don't know what it is or how it works. I'm starting to wonder if this is all an act or if you are actually as stupid as you sound.
Obviously! If civilisation is to ever move forward in a productive direction, science and religion must march together. There's science in religion, and religion and science. True, they are considered quite opposing in nature, but many great scientists like Einstein, Newton and Da Vinci believed in God, and many prophets and saints encouraged scientific thought. Evolution is a widely accepted theory, and there's nothing wrong with a person believing in God also propagating scientific ideas.
A true Christian is one who believes in the Bible, Christ, and God. Seeing as how the Bible does not endorse evolution - theistic or otherwise - then it is most logical to assume that, based on the supplied definition of a 'true Christian', he cannot also believe in evolution.
Theistic evolution is as convoluted a belief as 'Positive Christianity'.
You are not one of those trench coat wannabe vampires that are nihilists and belive in nothing?
I've always wanted a trench coat...
No, I do not think of myself as a vampire, nor even a wannabe vampire. I am not a nihilist, and I do believe things. However, I do not 'know' things as you would think it. I will accept something, but I will always doubt it.
In terms of "beliving in nothing" - Is gravity something you have reservations about?
just really have to clarify: no one believes that all life evolved from an amoeba, or that anything evolved from any modern amoeba. An amoeba is a present-day protozoan, which is a protist. The mainstream view of a monophyletic story of life involves a complex biochemical history leading up to a primitive prokaryote and thence diverging over billions of years into the diversity of life we see today, including modern prokaryotes (bacteria), amoebas and humans.
Hypocrisy: complaining time and time again that atheists down-vote your arguments, and yet down-voting an argument without even giving a reason why.
Considering the fact that the Catholic church has accepted evolution and the Catholic church has over 1 billion followers, I'd say that you're leaving out quite a few people who consider themselves true Christians. The bible also doesn't mention gravity, modern medicine, quantum mechanics, or any of the other discoveries of the past couple hundred years, but I'd say that Christianity is in trouble if it requires the rejection of these as well.
Creationism is mostly a phenomenon of evangelical Christians, and rejection of science isn't really useful to anyone.
Also...Nazis? Really? Is that how low you've sunk that you are willing to just jump to comparing Christians who accept a proven scientific theory to Nazis?
Hypocrisy: complaining time and time again that atheists down-vote your arguments, and yet down-voting an argument without even giving a reason why.
When? Where?
I get it all the time; get used to it.
Considering the fact that the Catholic church has accepted evolution and the Catholic church has over 1 billion followers
Just because the Catholic Church has altered their dogma does not mean that each individual Catholic will.
, I'd say that you're leaving out quite a few people who consider themselves true Christians.
Quite a few do. However, if you read my argument carefully, you'll see that I account for that.
Creationism is mostly a phenomenon of evangelical Christians, and rejection of science isn't really useful to anyone.
I don't reject science for the sake of it being irreligious, rather I reject science because I am a fallibilist. I reject most everything else as well.
Also...Nazis? Really? Is that how low you've sunk that you are willing to just jump to comparing Christians who accept a proven scientific theory to Nazis?
I said that theistic evolution is as convoluted as Positive Christianity. Positive Christianity made false claims about the Bible in a similar manner as theistic evolution does.
Here. A couple hours ago. Did you not know that you can see who people have downvoted? So If you want to pretend you weren't the one who downvoted me on the other side I suggest clicking on your reward points and scrolling down to where it says -1 in this debate, clicking on it and see what argument lights up. I bet its the one on the other side of this debate that I made.
Don't get too upset though, I stopped caring about downvotes a long time ago (you should have been here before they took away reward points for downvotes), but I just thought the hypocrisy was worth noting since you always seem to whine about it.
Just because the Catholic Church has altered their dogma does not mean that each individual Catholic will.
Considering they "altered their dogma" over 100 years ago, I'm guessing that those Catholics that would have had to change their dogma to accept evolution have died by now. Also there's the fact that Catholics kinda take what the pope says seriously (you know, the whole God's voice on earth is sorta a big deal to them).
As far as "endorsing evolution," like I said, there are a lot of things no mentioned in the Bible, but a religion shouldn't be about denying reality.
Now on to fallibilism a subject that you clearly don't actually understand. I must reiterate that you absolutely need to learn the difference between science in philosophy. You can make a philosophical argument that there is no such thing as knowledge, however, it isn't useful in our everyday life. Science, on the other hand relies on the scientific method, and through the scientific method evolution has been proven beyond any reasonable doubt. Science never claims 100% certainty, and as more evidence comes to light we always update our theories. For example, Newton's theory of gravity did a great job explaining most basic interactions between masses. In fact it was so accurate we still use it today; however, Einstein's theory of general theory of relativity came along and essentially updated the theory so that it could explain gravity better. Does this mean that we should have rejected Newton's laws? Fuck no. Those laws advanced physics in an unprecedented way, and allowed tremendous advancement both in human knowledge and technological achievement. Such is the case with all scientific knowledge. Though impossible to prove with absolute certainty it still proves to be extremely useful, and were we to judge the scientific method based solely on that merit then it is probably the greatest idea ever created by mankind. Think for a moment about your life. Seriously think about. How would it be different if it weren't for the fantastic achievements of scientific pursuit. You are reading this argument on a computer in a room under light that is powered by electricity. What is the source of this electricity? Probably coal if you're in the U.S. but it could also be from Nuclear power, solar or wind. If you want to go somewhere you can find your way using a GPS, an invention that would be completely inaccurate were it not for Einstein's theory of relativity.
But please, go on to deny that we can know anything while you continue to enjoy the fruits of scientific labor.
Here. A couple hours ago. Did you not know that you can see who people have downvoted? So If you want to pretend you weren't the one who downvoted me on the other side I suggest clicking on your reward points and scrolling down to where it says -1 in this debate, clicking on it and see what argument lights up. I bet its the one on the other side of this debate that I made.
I don't pay attention to that stuff.
Besides, you can't prove that it was me who down-voted your argument, rather than a different one.
Don't get too upset though, I stopped caring about downvotes a long time ago
You've so many followers I thought you only got up-votes.
you should have been here before they took away reward points for downvotes
That's what everybody says.
but I just thought the hypocrisy was worth noting since you always seem to whine about it.
When in Rome...
Considering they "altered their dogma" over 100 years ago, I'm guessing that those Catholics that would have had to change their dogma to accept evolution have died by now.
Now you are the one generalizing. People, even when part of a religious organization, have their own personal beliefs. If it is their belief that the Bible is to be taken literally, or that there is not enough proof of evolution, or any other idea they may have, they're Catholicism is not indicative of a belief in evolution.
You can make a philosophical argument that there is no such thing as knowledge, however, it isn't useful in our everyday life.
I realize that.
However, nobody has yet to answer my question:
Does it matter if I personally accept evolution?
Everybody keeps going on 'of course it matters! It's the truth!' But, with an atheistic worldview, how can a personal belief matter?
Now on to fallibilism a subject that you clearly don't actually understand.
I've read other things about it, but I feel the following statement to be one of the best.
Here is what wikipedia says about fallibilism:
"Unlike scepticism, fallibilism does not imply the need to abandon our knowledge - we needn't have logically conclusive justifications for what we know. Rather, it is an admission that, because empirical knowledge can be revised by further observation, any of the things we take as knowledge might possibly turn out to be false. Some fallibilists make an exception for things that are axiomatically true (such as mathematical and logical knowledge). Others remain fallibilists about these as well, on the basis that, even if these axiomatic systems are in a sense infallible, we are still capable of error when working with these systems. The critical rationalist Hans Albert argues that it is impossible to prove any truth with certainty, even in logic and mathematics. This argument is called the Münchhausen Trilemma."
Science never claims 100% certainty
Then why are people so obsessed with saying "[X] is real... [X] is fact!' Linguistic accuracy dictates that one must write '[X] most likely is fact.'
You are reading this argument on a computer in a room under light that is powered by electricity.
I'd have a charmed life. I've long contemplated abandoning all technology and living in rural Iceland. Perhaps, just perhaps, I'll go through with it someday.
But please, go on to deny that we can know anything while you continue to enjoy the fruits of scientific labor.
Besides, you can't prove that it was me who down-voted your argument, rather than a different one.
Not that it matter but yeah I can. Like I said, the argument that you downvoted lights up yellow. That argument happens to be mine, so stop denying it because you come off sounding like an idiot.
You keep asking questions like: does it matter? Of course not, I don't really give a shit if some random loser doesn't accept evolutionary biology, but we're on a debate site, and if your opinions are wrong expect them to be challenged. Don't hide behind the fact that "nothing matters." Clearly it matters to you or you wouldn't spend so much time arguing about it.
I've always found positions like nihilism (a more accurate description of your beliefs based on this last argument) to be immature and intellectually lazy. For these people their very actions betray their supposed beliefs. You leave no room for circumstantial evidence, and therefore
I noticed that you completely disregard the whole: "science is useful" argument, and I can only assume that is because you have no response. Is it coincidence or are we able to grasp some small light of truth in our pursuit of knowledge.
As far as the Catholic thing, I never claimed that all catholics follow the pope's teachings exactly but a lot of people do take what he says seriously, and as such a large portion of Catholics do accept evolution. Since this is the official position of the Catholic church it means that many "true Christians" do accept evolution.
So in summary: You are wrong about everything and I don't give a shit where you want to live. I am finished with this debate and any other debate where you choose to bring up fallibilism in a way that isn't purely philosophical.
Not that it matter but yeah I can. Like I said, the argument that you downvoted lights up yellow. That argument happens to be mine, so stop denying it because you come off sounding like an idiot.
I was not trying to deny it. Like I said, I didn't really pay much attention. I read the argument, thought that it was religiously unsound, and down-voted it. I dislike it when inaccurate arguments get up-voted so much.
does it matter? Of course not, I don't really give a shit if some random loser doesn't accept evolutionary biology, but we're on a debate site, and if your opinions are wrong expect them to be challenged.
If it does not matter, then why do others - not just in debating - force it on people. I've recently had an extremely long debate on another site about subliminal messaging and stuff and I really don't feel like going over it again.
So - if it doesn't matter, why do people insult, criticize, and shun those who disagree? (The following is rhetorical) A belief in evolution breeds a disbelief in religion. Why other than an attempt at proselytization would they treat non-believers in so unfavorable a manner?
Clearly it matters to you or you wouldn't spend so much time arguing about it.
It doesn't matter other than that I enjoy debating. Just to prove it to you, I'll pick an argument against a creationist, in which I argue in favor of evolution if you'd like.
