I hate to tell you but we are all born into sin thus we have sin within ourselves. It has been pass down since the days of Adam.
And the International version Bible is not the whole Bible. The Holy Bible has everything in it. The International doesn't.

Catholicism is the first christian religion then the others branched off from there. But the whole Christian faith originated from the Jewish faith. Even though they don't believe that Christ was the savor and the son of God.

Pinky... you are right. There I said it. Uggg... Why are all the people that agree with me the naive ones?


PA. There is only one true version of the Bible and it is called the Bible. My grandpa, who is fluent in reading the aramaic and greek that the original books of the Bible were written in, says that the most accurate English translation of the Bible still in print, that he has ever read is the New King James Version.

I would love to find out where exactly it says that. Please share the scriptures so that I might be inlightened.

I could swear that Ezekiel 18:20 reads, “The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him.”

Matthew 18:3 says, "Unless you are converted and become as little children, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven." Hmmm... if little children are born with sin, why do we need to become like them to enter into heaven?

Uh, dunno - maybe it's because your beliefs are naive? I'm not trying to be insulting, but with a condescending attitute like that your conversion rate isn't going to be very high.

Of course there's a biological mechanism. It consists of the environment, the animal's ability to survive, and to a lesser extent, mutations. You're assuming that all individuals within a species are identical to each other, when it's obvious that within any population there are variations. As the environment changes and different groups of the same species become isolated from each other, you'll have seperate environments each requiring different traits which are best suited to survival. Those who possess variations beneficial to survival within that environment are the individuals who will produce offspring with simlar survival-ensuring-characteristics, whereas those who don't will likely die before getting the opportunity to reproduce. Even within this simple scenario you can see how these two seperate groups of the same species could become dramatically different over time.

One example of this has been observed on the east coast of Australia. There's a species of birds that were once confined to the Sydney area, but over time they've spread all the way up to the northern most tip of Australia as well as down to Victoria. The environments of the northern and southern parts of Australia are extremely different, so as you'd expect, the parrots of the north are hardly recognisable to those of the south. If you were to take a northern bird and put it in a cage with the southern bird, they will not mate. A species is defined as two or more individuals of a group who can produce fertile offspring. These two birds can't reproduce - would that suggest two different species? So there you have it, a modern day example of evolution.

Are you kidding? Bacteria is known to be horrendously mutative. It's well known that treating someone with antibiotics for a bacterial infection causes the bacteria to mutate. Unless by 'major evolution' you mean giant, fire breathing blobs that destroy cities, in which case I'd respond with: "If you studied evolution to the depths you've claimed to, you'd understand that a species will only evolve when there is a need to. A species perfectly adapted to their environment will not change."

-----------------
The Glass Asylum

When I refer to the 'true' religion. I mean that Catholicism is the religion that started it all, as in, it was the religion that existed before all others existed. Because, all others were branches of Catholicism.

And, I'd rather God being a woman any day. Like I stated earlier, women are the stronger sex. I don't mean physically, I mean both emotionally and mentally. In the end, that's what counts most.

I'd also like to post some funny quotes I found at another forum in someones signature. Kudos to whoever they belong to.

------------------

If the book the Bible and my brain are both the work of the same Infinite God, whose fault is it that the book and my brain do not agree?

When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion it is called Religion.

The careful student of history will discover that Christianity has been of very little value in advancing civilization, but has done a great deal toward retarding it.

Alcar...

So, what topic are we on??? :fuzconf:

Ok, I think that cloning would be good for nearly extinct animals, not just because you think that there should be a bunch of people that look exactly like you on the earth, unless you're a very hot women! :D

I personally like the King James Version the best. It's hard to understand sometimes, but I think that it loses some stuff in the translation. I don't think that there is a really completly true church on the face of the earth, because they are run by men and men make mistakes.

I know that. But, you are not going to baptize a baby. If a baby were to die, they will go to Heaven automatically because they have not committed any sins. Babies can't lie, steal, cheat, fornicate, etc. You know what I mean? I know that everyone is born of sin. Baptizing a baby is not necessary because they are innocent and don't know better than a 15 year old boy or girl. The international version is the whole bible. I think your talking about the King james Version. They are both the "Holy Bible".