I can only assume that is because you have no response.
I have responses: agendas, hoaxes, bias, misrepresentation, lies, incomplete evidence, etc. Nobody wants to hear those.
Since this is the official position of the Catholic church it means that many "true Christians" do accept evolution.
What makes a Catholic any truer than a Protestant? "True Christians", depending on with whom you are speaking will say 'Catholics', 'Protestants', 'Mormons', 'Jehovah's Witness'. etc.
I know I said that I wasn't going to continue this debate but your argument is so full of contradictions that there is no way I can stand by and let it stand.
Firstly, evolution/science doesn't necessarily breed a disbelief in religion, however, it will cause people to turn away from religions that blatantly deny facts. How do you think Galileo felt when he was forced to say that the earth was the center of the solar system? By denying evolution religion is hurting itself.
I have responses: agendas, hoaxes, bias, misrepresentation, lies, incomplete evidence, etc. Nobody wants to hear those.
I don't think you do have arguments, or at least not good ones, but I am all ears. Based on previous arguments I've seen I'm gonna assume you're going to copy and paste some inaccurate facts from a creationist site, but hey go right ahead. I would be more than happy to actually discuss the evidence.
But what you are actually saying is that science isn't true and it really is a coincidence that when I press buttons on my keyboard it causes this computer to work? It's a coincidence that GPS systems programmed to take relativity into account tell me exactly where I am? It's a coincidence that the fossil record shows animals that don't currently exist millions of years ago, but not animals that do?
Last time we had this type of argument you ended up listing qualifications for your opinion that evolution couldn't be true in spite of the fact that you know next to nothing about biology or any other related subject.
But hey, maybe this time you'll do better.
What makes a Catholic any truer than a Protestant? "True Christians", depending on with whom you are speaking will say 'Catholics', 'Protestants', 'Mormons', 'Jehovah's Witness'. etc.
Exactly! I'm not saying that Catholicism is the only true religion, or that you have to believe in evolution to be a true Christian, but that there are "true Christians" who believe in evolution. This is the major contradiction of your argument: you claim to be able to define what a true Christian is, and you fail to say why a belief in evolution precludes someone from this title in spite of the fact that the majority of people in the largest group of Christians accept evolution. You are guilty of your own accusation.
Considering the fact that the Catholic church has accepted evolution and the Catholic church has over 1 billion followers, I'd say that you're leaving out quite a few people who consider themselves true Christians.
They may consider themselves true Christians but that doesn't mean anything. The religious text is about biblical consistency, not personal freedom. If you centre your religion around only picking up the convenient parts of the religious text, then you aren't "true" at all.
Creationism is mostly a phenomenon of evangelical Christians, and rejection of science isn't really useful to anyone.
The thing about them is that even though they are crazy for believing in faith healing, witches and a 6000 year old earth, they are still a whole lot more biblical than many of the other sects.
The difference between the Catholic Church and Protestant religions is the authority of the pope and Church doctrine in general.
In addition, any text is can be subject to interpretation. The biblical story of creation doesn't have to be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how the earth was made.
The difference between the Catholic Church and Protestant religions is the authority of the pope and Church doctrine in general.
This is true.
In addition, any text is can be subject to interpretation.
This is why there are dozens, perhaps hundreds of sects.
The biblical story of creation doesn't have to be interpreted as a literal and historical account of how the earth was made.
To be a "true Christian" I'm afraid it does have to be taken literally because of two basic reasons. The first is that the stories were written in a time when people believed this to be a true account of cosmology, so it's dubious that the authors intended this to be pure metaphor. The second is that this antiquated cosmology and notion of immutable kinds of animals is not mentioned sparingly but instead has recurring mentions in different stories.
What is a true Christian. If by that you mean someone that believes in the literal truth of the bible then it is obvious that the bible and evolutionary theory do not mix.
well first we probably would have to define what a true Christian IS, since there are many variations of Christianity if I'm not mistaken, i believe there was something on the Narzoreans or ebionites, I'm not well versed on the subject and the info Ive looked at may be a bit off
but if were talking about the original Christians being the true Christians, then no, the idea of evolution wasn't around at the time, so it would be impossible. but I'm not sure about a lot of the information I'm using.
I hate to agree with the fundies and charlatans like Ken Ham, but if you're a liberal, progressive Christian then you're not a "true" Christian because you've disobeyed so much of it. It also means you must believe in a flat earth that is stationary, covered in a dome with god in his throne at the top, with windows in the sky that let in rain, and four corners on the disk-like earth corresponding to cardinal directions which terminate in gates that let in all the forms of weather. Under the earth there is nothingness, and it is stationary, with the universe surrounding it. The earth is probably less than 10000 years old, and was created in six days.
That's part of the dogma you must believe in to call yourself a true Christian. Sorry, but those are the rules.
No, you can't. Genesis is clear. It states that God created every being according to its kind. If said sentence was missing, one could wager for the theistic evolution hypothesis, but the sentence is there. One has to willingly ignore it to accept evolution.
No, you can't. Genesis is clear. It states that God created every being according to its kind. If said sentence was missing, one could wager for the theistic evolution hypothesis, but the sentence is there. One has to willingly ignore it to accept evolution.
Wait to go with strawman so early in the discussion. You know your derision was completely unnecessary, don't you?
There is nothing in the Bible text that forces an interpretation of the Earth being flat and the Universe being geocentric. You're confusing the Bible with fundamentalism.
Wait to go with strawman so early in the discussion. You know your derision was completely unnecessary, don't you?
It's not a strawman as a number of creationists are flat-earthers and geocentricists.
Secondly it wasn't insincere. I have read numerous portions of the bible which both allude to a flat earth and state outright that the earth does not move. I believe the Bible to be a flat-earth book.
There is nothing in the Bible text that forces an interpretation of the Earth being flat and the Universe being geocentric. You're confusing the Bible with fundamentalism.
Hardly so. Well, you're a Jehova's Witness and their bibles have underwent numerous scripture rewrites, I'm speaking from NKJV, KJV, NIV translations.
It's not a strawman as a number of creationists are flat-earthers and geocentricists.
If I go to the closest hospice, I am sure that I will find a number of insane and mentally-challenged people there that believe in evolution. Should I equate evolutionists with insane and mentally-challenged people as well, since a number of them overlap? I will tell you, there is probably a lot more people that are insane and believe in evolution than people that are flat-earthers and creationists, simply because there are a lot more evolutionists than creationists.
I have read numerous portions of the bible which both allude to a flat earth and state outright that the earth does not move. I believe the Bible to be a flat-earth book.
And I believe you to not to be a Ancient Hebrew scholar, able to correct understand what the author meant to say. I also believe that the skeptics' annotated Bible is not a good translation of the Bible.
Well, you're a Jehova's Witness and their bibles have underwent numerous scripture rewrites,
There have never been a rewritting of NWT.
I'm speaking from NKJV, KJV, NIV
KJV is a terrible Bible. That's why there is a NKJV. NIV is a good translation, but there are better. I have a bone to pick with NIV because in all passages that are hard to translate, it follows KJV, so it is not really an improvement on the most important parts that needed such improvement.
I haven't had a chance to check NKJV, though, so I can't opinionate about it.
Regardless of this, you can't really pick a verse isolated from the Bible, and try to understand it outside of cultural, historical and literary context.
The best analogy I can give to Americans is the use of phrasal verbs in English. Think of yourself as person that is not American, with no knowledge of phrasal verbs, trying to translate the following English sentence to another language:
John was brought up by his grandparents.
Without the knowledge that "brought up" is a single semantic unit that has a widely different meaning than "brought" "up" as separated entities, you will invariably translate the sentence wrongly.
This is the Bible. Ancient Hebrew is a dead language. We can translate the 'brought up' as a single entity or as two separated entities, since both are possible.
If I go to the closest hospice, I am sure that I will find a number of insane and mentally-challenged people there that believe in evolution. Should I equate evolutionists with insane and mentally-challenged people as well, since a number of them overlap?
This would be a valid argument if the bible didn't allude to a flat, geocentric earth numerous times that support each other. If it was just a bunch of kooks who misinterpreted the bible or made stuff up, I'd agree.
And I believe you to not to be a Ancient Hebrew scholar, able to correct understand what the author meant to say. I also believe that the skeptics' annotated Bible is not a good translation of the Bible.
Barahshit barah elohim shamayim... etc.
But that was years ago so that I studied that stuff. Fun times.
I spent a day looking up passages and correlating translations to determine a picture, especially on unusual passages that seemed to make my argument too strong (because I believe in getting an accurate picture, and if something seems like a gift horse, I look in its mouth). I also looked at context. The matter is, Samuel Rowbotham and his predecessors were right, the bible does paint a picture of a flat earth.
Regardless of this, you can't really pick a verse isolated from the Bible, and try to understand it outside of cultural, historical and literary context.
I didn't. I searched for flat earth verses, looked at preceding and following passages, and checked with Enoch for any left out details.
This is the Bible. Ancient Hebrew is a dead language. We can translate the 'brought up' as a single entity or as two separated entities, since both are possible.
This would be a valid argument if the bible didn't allude to a flat, geocentric earth numerous times that support each other
It doesn't. Your knowledge of Ancient Hebrew is lacking, probably non-existing, actually.
I spent a day
A day? A single day? Certainly it was a very throught study of the around 31k verses of the Bible to give you an accurate picture.
looking up passages and correlating translations to determine a picture, especially on unusual passages that seemed to make my argument too strong
So, you claim to know Ancient Hebrew, and yet correlate translations to determine a picture? Lemme guess, KJV and Skeptic's ?
I also looked at context.
Certainly. With a whole day to study, you certainly had time for a complete contextual and historical analysis.
The matter is, Samuel Rowbotham and his predecessors were right, the bible does paint a picture of a flat earth.
So, lemme guess what actually happened. You googled 'Bible Flat Earth', stumbled upon some websites, found this Samuel Rowbotham guy, perused his arguments, decided that he was right, and now you are here defending his claims.
Specially when this Samuel guy was not a Hebrew scholar, but an English inventor, that wrote a whole new field of astronomy called Zetetic Astronomy which attempted to prove that the Earth was flat, and was many times sued for fraud and libel due to his "findings."
It is completely amazing that a person that spent his life trying to prove that the Earth was flat would somehow interpret the Bible as saying that the Earth was flat.
I searched for flat earth verses, looked at preceding and following passages, and checked with Enoch
Ahh, I see. I was wrong, then. You didn't really read the Bible, at all. What is 'Enoch?' Never heard of it.