What are you trying to say?

Re: Creation vs Evolution
 

I would start going on about how that's wrong, and the Adam & Eve story is a metaphor, but Sydney gave a very good explanation on evolution already, expecially his point on mutating bacteria.

Yeah, my ego is famous at school. It goes in a cycle which I am very aware of. Sometimes I am a really nice guy, other times I am an egotistical jerk. I'll try really hard to cut it out since you are the third person this week to point it out to me. So sorry Pinky, that was unfair since I only know you by reputation.

Can't mate or won't mate? Lions and tigers are two very different species. They live in different areas, look different and have different behaviors. But people have artificially breed lions and tigers together. Their offspring, ligers, are not always infertile. Many ligers can still mate with both lions and tigers, or even other ligers. But does this make lions and tigers the same species. According to the current definition of the word species they apparently are, since they can successfully reproduce.

Bacterial adaptation does not prove evolution. The bacteria is still the same type of bacteria. The only difference is that now they can resist a certain type of antibiotic. Macroevolution involves change across phylogenetic walls. This is not the case in bacteria adapting to antibiotics. Also, bacteria that adapt to certain antibiotics can live easier in that antibiotic, but that doesn't mean that the organism as a whole is a better organism. Most bacteria that adapt to certain antibiotics have a slower metabolism and are less virulent anyway.

No I don't mean that. I'm not a total idiot. And your response is scientifically inaccurate. Mutations occure randomly. Ask any evolutionist scientist and they would tell you that species do not evolve from need. It is a random process with no specific goal. If a mutation is beneficial to a new environment, it will stay, and if it isn't it will probably not. But mutations do not occur just because there is a greater need to survive, they are random occurances, very rare and usually detrimental to an organism.

At least you never claimed to have studied evolution to a great extent. At least if you are wrong you have an excuse... I stupidly didn't give myself that option.

I haven't really studied Evolution, just learnt about it in Science. But in one of the text books it stated about Cockroaches.

Cockroaches that were fat died out because they couldn't fit under small surfaces to escape the wrath of the human. Yet Cockroaches that were flat could, they then went on to breed more and slowly the fatter Cockroaches died out.

If its the sin people dislike and not the person commiting the sin, then why can't a homosexual person be a Priest?

Well in todays society unfortunately its accepted. I don't agree with it because its just too warped for me. A homosexual became a priest in the episcal church not the Roman Catholic but there is a lot of deception and corruption now that its even made its way into the church unfortunately. So for me I took my belief to a personal level.

So I ask you this do you believe in God and reject Satin and all of his works?

Well, since it was drummed into me from an early age i always feel myself speaking to one of the two. Beit my diluded f*cked up mind or actually God and Lucifer, i don't know. But when i'm on my own walking somewhere and if i'm not on my mobile i will happily converse with one of the two in my head. So, i except God but also Lucifer. Since it's my theory that Lucifer and God are working together.

As much as i come across as an Athiest i believe in something. I don't agree with all the sin shtuffs cos thats just wrong, who is he to dictate how we live? Especially when he doesn't give us proof of his existance in the 21st Century. But i will talk to him, they're my imaginary friends.

I believe that one of two things happen to us when we die -

1) We just move onto a different realm of existance. No Heaven. No Hell. Just different.

2) Whatever we believe in, happens to us. So a Christian would either go to Hell or Heaven. A Buddist would go to his/her lil' place. A Satanist their little place etc. But the more beliefs you have, and the more open minded you are, the more choices you have, so you get to decide what happens after death. This is one of the things i hope is true.

It may be that people created Heaven and Hell as a reassurance that bad people would get whats coming to them in the afterlife.

Yes, Satan is a loser! God is a dude!

what if god was a lesbian? That would just create so many problems.

You poor, poor, poor socially inept thing...