Hence why I was careful with translations.
Certainly. You picked all the ones that supported your position.
A day? A single day? Certainly it was a very throught study of the around 31k verses of the Bible to give you an accurate picture.
For someone like me a day is a very long time.
So, you claim to know Ancient Hebrew, and yet correlate translations to determine a picture? Lemme guess, KJV and Skeptic's ?
I was learning biblical Hebrew before I lost my need for god. I never finished learning it because once I stopped believing in god, studying the untranslated bible seemed unnecessary.
Certainly. With a whole day to study, you certainly had time for a complete contextual and historical analysis.
A day is a long time for me.
So, lemme guess what actually happened. You googled 'Bible Flat Earth', stumbled upon some websites, found this Samuel Rowbotham guy, perused his arguments, decided that he was right, and now you are here defending his claims.
Not really. He was just one of the important figures in the modern flat earth movement, who reached his conclusions through biblical study and piecing it all together.
I reached my conclusion after hearing about the claim of a biblical flat earth, looking up reputable academic websites that discussed and supported it, and verifying their claims by checking their translations through cross referencing and looking at context to see if they were quoting metaphors.
The trouble is that is all fits together quite well, especially considering the beliefs of the day.
Specially when this Samuel guy was not a Hebrew scholar, but an English inventor, that wrote a whole new field of astronomy called Zetetic Astronomy which attempted to prove that the Earth was flat, and was many times sued for fraud and libel due to his "findings."
An old-day Kent Hovind.
It is completely amazing that a person that spent his life trying to prove that the Earth was flat would somehow interpret the Bible as saying that the Earth was flat.
Somehow? You never read it. Your problem is that a flat earth is so absurd that in your mind the bible cannot possibly have supported it, so anything affirming it you read with a modern-day mindset and make allowances for it as metaphor or poetry.
Ahh, I see. I was wrong, then. You didn't really read the Bible, at all. What is 'Enoch?' Never heard of it.
Part of the Apocrypha. It's canon to the Ethiopian Church, but because I read the bible as mythology, canonicity doesn't matter, just that the texts are part of a whole.
Certainly. You picked all the ones that supported your position.
You never the old testament, or glanced through it.
I don't see where evolution fits in with the Scriptures. Assuming a "true" Christian is one who believes the Bible and all it entails, one cannot be a true Christian and believe in evolution. These are simply not compatible. The Bible talks simply about creation, there is nothing about evolution.
1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth.
2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.
3 And God said, "Let there be light," and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and He separated the light from the darkness. 5 God called the light "day," and the darkness he called "night." And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.
6 And God said, "Let there be an expanse between the waters to separate water from water." 7 So God made the expanse and separated the water under the expanse from the water above it. And it was so. 8 God called the expanse "sky." And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.
9 And God said, "Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place, and let dry ground appear." And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground "land," and the gathered waters he called "seas." And God saw that it was good.
11 Then God said, "Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds." And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kinds and trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.
14 And God said, "Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark seasons and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth." And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.
20 And God said, "Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the expanse of the sky." 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living and moving thing with which the water teems, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, "Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth." 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.
24 And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind." And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.
26 Then God said, "Let us make man in our image, in our likeness, and let them rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air, over the livestock, over all the earth, and over all the creatures that move along the ground."
27 So God created man in his own image,
in the image of God he created him;
male and female he created them.
28 God blessed them and said to them, "Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish of the sea and the birds of the air and over every living creature that moves on the ground."
29 Then God said, "I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds of the air and all the creatures that move on the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food." And it was so.
31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.
1 Thus the heavens and the earth were completed in all their vast array.
2 By the seventh day God had finished the work he had been doing; so on the seventh day he rested from all his work. 3 And God blessed the seventh day and made it holy, because on it he rested from all the work of creating that he had done.
Adam and Eve
4 This is the account of the heavens and the earth when they were created.
When the LORD God made the earth and the heavens- 5 and no shrub of the field had yet appeared on the earth and no plant of the field had yet sprung up, for the LORD God had not sent rain on the earth and there was no man to work the ground, 6 but streams came up from the earth and watered the whole surface of the ground- 7 the LORD God formed the man from the dust of the ground and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life, and the man became a living being.
8 Now the LORD God had planted a garden in the east, in Eden; and there he put the man he had formed. 9 And the LORD God made all kinds of trees grow out of the ground—trees that were pleasing to the eye and good for food. In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
10 A river watering the garden flowed from Eden; from there it was separated into four headwaters. 11 The name of the first is the Pishon; it winds through the entire land of Havilah, where there is gold. 12 (The gold of that land is good; aromatic resin and onyx are also there.) 13 The name of the second river is the Gihon; it winds through the entire land of Cush. 14 The name of the third river is the Tigris; it runs along the east side of Asshur. And the fourth river is the Euphrates.
15 The LORD God took the man and put him in the Garden of Eden to work it and take care of it. 16 And the LORD God commanded the man, "You are free to eat from any tree in the garden; 17 but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat of it you will surely die."
18 The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
19 Now the LORD God had formed out of the ground all the beasts of the field and all the birds of the air. He brought them to the man to see what he would name them; and whatever the man called each living creature, that was its name. 20 So the man gave names to all the livestock, the birds of the air and all the beasts of the field.
But for Adam no suitable helper was found. 21 So the LORD God caused the man to fall into a deep sleep; and while he was sleeping, he took one of the man's ribs and closed up the place with flesh. 22 Then the LORD God made a woman from the rib he had taken out of the man, and he brought her to the man.
23 The man said,
"This is now bone of my bones
and flesh of my flesh;
she shall be called 'woman, '
for she was taken out of man."
24 For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.
25 The man and his wife were both naked, and they felt no shame.
Genesis 1&2;Notice how God created man? Man did not come from apes. Man was created by the hand of God, different from all animals. Personally, I think this is very straightforward. If you think that evolution is involved here, read the text more carefully.
No, if you believe in evolution, you believe God is a liar and he didnt create the world in 6 literal 24 hour days! God created the earth and everything in it in 6 days and rested on the 7th evolution says the world has been here millions of years people evolved monkeys. God said he created man and beasts and everything there is man didnt evolve from apes if so why is there still apes? there is no proof in evolution and it doesnt even make sense! If you believe in evolution then God is a liar to you and you dont believe a word he said!
I cannot help but find this post to be hilariously misinformed!
First and foremost, mankind did not evolve from monkeys, rather we share a common ancestor with them. This common ancestor was a primate, it's species split into two different species. One which evolved into apes and the other which evolved into monkeys and at some point the apes split again, giving us modern humans and the great apes we have today. Evolution is not linear.
Also it's worth pointing out that apes and monkeys are not the same thing.
Of course evolution is not going to make sense to you, you've not taken the time to understand it.
It is a waste of time to try to understand your religion. Give me on shred of evidence that man came from ape monkey whatever you say they came from. Give me proof!!
You have a closed-mind. You don't want to learn anything that might cause you to question things you thought you knew. You will never grow this way, you will forever be stuck in cognitive infancy. You must trust that there are people smarter than yourself from whom you can learn a great deal.
I will give you evidence, if you truly seek understanding....but you are not showing me that you will even bother to read or comprehend the evidence that I can provide you with.
So youre saying we were evolved from apes then? Why are there still apes why didnt they all evolve into humans. And also where is your proof that we evolved? You have no proof there is no proof its a religion that you have to have faith to believe!
yeah the bible says animals will bring forth animals after their kind.. a wolf is a dog theres are alot of different types of dogs but they are still dogs! I asked for proof of evolution, all you said is dogs came from dogs
evolutionist have their theory on neanderthols, that theyre the link between apes and humans, theres no proof in that if so what is it? How about humans head never quit growing throughout their entire life. Scientists show that to be a fact. In the bible people use to live to be up to 900 years old, living 900 hundred years youd have a pretty big head huh! makes more sense than we evolved from apes!
Scientists once thought that neanderthals were a link between men and apes, but this view was challenged. Through genetic testing it is now known that the neanderthals were a different species of human (hominid) that went extinct. Neanderthals lived at the same time as modern humans. No the head does not continue to grow indefinitely. Your head stops growing between age 21 and age 25. Only your nose and ears will continue to grow since they are made of cartilage.
Your theory that neadnerthals are just mishapen humans was struck with a devastating blow when genetic tests were performed which showed that not only were neanderthals not human they were very "not human".
The graph is the evidence, or rather a manifestation of the evidence. If what you're asking for is the raw data, it's in the professional scientific publications, which no lay person would be able to understand anyway.
You can see an analysis of what was found, read here:
That is just simply a news announcement. I would like to see the hard data. Which genomes are they comparing? What proteins are they tracking to see the divison or split? None of this is mentioned in your citing.
Like I said all of the hard data is in the scientific publications. But unless you have a very extensive education in a related field you won't understand the findings. It's not meant for regular people to read and understand, this is why they put it in laymen's terms when they report it in news magazines.
if you really want to see the hard data yourself, subscribe to a scientific journal, and look at the data for any recent evolutionary studies, and tell me what you see. Otherwise I can't help you if you can't even grasp basic scientific fundamentals, like how radiometric dating works or why you cannot age date a diamond using c14.
I'm familiar with answersingenesis. It's riddled with scientific inaccuracies. Most creationist arguments are derived from, if not an exact copy and paste from, the website.
So then you accept then that "lucy" is your ancestor. What about the fact there is no transitional forms that show from ape to man. We see this with "lucy" and other ape ancestors. They have a locking wrist (knuckle walker) and curved finger bones. How would one generation of apes just drop that genetic information and walk upright and not climb trees. How would an animal like that survive with an apelike intelligence. I would love to see evidence that shows me how a creature like that survived. You say evolution is not linear I agree. But the entire fossil record doesn't so a single instance of a change that adds genetic material. Only mutations that lose information.
So then you accept then that "lucy" is your ancestor
Lucy is a distant ancestor, one of many, yes.
What about the fact there is no transitional forms that show from ape to man.
What about Australopithecus? Homo Habilis? Homo Erectus? Ardipithecus? I just named three right there. Although strictly speaking we are apes, because we are hominids belonging to the ape superfamily. Either way the claim that no transitional fossils exist is absurd.
But the entire fossil record doesn't so a single instance of a change that adds genetic material.
First, define "genetic material". Then we can talk.
Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Ardipithecus, are all apes with curved fingers and locking wrists they walked on their knuckles definately not human.
According to Molnar, the modern human range runs from about 700cc to 2200cc,27 and this puts every adult erectus specimen comfortably into the range of modern humans, and this range also covers every adult example of archaic sapiens, Neanderthal, and Cro-Magnon Man.
Writing in 1985, Pellegrino conceded that the differences between H. erectus and modern man are merely superficial.28 On the same page he even discusses the probability that H. erectus and H. sapiens are one and the same species.
Now obviously if the distinctions between erectus and modern humans are merely superficial as Pellegrino admitted, then the differences between the earliest and the latest erectus specimens, and between erectus and archaic and Neanderthal sapiens are even more superficial; that is, there is a great probability that all erectus, Neanderthal and H. sapiens are closely related, with genetic, dietary, climatic, and other environmental diversity in evidence.
The genetic material I am referring to is chromosonal specifically protein, we don't see any addition or new genetic information. Only mutations that lose information, no such known increase in the DNA of any creature.
I find it funny that I never debate creationists, I am debating Answersingenesis, which you can only seem to copy and paste from.
Australopithecus, Homo Habilis, Ardipithecus, are all apes with curved fingers and locking wrists they walked on their knuckles definately not human.
I would argue that this is erroneous, but I know you are only distracting the fact that you said there were no transitions, and I provided four (why don't you mention homo erectus?). I don't recall "being entirely human" or "bipedalism" as prerequisites for consideration as a transitional fossil.
Of course some of the transitional fossils are not going to be human, this is what it means to TRANSITION. You must start from something, yes? Some of the fossil are more human than others. Now in your statement above "Homo Habilis" was a knuckle-walker which is entirely untrue. Both homo habilis and homo erectus walked upright.
Writing in 1985, Pellegrino conceded that the differences between H. erectus and modern man are merely superficial.
Well, that's nice, but he's not a biologist or a palaeontologist. He's just an author and a simple look at a the fossil remains show that the difference between modern humans and erectus are more than superficial. The cranial capacity and skull shape vary significantly.
What creationists are attempting to do is they are seeing the transitional species and they are attempting to draw a line and declaring everything to one side to be human and everything to the other side to be ape. It's the pigeonhole tactic. Pellegrino is doing exactly this, but no such delineation exists. So the transitionals are there, they're real fossils, real animals that are unlike any currently living animal, but share many human characteristics, but aren't human. So how does the creationist explain this? The erectus shows a transition from our older ancestors.
Please tell me the Homo erectus is just a misshapen human. Go on. I know you want to!
If the curved fingers and locking wrists are erroneous why then would that be hidden from the secular reports.
Why do you keep sending me pictures and graphs where are the scientific reports? The hard evidence.
The fact is evolution is a long slow process we don't see a transition from apes to humans. Just by "magic" we have an ape then we are shown a human. This is not a transition. I want to see the evidence. I have shown you that Erectus was human not an ape. So you lose that as a transition.
Show me an ape fossil that had straight fingers and toes and non-locking wrists. And a hip bone that showed an upright base to the spine, which would demonstrate bipedal function.
Show me an ape fossil that had straight fingers and toes and non-locking wrists. And a hip bone that showed an upright base to the spine, which would demonstrate bipedal function.
I have shown you that Erectus was human not an ape.
No you haven't. You gave me the opinion of a creationist author. Homo Erectus was a homindae, but not a homo sapien (as all modern humans are). It's a perfect example of a transitional fossil.
The first picture doesn't tell me what species this is supposed to be. Can you clarify please?
The second picture is art, and art is not evidence. I need to see skeletal remains.
If you immediately ignore a creation scientist with a doctorate from a highly accredited secular university, then there is nothing that would make you look rationally at the evidence.
If you immediately ignore a creation scientist with a doctorate from a highly accredited secular university, then there is nothing that would make you look rationally at the evidence.
Pellegrino didn't have a doctorate in any scientific field.
What I was saying about what you consider to be transitional, what you listed was ape or human not in between the species. You have to recognize that evolution is a long slow process. If you are telling me that these specimens are transitions, then we go from ape to a bipedal human creature within a generation? This does not seem to be a long slow process. We don't seem to agree on Habilis, but that is fine for now. And Erectus is a human if you read any of the material you would know it's well within cranial capacity. Neanderthals are humans too, don't let the brow line fool you (Aborigines) for example.
What I was saying about what you consider to be transitional, what you listed was ape or human not in between the species.
Ape is not a species, it is a superfamily to which humans already belong. Of course this probably doesn't mean much to you. But this is really a matter of semantics considering the fossils we are talking about share both human and early hominid characteristics.
Please define in concrete term what a human is. And please define in concrete terms what an ape is. Otherwise you are just arbitrarily declarring that 'this' fossil is human and 'that' fossil isn't. Because I know if I just showed you a side-by-side comparison of skulls you wouldn't be able to tell the difference.
So again, I ask, please define your terms before we can continue.
You have to recognize that evolution is a long slow process. If you are telling me that these specimens are transitions, then we go from ape to a bipedal human creature within a generation? This does not seem to be a long slow process
And how do you know how many generations these fossils are covering. This is a rhetorical question. The answer of course, is that you don't know. Obviously one species could not diverge into another in one generation, but these being fossils we are looking at, there is no telling how many generations have passed between them. The fossilization process is incredibly rare, and so hundreds and thousands of generations could have passed before fossilization occurs. And having several sets of fossils in a oldest, to youngest order, millions of generations could have conceivably passed between the oldest and youngest sets. making your claim that this happened over one generation, an uneducated one.
Nor do we find an ALL APE to ALL HUMAN scenario. Each fossil has it's own unique characteristics. The homo habilis, which you claim was "100% ape", possessed tool making capabilities and walked upright, which are both very human characteristics. The Australopithecus (comprising several known species) was also bipedal like modern humans, had a similar dental structure to modern humans, but had a more diminutive stature and cranial capacity.
It's also unsurprising that the less human the fossil is, the older it tends to be. Nor is there a lot of overlap (relatively speaking) in the time in which these creatures lived.
Habilis it's an ape what else you got for me. Where is the rest of the fossil i.e. hip bones, pelvis, fingers, and toes.
Just as I suspected you had to look it up. You were supposed to tell me just by looking at the skull, I knew you wouldn't be able to tell. At any rate, you have failed to define your terms.
I asked you to define human and ape, and you have not done so. How are we supposed to argue what's human and what's ape when we can't agree on the terms here?
Also you ignored just about everything else in that long post. No comment, on your bald assertion regarding the number of generations between fossils? No comment on how the time in which they lived, how the more "human" specimen lived more recently, and don't overlap with older specimen.
Even if all of these were ape species, they are completely unlike anything alive today, that much is clear. The creationist has trouble explaining where these creatures came from since they are never mentioned in the bible, and they have no explanation of where they went.
As a matter of fact, the same problem arises with nearly any fossilized creature. Over 98% of lifeforms that ever existed on earth are now extinct. Now with evolution you would expect that extinction would be a normal process, but in the creationist worldview everything is specially created, so how do they explain the astronomically high extinction level?
Please, make an argument. Your last post was greatly lacking in substance.
First of all, what was wrong with my answer of the origin of that skull? A descendant of Adam and Eve through the Noah family is what a human is, that's the definition. We see massive extinctions today this is very true. That point supports my position on why the "hominid" (evolutionist classification) class of apes are not present today. If you are looking at the Bible to research anthropology you find your answers. If you are looking at the Bible to define different species of ape you won't find it, if you consulted the hebrew-english lexicon you would know they don't classify such things. Ancient hebrew didn't classify species or different animals in the way we do now.
"Also you ignored just about everything else in that long post. No comment, on your bald assertion regarding the number of generations between fossils?"
There is no point to argue the dating methods used by evolutionist i.e. rates, half-lives, conditions at time of death, and etc.
High extinction is a result of sin.
Sin + Wages (atonement or punishment) = Death
Death entered the world through sin, the Bible cleary defines that because of Adam now the world is subject to the punishment. (Can't get more basic then that)
If you would like to discuss genetic mutations and degrading then by all means lets discuss it.
A descendant of Adam and Eve through the Noah family is what a human is, that's the definition.
The problem with that definition is that it's not incredibly useful. How are we supposed to know if a fossil is a decedent of Adam/Eve? Is there some test we can perform that would determine this? By your own definition, Adam is not a human because he cannot be a descendant of himself. In addition it's very pre-suppositional. Outside of the bible there is no record of adam and eve, the story is probably just an allegory.
Is there an objective way to determine whether a fossil is human or not?
We see massive extinctions today this is very true. That point supports my position on why the "hominid" (evolutionist classification) class of apes are not present today.
No it doesn't. Extinction is a natural process, some species are better adapted to changing conditions, extinction is bound to happen, but it takes time. There are many more extinct species than living species. The extinction that we see today is dwarfed by some of the mass extinction events that we see in the fossil record. Why would there be so many extinct species if all were specially created?
If you are looking at the Bible to research anthropology you find your answers.
...answers unsupported by known facts.
High extinction is a result of sin.
Sin + Wages (atonement or punishment) = Death
Death entered the world through sin, the Bible cleary defines that because of Adam now the world is subject to the punishment. (Can't get more basic then that)
Then explain why there are no dinosaurs, but the pachyderm seemed to have gone unaffected by sin?
If you would like to discuss genetic mutations and degrading then by all means lets discuss it.
Sure. Mutation is the result of errors in genetic replication, not some mythological punishment.
No scientist with any credibility has tried to claim that any of the species you just mentioned were purely quadrupedal. Bipedalism in primates is older than Ardi.
Congratulations, you have copied and pasted a list of creationist scientists. What you have failed to do is:
1. Make any reference to their reputation in the overall scientific community.
2. Outline why they think any of those fossils are obligatorily quadrupedal when the evidence (foramen magnum position, femur angle, spine shape, pelvis width/height, etc.) all points to bipedalism.
"..in the scientific community there is essentially universal agreement that the evidence of evolution is overwhelming, and the scientific consensus supporting the modern evolutionary synthesis is nearly absolute,[1][2].."
If I were to post a list of scientists supporters of evolution, it would be many, many, many times longer than yours. However, this by itself is meaningless; at times, the majority of a demographic may hold a belief that is utterly foolish. This is why actual information is preferred.
You will see that the pelvis and spine shape are key factors that determine if a creature is bipedal or not.
This is exactly what I said, so...thanks for reinforcing it, I guess.
We as humans have adapted and have evolved but we did not come from apes. We have physically changed to our environments over time. That's why some people have very little Body hair and others have too much hair.