Jacob. You said something that disturbed me awhile ago. Not all drug users steal or kill as I clearly stated. Drug abuse is a disease that needs to be treated. Putting a person in prison for putting a chemical in their body is truly just ridiculous. A drug abuser is usually a person who is just extremely depressed and would love to have someone just care enough to help them. You asked me what drug I was on. It says heroin. I even double checked. It was a bad point in my life but I got over it. Do you believe that I should be in prison right now? I still smoke pot and take acid ocasionally. It is usually many months between but it still happens. I also used to sell pot. I wasn't very good at it because I smoked a lot of it at the time and really didn't make any money. During all this time I never did anything to hurt another person intentionally. Never stole. Never killed. Never even beat anyone up. Now you may call me an exception to the rule but the fact is that you have not been a part of the drug culture. I have. I met a lot of wonderfull people that I am still great friends with. Don't believe the hype bro. If you feel like experimenting I recommend it. In moderation of course. Okay. I'm done.

I never said that mutations aren't random, but natural selection certainly isn't random, because an animal is selected on a very rigid criteria: the environment. You fail to grasp the most basic concept of evolution if you're saying that evolution isn't driven by need. Like I explained in my previous post, the environment is what dictates whether or not an organism will survive. A species perfectly suited to its environment has no need to change, and therefore any variations will be ignored by the species as a whole. On the other hand, if the environment changes, or the species migrates, there might be a dramatic change of requirements for survival, and so the mechanism of evolution will choose those with features beneficial to survival while killing off those which are unable to cope with the changes. My point stands: a species suited perfectly will not change, and a species not suited will. This is the most integral aspect of evolution, it shouldn't confuse you.

I don't understand how you can accept evolution on a minor scale but reject it on a major scale. Both are the same thing, there's no barrier between the two, they both operate using the same mechanisms.

If you're going to debate evolution, you should at least make sure you have a basis of understanding of the issue, because you seem majorly confused.

Your first paragraph is, from an evolutionists perspective, true. I thought by need you ment that when a species climate changes the species will suddenly need to change and thus mutations will occur specifically so that the species could survive better. You didn't exactly make yourself clear.

Also, the majority of what I know about evolution comes mainly from my biology teachers at school, so the teachers we must have different opinions on evolution if we can't even agree on what evolution is. Funny, if evolution was a fact like we are supposed to believe, you would think all the scientists would be in agreement on the basics of the theory.

Yes there is a big difference between a species adapting and a species becoming a completely new species. A bird, become a new version of the same bird, is still a bird. A bacteria adapting to antibiotics, isn't even becoming a new species. Minor adaptation, which is NOT evolution in the sense I am using the word, occurs within specieal boundries. The species may begin to express traits it never required before, but it is still the same species. Evolution on a major scale is much different. It requires, over a long period of time, every single living thing on the entire planet to have evolved from one tiny cell that supposedly formed itself. There is a big difference between the two.

In micro-adaptation, species are becoming variants of the same species because one population requires different traits to survive than another population. In evolution, species mutate and thus create entirely new traits, which eventually cause the species to eventually develope into a completely new type of animal.

I think it is very annoying that you that you must insult my intelligence just because you disagree with me. Why can't you just show me where I am scientifically wrong? You haven't done that yet.


What it boils down to is that you believe mutation and natural selection could have made the world what it is today. I disagree, since my understanding of science tells me that is impossible. We won't get anywhere to continue arguing about this part of evolution. So let's move on to other evidences, and forget about whether or not there is a biological mechansim by which it occurs.

So how about the fossil record. I'm sure you have all sorts of great evidence to throw at me.

Okay, I'm no expert at evolution at all, never having really studied it, since it makes perfect sense to me, and I've never seen any need to question it. Perhaps that's not good, but I don't care. So I'm not going to pretend to be right, but instead just present my observations.

How can you say that if a bacterium species changes it isn't becoming a new species? Obviously we call it the same thing, because it would be mighty difficult to keep changing the name every five minutes, and hence we class both the before- and after-products, as it were, as the same species. But since the 'original' form no longer exists, who's to say that they could or couldn't have bred, which, as is my understanding from Sydney and Dictionary.com, the definition of whether or not something is or isn't a species.