Absolutely not, the ideal of evolution is to disprove creation needing a creator. Genesis tells us the creation was created in six literal days. Progress-creation is the biggest problem with modern christians. They believe in millions and millions of years which goes directly against what God tells us. And as far as, some Hebrew scholars stating that "yom" which means day being used in any other context is absurd. There are many different places in the Bible that refer to creation being in six literal days. Even Jesus refers to a six day creation. It wasn't until Darwin (lost his faith after the death of his daughter) proposed his theory that creationists began to reinterpret the Bible. Even in science evolution is still a theory and not a law. There is no consensus among the scientific community that uniformily agrees on a single evolutionary ideal. Remember man is falliable and God is not, he is the absolute truth and his word is infalliable. Do not turn to the ideas of man and change what the Bible says take it as literal narrative.
I was going to point out the problems with your statements about Darwin and the state of evolution in the modern scientific community but I think I should save those for another debate. Instead, I have a question.
Does this mean you think that, in order to be a 'true' Christian, one must deny everything that contradicts the Bible?
If the ideas of man contradict what God says then yes you should be critical of those ideas. A "true" christian shouldn't comprimise the Biblical word of God who is infalliable.
I look forward to hearing about the state of the modern scientific community. Especially which evolutionary theory you would like to discuss because there are many.
There are verses in the Bible that state that rabbits chew their cud, and that bats are birds. These verses are at odds with reality; how do you treat them, and others like them? What about all the things forbidden in Leviticus? Do you adhere to them all, and if not, how do you justify that?
Leviticus also states that you must make sacrifices to atone for sins. Yet we know that the new convenant we are not required to do so because of Jesus being our savior. And many species of rabbit chew their cud that is why you see them chewing all the time. What says a bat is a bird or different from them. They are no closer to bird then they are a rat. Obviously the first five books of the Bible have a lot to do with atonement under the old covenant (Book of the Law). The new covenant changed a lot of how we come before God and how we attain redemption.
Leviticus also states that you must make sacrifices to atone for sins. Yet we know that the new convenant we are not required to do so because of Jesus being our savior.
For one, you did not answer my question about whether or not you obey Leviticus, and if not, why not. Secondly, when the Bible contradicts itself as you mentioned, which contradiction do you obey and why?
And many species of rabbit chew their cud that is why you see them chewing all the time.
Rabbits are not ruminants; they do not have a sacculated stomach and their digestive system is incapable of the reversal required in order to chew cud. Rabbits eat their own fecal pellets instead of bringing up cud.
What says a bat is a bird or different from them. They are no closer to bird then they are a rat.
Degrees of shared similarity. Bats are rodents, so they are closer to rats than they are to birds.
The Bible does not contradict itself. A new covenant is not a contradiction just a new answer let's get that right first. And second that is not true of all rabbit species. And thousands of different species go extinct every year so certain kinds of rabbits might not be alive today.
Recall that when the Bible mentions excrement, even cow's excrement (that Yahweh allowed Ezekiel to use instead of human excrement to bake bread over) the mention of the "excrement" coupled with disgust is quite evident. If an ancient Hebrew had seen animals eating their own excrement they would probably have mentioned that fact rather than disquising it as merely "chewing the cud" [sic]. And likewise I doubt that the Hebrews studied hares or rock badgers/coneys so carefully and employed such a wide definition of "chewing the cud/regurgitation in the Hebrew" as to include eating one's own defecation. Odds are, as I said, they probably simply assumed that rabbits, like cows, chewed their grassy meals and "brought them up again" (isn't that the meaning of the Hebrew?) to chew them some more.
It is true of all existing rabbits that they do not chew their cuds. It is impossible to say for certain that there was not a cud-chewing species that appeared to be a rabbit in Biblical times, but such a creature would not have been a rabbit because it would have to have been a ruminant and rabbits are not ruminants.
The Bible does not contradict itself. A new covenant is not a contradiction just a new answer let's get that right first.
What was wrong with the old answer?
Recall that when the Bible mentions excrement, even cow's excrement (that Yahweh allowed Ezekiel to use instead of human excrement to bake bread over) the mention of the "excrement" coupled with disgust is quite evident. If an ancient Hebrew had seen animals eating their own excrement they would probably have mentioned that fact rather than disquising it as merely "chewing the cud" [sic].
Not only is this inconsistent with multiple mentions of feces in the Bible, it is mere conjecture. You are projecting motives onto people which cannot be verified and which are actually unlikely in the face of the evidence we do have.
Odds are, as I said, they probably simply assumed that rabbits, like cows, chewed their grassy meals and "brought them up again" (isn't that the meaning of the Hebrew?) to chew them some more.
This appears to be an admittance of an error in the Bible. Such a thing would be nothing but reasonable in the face of the facts.
Finally, you have still avoided my question regarding Leviticus, and the source you cited attempts to disprove everything you just said.
It is not conjecture. And what we consider to be "cud" and what the hebrew definition says are not the same. The hebrew word means to re-digest the food. Which is exactly what the rabbit is doing. Leviticus is the statement of the laws of the old testament. The old covenant never declared salvation. So the new covenant was not a contradiction to the old one. Remember even Abraham was in hell when Jesus went there to save the souls lost in there. I don't follow any sacrificial teachings of Leviticus because the new covenant is our salvation. The old covenant dealt with being clean or unclean. And why would you hang onto a dispute over the hebrew meaning of "cud" to try and find error in a infalliable book. If the motives of such people can't be verified as you say, then how can you disprove them?
It is conjecture because you do not know either way, you are guessing. I am in the same boat as you, but on this particular issue, your guess appears to be less supported by the evidence, the evidence being a pretty significant number of appearances of feces in the Bible.
The hebrew word means to re-digest the food. Which is exactly what the rabbit is doing.
""Gerah," the term which appears in the MT means (chewed) cud, and also perhaps grain, or berry (also a 20th of a sheckel, but I think that we can agree that that is irrelevant here). It does not mean dung, and there is a perfectly adequate Hebrew word for that, which could have been used. Furthermore, the phrase translated "chew the cud" in the KJV is more exactly "bring up the cud." Rabbits do not bring up anything; they let it go all the way through, then eat it again. The description given in Leviticus is inaccurate, and that's that. Rabbits do eat their own dung; they do not bring anything up and chew on it."
And why would you hang onto a dispute over the hebrew meaning of "cud" to try and find error in a infalliable book. If the motives of such people can't be verified as you say, then how can you disprove them?
Because you are insisting that rabbits chew cud and they do not. However, my question was whether or not a true Christian must deny anything that contradicts the Bible, even reality, and I suppose that has been sufficiently answered, even if it is on a fairly inconsequential verse.
First your site that you cited is not an accurate source. By your own admission Gerah means chewed not anything specific of what that is from the animal. The common usage of the word is used for re-digestion. The person you are quoting is speaking heavily on conjecture. There is no contradiction here. Just unintelligent presuppesitions trying to disprove the Bible.
And really you want to quote a site called infidels.org I would be careful who you decide to follow. As you can see the word Gerah means chewed how can you say what that scientific definition would be to ancient hebrews. To them a bat was a type of bird, and just because we classify it as a rodent. What other rodent relies on sonar, when we see different kinds of birds that use it. We try to fit it into a category based on our presuppesitions not necessarily what someone else would have done.
First your site that you cited is not an accurate source. By your own admission Gerah means chewed not anything specific of what that is from the animal. The common usage of the word is used for re-digestion. The person you are quoting is speaking heavily on conjecture. There is no contradiction here. Just unintelligent presuppesitions trying to disprove the Bible.
You had better have some kind of source for all the things you just said if you are going to completely disregard third-party information without so much as an explanation, and when even the sources you cited have disagreed with you.
And really you want to quote a site called infidels.org I would be careful who you decide to follow.
Do not be so shallow as to dismiss a source based on the domain name. Surely, you can find a more concrete error than that?
As you can see the word Gerah means chewed how can you say what that scientific definition would be to ancient hebrews.
As evidenced in my earlier quote, gerah means to chew or bring up the cud in this context. It is unlikely that it refers to refection, as Moses later says that swine are okay to eat, when they too practice refection like rabbits do.
To them a bat was a type of bird, and just because we classify it as a rodent. What other rodent relies on sonar, when we see different kinds of birds that use it. We try to fit it into a category based on our presuppesitions not necessarily what someone else would have done.
I said earlier that bats are rodents, and upon further research, I have found that I was mistaken, for they are of a different order. However, they are still mammals, not birds; they are furred and viviparious, father than feathered and oviparous, and thus are still closer to rats than birds.
Just because the writers of the Bible did not know this (something I would not expect them to) is not an excuse if you believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, because it is supposed to be inspired by God, correct? Surely he knew where bats fall in the tree of life.
Just because we as humans choose to classify animals to different categories does not mean we are right. You even admit bats are not rodents. Look at the feathers on the abdomens of many birds very fur like. The skeletal structures of bats is far more comparable to birds then rodents.
I question your reference because it's origin is a proponent of anti-religious doctrine.
Your site that you quote appears to have only one known scholar as its primary source of information. I would be careful to follow one man and his ideology.
Gerah means "chewed" don't project other adjectives to it. Their was no discernment for them for what the chewed remains are consisted of food excremented or "brought up" from rumination.
What verse did God tell Moses that they could eat pigs? God's laws were for his people (Israel) his old covenant. The new covenant is salvation for all people of the world. Didn't I already explain this?
Just because we as humans choose to classify animals to different categories does not mean we are right. You even admit bats are not rodents. Look at the feathers on the abdomens of many birds very fur like. The skeletal structures of bats is far more comparable to birds then rodents.
The fact that you are still trying to claim that bats are closer to birds than other mammals smacks of a lack of biological education. Feathers and fur have a very different fundamental structure.
And the same goes for bat and bird wings, which are examples of convergent evolution but not shared traits. A quick glance at a bat skeleton clearly shows that the wings are constructed from skin webbed between extended phalanges; essentially, they are extremely deformed hands. Bird wings have no similarities in this respect.
I question your reference because it's origin is a proponent of anti-religious doctrine.
Then you are not permitted to cite any source that pushes a religious doctrine of any sort, such as answersingenesis. Good luck.
Gerah means "chewed" don't project other adjectives to it. Their was no discernment for them for what the chewed remains are consisted of food excremented or "brought up" from rumination.
What is your source on this, since every other source seems to disagree with this? Recall the context of the word, since that has an effect.
What verse did God tell Moses that they could eat pigs? God's laws were for his people (Israel) his old covenant. The new covenant is salvation for all people of the world. Didn't I already explain this?
I made the mistake of skimming this verse and incorrectly thinking it said that pigs were okay. However, this does nothing to change the point I was making; pigs and hares practice both refection, yet pigs are not said to chew their cud. If refection was considered cud chewing, pigs would be said to chew their cud.
Additionally, it has come to light that refection looks nothing at all like cud-chewing; it is a quick process in which the feces is swallowed whole. Given this, it seems far more likely that the writers of the Bible saw a hare chewing grass for an extended period of time and assumed it was chewing cud because the motion looked similar to a cow's.
Lv:11:7: And the swine, though he divide the hoof, and be clovenfooted, yet he cheweth not the cud; he is unclean to you.
Dt:14:8: And the swine, because it divideth the hoof, yet cheweth not the cud, it is unclean unto you: ye shall not eat of their flesh, nor touch their dead carcase. (KJV)
If you remember I was talking to you about the feathers on the abdomen of a bird. Not the wings which use hooks and clasps to make flight.
My source's are fine, because we are discussing religious doctrine. You can't use anti-religious sources that try to project the "context" of the hebrew language. There is obviously a skew toward false propigation.
Feathers have the same structure, no matter their size or location.
Religious sources have been known to twist the truth, lie, or deny reality in order to support their claims. This is a skew towards false propagation. I am not going to let you flat out dismiss any source I offer just because it's not religious and it doesn't happen to agree with your assertions. That is cowardly. If there is an error in the source, maybe point out what the actual error is, rather than claiming it's not alright because of the domain name.
As there is currently to way to speak with the authors of the Bible and clarify what they meant, every interpretation is conjecture. Some conjectures are better supported by evidence than others.
Whether or not we agree on the same structure for feathers or not. I am not a zoologist and I doubt you are either. The bottom line is you have not proved your biblical contradiction. Not for rabits chewing cud (gerah) which means "chewed" do not impose a context on ancient hebrew. And as far as the bird and bat theory this should sum it up:
Moses, who was one of the most-learned in Egypt, has been attacked in several cases to undermine biblical authority. This is another of those attacks to get people to doubt that God was speaking through Moses. Let’s evaluate such a claim in more detail. The passage reads:
Leviticus 11:13–19
These are the birds [05775 Pwe ‘owph] you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
The Hebrew word for bird is actually owph which means “fowl/winged creature.”1 The word owph simply means “to fly” or “has a wing.” So, the word includes birds, bats, and even flying insects. The alleged problem appears due to translation of owph as bird. Birds are included in the word owph, but owph is not limited to birds. This shows that translators aren't always perfect when handling the inerrant Word of God.
F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Brigg Hebrew and English Lexicon, 9th printing (Hendrickson Publishers, September 2005), p. 773
Whether or not we agree on the same structure for feathers or not. I am not a zoologist and I doubt you are either.
Feather structure is not a topic that is available for you to agree or disagree on. This is like saying 'whether or not we agree that a square has four sides...."
I am currently pursing a degree in Biological Science with an emphasis in Animal Physiology and Behavior and I am a behavior observation technician at a zoo. However, I am not just quoting myself or relying on my own knowledge. I am providing external sources.
Not for rabits chewing cud (gerah) which means "chewed" do not impose a context on ancient hebrew.
How is it imposing a context to merely state that there is context and tell you that it makes a difference? Context is vital to translation.
You have yet to provide a single source for this, when the most in-depth discussions I have found indicate contention on the subject even among Biblical or religious scholars. I am sure they would love to hear from you, so that you could clear up the disagreements they have been having.
Moses, who was one of the most-learned in Egypt, has been attacked in several cases to undermine biblical authority. This is another of those attacks to get people to doubt that God was speaking through Moses. Let’s evaluate such a claim in more detail. The passage reads:
Leviticus 11:13–19
These are the birds [05775 Pwe ‘owph] you are to detest and not eat because they are detestable: the eagle, the vulture, the black vulture, the red kite, any kind of black kite, any kind of raven, the horned owl, the screech owl, the gull, any kind of hawk, the little owl, the cormorant, the great owl, the white owl, the desert owl, the osprey, the stork, any kind of heron, the hoopoe and the bat.
The Hebrew word for bird is actually owph which means “fowl/winged creature.”1 The word owph simply means “to fly” or “has a wing.” So, the word includes birds, bats, and even flying insects. The alleged problem appears due to translation of owph as bird. Birds are included in the word owph, but owph is not limited to birds. This shows that translators aren't always perfect when handling the inerrant Word of God.
F. Brown, S. Driver, and C. Briggs, The Brown-Driver-Brigg Hebrew and English Lexicon, 9th printing (Hendrickson Publishers, September 2005), p. 773
I read this and looked up some other discussions on the subject and it appears that this time, there is probably a reasonable explanation for the mistake in the KJV. Did you find that on a website or copy it from a book? If so, I would be interested to read the rest of it especially if addresses other contradictions to reality in the Bible.
This leads me to ask which version of the Bible you obey, and if you have a list of every mistranslation or instance ambiguous language in your version, so that you can be sure you are following the word of God instead of an error.
No matter what version of the Bible you use it is all the same message. With that being said I was simply stating that "MEN" imposing their scientific categorizing on the word of God. It's one thing to use the context of the hebrew word, but another thing entirely to try and impose modern science terminology on it. Gerah means "chewed" the context it was in talks of re-digestion (whether that be rumination or refection) either way your contradiction is invalid. And owph means "to fly" or "has a wing" just because a translator who was not a zoologist put bird in english doesn't make this a contradiction.
I have given you answers to your supposed contradictions. Whether you accept them or not is up to you. If you are too stubborn to view my responses with any rationality then by all means try to contradict me. But you will not find a contradiction in God's infalliable word.
No matter what version of the Bible you use it is all the same message.
You just said yourself that one of the contradictions I mentioned was due to a mistranslation. Therefor, clearly, the message is not the same. The original texts say something different than the translations; how do you know there are not other mistranslations that are far more important?
Gerah means "chewed" the context it was in talks of re-digestion (whether that be rumination or refection) either way your contradiction is invalid.
I take this continued repetition without a source to mean that you do not have one. Until you show me where you got this, it means nothing, because the discussions I have seen on the translation seem to disagree with you.
The message is the same. The modern scientific terminology that we categorize animals, mixed with imposing on those translators of the KJV (who had no such classifications in hebrew) does not change the message. What we get from the Bible there is not to eat bats (law given to Israel). Just because you "grasp at straws" comparing modern science classifications into ancient hebrew language, this does not provide you with the contradiction you seek.
Praise the Lord!! That ends that argument. Isn't that great while you were trying to disprove me, in that you actually got a scientific answer to your question. God really does wonderful things.
This does not change the hebrew meaning of gerah, but it's nice to have some more credentials to show the unbeliever.
A lot of my sources are from NIV (english-hebrew lexicon scholar authors), www.answersingenesis.org, ICR (Institute for Creation Research), "The Biblical Basis for Modern Science" written by Henry M. Morris to name a few. Is that the sources you were looking for me to list.
The message is the same. The modern scientific terminology that we categorize animals, mixed with imposing on those translators of the KJV (who had no such classifications in hebrew) does not change the message. What we get from the Bible there is not to eat bats (law given to Israel). Just because you "grasp at straws" comparing modern science classifications into ancient hebrew language, this does not provide you with the contradiction you seek.
The KJV says that bats are birds, due to a translation error.
The original text does not.
Do these verses say the same thing?
No.
Do you keep a list of all the other mistranslations in the KJV, in case they occur in a verse that carries more significance? I am going to guess no, considering you were trying to convince bats are more birdlike for a long time until you finally found someone who actually knew what was happening there.
Praise the Lord!! That ends that argument. Isn't that great while you were trying to disprove me, in that you actually got a scientific answer to your question. God really does wonderful things.
Here is a quote from the source, with the important parts highlighted. I am unsure how you got from this source that is supports you. It references the contentions between Biblical scholars - disputes I doubt you can settle by continually repeating that gerah means chew - as well as direct mentions of gerah not meaning chew.
"As we stated before, the words "ma'alah gerah" and "gerah lo yigor" are commonly translated "chew the cud". The Jewish Site Torat Emet raises three important questions. The first question is the following: "Is it likely or possible that the Hebrew words "ma'alah gerah" words can be translated other ways as well?" Also, "Is likely or possible that the precise definition of words "ma'alah gerah" was lost with the passage of time?" Lastly, is it likely or possible that many translators and commentators overly restricted the translation of the Hebrew words: "ma'alah gerah" over time? The Jewish site Torat Emet list 5 plus different views that the Jewish/rabbinical/Christian scholars take regarding the Hebrew phrase "ma'alah gerah". Why are there some many views? One of the reasons is that the word gerah is used very sparingly in the Old Testament text and it is ONLY used in the in the phrases "mal'alah gerah" and "gerah lo yigor" ("gerah lo yigor" is only used in connection with swine and scholars have different explanations on why this is the case). I think if you review the two weblinks provided above you will come to the conclusion that at least three out of the four rabbinical views have merit and JP Holding's commentary can be upheld as well. In addition, you could reasonably say that Samuel Clark's view of the Hebrew words ma'alah gerah also has merit (Samuel Clark said the Hebrew words ma'alah gerah became expanded over time). Thus, I think we can safely say that the precise meaning of the words ma'alah gerah has become partially lost through the passage of time and thus can be translated other ways as well. On the other hand, I do believe that some illumination has been shed on the Hebrew translation so I will provide a brief synopsis.
The Jewish website provides the following commentary regarding the Hebrew phrase "ma'alah gerah" :
"The early grammarian R' Menachem ben Saruk connects the phrase ma'alah gerah with the phrase in 2 Samuel 14:14 uchemayim hanigarim. The latter phrase refers to water being drawn. Evidently, R' Manachem ben Sarak understands the word gerah as meaning something that is pulled in. Similarly, R' Yonah Ibn Janach in his Sefer Hashorashim (sv GRH translated gerah as mesichah - dragging. They would presumably translate the phrase ma'alah gerah as "raising something that is drawn into the mouth".
I take the view that gerah could refer to drawing in plus I think that JP Holding offers excellent commentary.
Next let us take a closer look at the Hebrew word alah. Strong's concordance says the word alah can be translated: ascended up, carry up, cast up, fetch up, get up, recover, restore, take up, and much more. In other words, the Hebrew word alah is very flexible in its usage. It is not restricted to the Leviticus 11: 5-6 verses but is found in a very large amount of verses. For example, in Joshua 24:17 the word alah is used in the following way: "It was the Lord our God who brought us and our fathers up out of Eygpt." Isaiah 8:7 uses the word alah in the following manner: "therefore the Lord is about to bring against them the mighty floodwaters of the River..." JP Holding at the Tektonics Apologetics Ministries webiste offers the following useful commentary: "So: the Hebrew word in question is NOT specific to the process of regurgitation; it is a phrase of general movement."
So let's tie our understanding of the Hebrew word alah with the commentary on the Jewish site Torat Emet. The Jewish site Torat Emet says "Evidently, R'Manachem be Saruk understands the word gerah as meaning something that is pulled in". We have also seen alah can mean the following: take up, fetch up, recover."
What you need to understand that gerah alone means "chewed" when you use a descriptive phrase in front of it like alah it doesn't change the overall meaning. What they did there was show you how they "pull it in" and "chewed" their previously digested food. The translation still does not specifiy if this was rumination or refection, remember your contradictions basis was to say the Bible didn't say rumination. Isn't that your original argument?
Now you are making statements that are in direct disagreement with the statements of scholars who seriously and extensively study the Bible and the language, and you still have not offered a source of any kind for this.
I am not disagreeing with the hebrew scholars. I am telling you that the descriptive phrase you use in front of gerah the point you made with alah is how they put it in context. The last source I used was the same one as you. And if you refer to my previous post you will see my list of sources for that previous question. You don't seem to understand the purpose of the descriptive phrase in hebrew. If anything what the scholars are saying is disproving your supposed contradiction. You still haven't shown me the contradiction here in the Bible.
As far as the KJV goes there really is no mistake. Just because in there day a bird and bat doesn't mean they were wrong. It's just how they classified them. In modern science we classify them differently. We do this based on genetics and biology.
I did not try to convince you that bats are biologically similar to birds. I wanted to give you comparisions to how the hebrew-english translators percieved the two animals to be of the same class. They did not classify such things the way we do now. You still haven't shown me an error. That's not even necessarily a mistake by the translators because the hebrew language doesn't make such discernments.
If I wanted to view the Bible as an aviary classification book then I might be worried. You still haven't proven a contradiction.
You can't because true christians learn from the bible and in the bible it says God made humans in his image which would make God a monkey at the moment.
I'm not Christian, but I dislike it when people cherry pick the Bible. It clearly says that God created the universe in six days. I think that people should either believe that all parts of the Bible are true or none of them are. It does not make sense to believe that certain parts are.
No because a true Christian would believe in God's creation of the earth rather than man's way of creating ways and it results in error. I as a Christian choose God's way because He is far superior and knows more things than we as man only know very little about the universe.
I was lost in the Darkest parts of my own wicked ways, spiraling down a path of destruction leading me away from His Almighty ways, and all the while im going down ONLY ONE, He could save me. No matter how far i looked on this lowly planet, i never once found a soul who could manage, to show me the love that i truly needed, because on this planet aint nothing but hate and contempt have been breeded. the lowly snake slithering as he goes through the towns of man looking for lowly lowly souls, to feed on so that it could plant it's evil seeds, and so that throughout the generations nothing but evil and hate we could recieve, but those where the ways of the past, my brothers and sisters. the devil had a hold of us and he managed through our parents, down through the generations His ways have been lost, and because of the us, the devil has turned and tossed, We can All be saved, all we need is Thanksgiving, to the One who Above, for All of His Givings. The devils trying to stop me right now as i speak, but Faithful to the Lord and willit He, that i may be meek. Because it is He not i that gives you this message but it is The One that we All should seek. i know that it is hard to find Rest, as we all go through this test some call a game, every single last one of us, probably, training to gain and retain our fame. But That is not what this life is about, i have a Strong feeling that we are All getting our Water from the wrong wrong spout. because thats all the devil has for us is a little bit, of pleasure, then comes the pain. steady feeding our bodies what i see now Is Insane. because ya'll hafto see that we are all carnally minded, and This is the reason The LORD, us he has blinded, binding, ourselves to our own flesh, so that eventually we would All fail this Test. but know that The Lord, He loves us, and wishes nothing but the best, and all He wants is for us to Love Him all the while through this Test. some wonder why we see nadoes and quakes, He needs ya'll to know that its Ya'lls souls that He is trying to shake. and bake if you will, so the devil may not have his fill, to letchya'll know that there is NONE like that ALMIGHTY AND ALL POWERFULL ONE. i say full because Hes filled with Love, like None that we have seen on this lowly earth, but now that i have SEEN, my Eyes have been UnBlinded, and now it is He, He who signs this, letter so maybe that some of Ya'll could listen, and Maybe get the Message that He is trying to dish, out of His spout, so that ya'll might be fed, with all of His Love, His Water, And His Bread. Don't for a second think any of Ya'll are living, All of ya'll are dead and for the devil are you "living" as i sit here and do this all of the "dome" just know that it is Not me and that this is His tomb. He is singing through me in these words and this song, so that maybe one day we All can be free all the day long, and ya'll can say its cheesy if ya'll want, but just know the devil in you he does flaunt x) i had to stop and show ya'll how i felt about that one, cuz its the truth, and right now i have a Strong feeling He is swinging harder than that brother Babe Ruth, or ballin harder than micheal jordan, and in this song he Is Playing His Accordian. Ya'll just need to know that He is our Guardian, and right now im flying Higher than any single air jordan, because my love i gave to Him more than any of Ya'll so i guess i can say more than them. But dont getit twizted like boi's if ya'll know, that me and moreover Him, have a lot to show. we are all brothers and sisters, but i should call us the missers, because we all fail to see the smaller things in this world, without even thinking twice, what truly brings a man alot of happiness or to see the pain that ALOT of us have in us. i know that we are all hurting on the inside, and for ya'll who say we dont, Boi, you know that is a lie, because only with Him and not that evil leech from down south, can we truly fly. higher than the highest of trees or the tallest of mountains, But in Him we Have to trust, so that We may Drink From The One and Only True fountain, only because of Him can i do this for days, and its Because i gave Him my love, thanksgiving, and praise. so now that i have seen what it is truly to be Man, Men of God, all these hater out there who bout to say something aint nuthing more than sod. sorry if it dont make sense, just know that me and Him the latter first, We are just trying to give His children, ya'll some mother lovin cents. forgive me if i pause for no longer am i a vulgar man life is just a beach, and Now, He is playing in the sand, hopefully in the minds of the young, the daughters and sons, i have my holster, and now the Lord is my Gun, Shining Brighter, than a million suns, times two, because His love is True, actually make that twenty twenty, because He is aplenty, in me in you and All, i just hope that ya'll can hear His call, so that maybe that ya'll may not fall, into the Pit, but right now i can say the devil is probably having a fit, of anxiety cuz he is losing his "children" just know that we are God's and with me He has been pilfering, in my mind day and night, as i have been in my room trying to stay out of sight, of ya'll because all it seems like to me, that nothing to ya'll it would please, more, than to see one of your own fellow brother get shot and fall. when i look around me i dont see any real love, this evil surrounds me, but Now i DO NOT CARE, because the Lord, THE LORD, HE has found me. so now ya'll cannot touch, because with His love, im about to bust. with loving Faith and Trust, i put in Him, so that i can be led away from this life of sin, and Now that i have His Trust, my brotha's and sista's, not just the black ones, comeon now, that just is not a must, there is no such thing man, all that is, is nothing more than an evil thought, brought up in vain, so that maybe a man's soul, that leech, can be bought. Quit being evil, for it is Love, that should be sought, out so once again we may be fed from His Spout, for only He can give us what we need so that in the end we may succeed. my brothers and sisters all we need to do is Believe, and then, Anything, together, WE CAN ACHIEVE. this is an ode to ya'll so in hopes once again that ya'll may hear The Call, and will not fall, so one day me, ya'll, and The Almighty,Perfect, like a prefect without the er, Omnipotent, and Patient ONE, that together we May All Ball. and they keep telling me to stop, but i just cant my brothers me and Him are headed to the top, and right now i got The Heart Of A Lion, King, and pray tell me my brothers and sisters who are reading, what single Beast can stop that king? of the jungle we are running but with Him we can be free. out into the open pasture we all can roam, just know this is not me, and that this is His Tomb. its wierd how they're spelled alike but do not rhyme, im talking bout bomb my brothers, and its One of a Kind. in the Hopes that this petty rhyme, can help lead the black sheep, away from the Blind, being themselves, for who? tell me can save them from that? if you dont answer right then your a part of this blight that runs rampant through the streets, evil im talking about and all it wants to do is eat, your souls because it is angry at the Living God, hahahaha for it is nothing more than a sod, on His Cleat as He is Running, Hoping that some of these Words, hit you right in the stomach, and make you sick, but not you, im talking about the evil you, for we are all children of God, but we have made ourselves nothing more than a sod =( i say with a heavy heart, because all this time we have been playing the devil, his part, but with Him it is nothing but a fart, because He Forgives, and Only Through Him may we EVER, get the chance to Live, and im not talking about on the earth, im talking about another, and maybe one day you can see and i can Truly call you my Brother, for there is Life in Death, but it is only gained through this life which is a test, just know that when we die, if you have lived righteously, on that day you will Fly, for the Lord will Breathe His Breath in you when you die and like i said before You Will Fly, but not if you keep eating from the devil's table, for you can only eat from one, and i hope its Not the devil's table. for if we Eat from Him, we can All go back into His Stable, and only in doing that can we Ever truly be stable, only only if, we are eating from, The Living God's Table. and for ya'll who are sitting at your computers steadily dissin Him, i pray for you, because it you are missin, Him and the bigger picture, just know right now im taking a Big Gulp From His Ultimate Pitcher, not one from the MLB, and if you are listening then i pray that you sea, i mean see, but with Him we can fly over the one before, and higher than mike, dunk it in, right for a score, but not for 2 for it is for 3, because He is Holy in me, but atm holy in you, because you missing some parts, we all need to change, so that we may play His Part, that He intended from the Beginning, because only With Him can we ever be winning, but hahahaha not as long as we are sinning. for that is not the way that we was meant to walk, With Him we was mean to Walk and Talk. once again i say this way i, used to, but we choose to live, is insane in the membrane, but He is using me as His Template, lol or templar whichever you prefer, just know that He is Prefect, ha just without the errrr. as i sit here steadily dissin em i mean the demons in the minds of the children of the One and Only, God Who Is Kind, i hope that they depart, so we can All gaze upon The Divine, not like wine or watch, i aint lil wayne, just know that i feel like im the only one who is sane. because i AM NOT PERFECT, do not get the wrong message for that would hurt me, only He is, and He just wants some love from His Kids, but for some odd reason... we still choose to do the evil leeches bids, for i feel he has sucked to much from us, all of our blood, i mean soul, it has tucked from us, and right now He is aiming at it with a Big Ol' Blunderbuss. to shoot it and unleech it, from His Children's Soul's so one day maybe we can gaze upon, That Wonderful City Of Gold, and dont letit peak your in ter ests, for if you do your not getting whats bests, from this test that He has beset, for our minds to ponder and think on, maybe in some of the hearts out there this message is shining, for He is a Beacon of Light, to shine out all the evils, and end this ugly, hateful blight, that courses through our vains, that nasty garbage that makes us feel insane, because no one is living right, and for That NONE is sane. you can talk and sit there and chatter, but i pray and hope that none get fatter, and im not talking because of mcdonalds, im talking about your ego and pride, because We Alll NEED to push that aside, all we seem to do is breed hate and contempt, sitting there looking for another hurt sould to feed on, thinking it makes us content, but just know NOW people, lolol all your doing is letting the devil be your PIMP! ha ha ha i think that really funny, because in the words of man that just makes ya'll some ho's, and please forgive my trespasses my sisters and brothers, for my vulgar words, because i Did Not mean to hurt, He's just trying to keep our faces from being rubbed in the dirt. but it really shouldnt matter because we are mud, and from One we all came, so can i not call ya'll blood??? nah im not talking about them two glock shotta's, im talking bout from The One Who Has Always Got Us, not us as in the navy, i mean us as in the ones who might sit on that bus, the one going to school and to the ones who drool in class, and all of us who needs a kick in the, pause, ya'll know what i mean, im just sitting here trying not be obscene, all im trying to do is get the bigger picture, through ya'll minds so that maybe one day, we can All WALK IN THE LORDS WAY. forgive me if i make any of ya'll mad, if i do know that i Am sad, but how about ya'll just go to the store and go and grab on of them happy hefty bags, you know i meant glad if you didnt you are simple, and forgive me as i sit here and bust this pimple, lol sorry that was nasty just know that i didnt, and know that we are all fake, and its time for some rhino plasty, or however its spelled im just hoping some hearts will melt, like the plastic we are, and become melded into flesh, as i sit here and type in this Soul Food test, for if ya'll can't hear me then your hearts are so cold, forgive me as i trespass, because, uhm, i Am not trying to be bold, im just tryna through some fia atcha hearts, in the hopes that you may leave the Dark, ness not loch just in case thats watchu thought, all you gotta do is leave your flesh behind, and know that He is the one who Should Be Sought, out so we can drank From His Spout, cuz the Lord Knows, man it has been a drought. we are all so thirsty, but in order to be filled its The Lord who must come firsty x) just know that me and Him are going Stooopid, and for those who are real maaan i thoughtchu knew it. and if you dont i pray you haven't already blew it, up i mean your ego, like a balloon, just know right now i feel like taz boi, yup them looney toones, or tunes whichever you prefer, just know that He is Prefect, just without the err. and i say pre because He was always here, yes before you and me, but with Him i wanna letchu know that we can all be as pure, and as white as the snow, just like powder we can all be melted, i mean melded into the beings we were meant to be, so one day we may fly free as a dove, Right over the sea, so that we all can reach New Jerusalem, yup just right where we was all meant to be, that is the Golden City for those who did not, know, im just hoping that one day we can All be as pure as the snow, because the evil has taunted and flaunted and given us a show, to peak i mean perk up our ears and it, that leech i mean, gave us nothing but fears, fears of ourselves and one another, fears from our sisters and daughter, Father, and brothers, but we have a right to Fear the Living God, because to Him we have all become a sod, He is sorrowful and cries as we follow, the evil being, who was never meant to be followed, and i felt His pain at one point in time, yes i Am talking About the Divine, we both cried together, in my room, because of the little things we miss, something just as small as, a heartfelt kiss... for it is the little things that bring us the greatest joy, not some diamond chain, or a, wind up toy, the biggest thing of all that should, is His Love, should bring us the Greatest joy, in the world, for thats all it is man just cars and noise, all the long going our way, Missing the sweetest noise, zes ya'll know what i mean, im talking about the One who is Never obscene, for He is Just And Right, in each and every single way, and for our sins my borhters and sisters, we have to pay, but do not fret for it is never to late, I think we all need to call upon The Divine, and we should All go on a date, do not worry for on this date there is no rape, or murder, or hate, for that is of the devil, and Your Soul it will take, there is no worries once you follow Him, we should all be hand in hand as we walk down this path, called, life Never having to worry about no pain or strife, or for a bigger picture His Wrath, but ONLY IF WE DRINK FROM HIS PITCHER. for The All Powerful and Righteous Wrath, only comes when you stray from His Path, it is there to show us our wrongs...can you feel His Soul as i sit here and Sing His song? and with Him i will NEVER fall, because with my Brother, I will always Hear His Call. i say we but it is Him, who say these words to in the hopes, that those who have an Ear to listen may never Fall, into the Pit, all you have to do is have Faith, Follow The Ten, Believe, and never EVER Quit, for in order to gain His All Perfect and Good Graces, we have to eliminate ALL the Hate and evil, in all sorts of places, i have a feeling this song was wrote long before, just in His mind and now in mine, and i sing His song in the Hopes, that you follow Him and not any of these "popes" for no hope lies in them, lol and if you truly think aboutit that actually rhymed, just know that im thinking of Him, foremost, but ya'll too as i steadily write This Rhyme, it comes from above yup, Straight From the Divine, in the Hopes that one day ya'll can SEE, exactly it was that we was missing, so we can All fly over the sea. Man this thing is long but i should Say God, because this is His Rhyme, and not from a sod, like me or you, if you real you can feel its True, as His Sword aims at the hearts of His good, flying Straight and Through, lol i mean True, but them if you can follow my friend, all we gotta do is sing Praises and Thanksgiving to Him, until the very end, and give Him all of our love, Because WITHOUT HIM, ha There WOULD BE NO LOVE, all there would be is pain and suffering, and i hope that the ones who are, suffer, i mean acating, Might actually stop and take the time to sit there and be debating, against the devil of course, cuz all it wants to do is, lead us, right, or left, but straight off our course. Lord Please Forgive me, if i am being coarse just know that i am your back, and You Are My Horse, lol ya'll might think He's heavy but He's really not, and i Love Him till Death, i mean Life, cuz i have found It, but back to the point, because i HE HAS TAUGHT, never went to church or none of that, maybe when i was younger but none of that, for our minds our are churches, ha gotit backwards but i feel as tall as the burches, talking bout them trees man im over the seas man, just know i cant, wait, My Father, until You Kick Over My Can Man x) aw man i thoughit was funny, because he's One Cool Dude, and i am His, Bunny, i mean Collie, and know that as i, i mean He, but as i bark, that i have a Strong feeling, that i am playing my Part, or His i prefer the latter but the choice is yurs, because it is His Puzzle, and i am the last part, i cant be for certain because the Knowledge is His, but im just trying to bring His Black Sheep back, you know i mean His KIDS, He thoughtit was funny, But ya'll best Believe that He NOR i the first comes first, but neither one of us is No, pause, Dummy, lol but if you choose you can beat and bite, whatever you do just know it is out of spite, and i dont capitilize because its an evil word, just know me and HIM, are trying to end this wrongful blight, and saying these words i Hope that maybe, just maybe some can be given the Sight, that HE intended us to have, right, from Go, talking bout monopoly,lol but no no more, from the start maaaan all HE ever wanted was us to give our heart, which is HIS, because He gave to us, All that is HIS, HE just Wanted someone to talk to man, thats why HE made HIS Kids, HE was all alone, and then HE built, a Beautiful place for us, and HIM, to walk and talk all the while, just laughing and talking, seeing eachother smile =) because HE is our FATHER, He's not as mean ha as ya'll would believe, just know that HE TRULY IS ONE BENEVOLENT KING. lol ha ha i think this is funny, He knows what im talking about, cuz this is all of the top of the dome with barely a second to pause, Just Know the THE LION KING, Has Opened HIS Claws, Blessed be the children who took the time to listen, to the message that a, and The King is steadily dishin, i say a because i am one too, but know that im a servant, and from a Seed i did Grew, i dont care if it makes no sense to ya'll because i have heard the Lords Call, and they, they know who they are, are always listening, and as He types, through, me i have a feeling they are about to call, Prayer is the Best Wireless Connection X) aint no service down here got that type of Connection, i just hope that i get to see some of ya'll at that intersection, i mean Crossroads, bone thugz n harmony, they said it first, man thats the song man and if you feel their soul, then maybe you should hurt, because those bois on the streets back in the day, all they was doing was searching for some Peace, but in the streets, the oppressors, following the devil, have no love for us in the slums, just know that we All have a Holster and God Is our Gun, we dont need no metal, for The Lord our issues HE will settle, all you gotta do is Have some Faith, saying this in hope that some dont see any wraiths, talking demons people come now and please listen, as the Lord spits his song and these Words HE is dishin, out yup you getting it word of mouf, lol or mouth whichever you prefer just DONT follow that lowly snake, yup the one down south, it might try and offer pleasure and happiness butits all fake, HA what do ya'll expect from a lowly snake? remeber eve as she sat under that tree? sitting there thinking and feeling the breeze? the snake spoke in her Ear temptation it did bring, and after teel me WHO did she fear? she had a split second of happiness and thats all it can give, and after that she felt the WRATH which is ONLY HIS, lol i hope that ya'll see, the way we live people, it just wasn't meant to be, i have a feeling that there all up there laughing, with, not at me as i type out His message, and i pray ALMIGHTY FATHER, THE ONES WHO HAVE AN EAR TO LISTEN PLEASE FATHER PLEASE LET THE HEAR. and the ones who dont i pray you dont hit him hard, maybe just a little tap, just like Babe Ruth, on that baseball card x) Peace be with you my sisters and brothers, just know that HIS LOVE IS LIKE NO OTHER, GOD BLESS ALL WHO FINISHED, AND I PRAY YOUR SOULS NEVER, DIMINISH. ONE HEART IS ALL, AND WITH THAT HEART WE CAN NEVER FALL, lol i said i was finished, but i dont think HE is as you can tell this words are not mine, THEY COME FROM THE UPPER BEING, yup THE DIVINE!!! i think im going to cut Him short and please Forgive me, because i know HE could go all day, BECAUSE I CAN FEEL HIM IN ME.