In the case of lions and tigers producing ligers (which I had not heard of), and horses, ponies and donkeys producing mules and hinnies, maybe these are the exceptions which prove the definition of a species. It's a far cry from 'the exception which proves the rule, I know. But the thing that most comes to my attention about all of this is what taxonomy all really is. It's not a science, as such, it's just a way of cataloguing animals, plants, fungi, protoetists, algae and monera. Opinions on which genus or class a creature belongs to is disagreed upon within the scientific community, even how many families of life there really are - most scientists stuff algae in with the protoetists, many refer to protoetists simply as 'protists' or something similar. Woe betide any so called scientist who still dumps everything in either 'plant' or 'animal' catagories, but you get the idea. I don't think I'm trying to reach any sort of conclusion here, just trying to break down, or possibly build up, what you consider a species with reference to the bacteria of debate.

As for what scientists believe, well they're a fickle lot. The UN scientists keep blathering about global warming, the most dreadful thing ever to beseige our planet, a process so unnervingly deadly and vile that it doesn't actually exist. We're coming out of a minor ice age, of course the planet's going to get hotter. :D There are scientists who still claim the world is flat, maybe they're right and everything modern science tells us about the spherical nature of planets is just an illusion.

Fossil record: if you're going to start telling me, like those Jehova's Witneses did, that God planted them in the ground, you needn't bother. :p

Well, there's my uneducated on-the-spot analysis.

I pretty much agree with you Max. Since taxonomy is more of a convenience than a science, arguing over the species is pointless, which is one of the reasons I moved the debate away from that subject.

The fact is that animals can change. The question is how much can/did they change?

Off course not. That's like saying God is lying to us on purpose.

There is a lot to the fossil record, but I'll wait until someone else brings something up. The main problem with debating evolution is that both sides are sure science backs them and therefore any evidence the other side gives is generally shrugged off as being misenterpreted or a hoax.

Like the dinosaur bones that have been found with bronze spears in them, and the dinosoar footprints in the same riverbed rock layer as human footprints. Most evolutionists just say they don't exist, they are a myth, or some religious looney didn't study what they had found well enough.

I'm back! Hehehehe! :D

With evolution, I think it may apply to animals to a certain degree. I visited a cave that was so dark, the fish did not have eyes and they were pure white. Obviously those fish evolved without eyes because they didn't need them. However, I do not believe that humans crawled out of the primordial soup and evolved to what we are today.

I don't see why God couldn't be some kind of Monkey...

Like on Southpark...which was quite amusing albeit blasphemous...but still.

Jacob's post was short! Congadulations! That was the shortest post i'd ever seen from you!

Anyway, I don't think that GOD is a monkey, cause like oddguy said, he made us in HIS image. I personaly don't believe in evolution.

God is an omnipotent being, therefore he has no form. He doesn't need one.

How could He make us in His image if He has no form? I don't think God is some floating mist that lives in a clowd. I think He has form and His mind is omnipotent.

What about Demons? I'm intrigued by how the people who wrote the scriptures and described the Demons actually came about meeting/seeing them.

I'm not completly sure what the deal is with Demons, but I think they exist.

Just out of interest and in referrence to "Gods big plan with Adam and Eve" and all. If Gods big plan was to create more humans then wouldn't it also to be to create Demons? As Adam and Lilith bore offspring who were Shedim...described as Bulls with wings.

Ok first of all a lot of you have this really warped. Gods big plan is not to just create more humans. That sounds so plain and so un God like. Gods big plan for us is something deeper and infantively more special than anything we could possibly imagine here on earth. God gave us the gift of life he created us in his image through his love. And man has turned from that gift but the Lord loves us and saved all of us through the Cross. The true meaning behind Gods big plan is complex so complex that a part of it is seeing him in heven.

Demons are the Fallen angels.

Yeah, demons are fallen angels! I forgot what to call them!

Where did I not make myself clear? I said "If you studied evolution to the depths you've claimed to, you'd understand that a species will only evolve when there is a need to. A species perfectly adapted to their environment will not change." I only said that bacteria are known to be a very mutative group of organisms, mutation of course, being only one component of the proccess of evolution.

I thought we'd agreed on the biological mechanism that drives evolution? At least, you haven't adequately responded to what I've explained so I'd assume we're in agreement. If your teachers are telling you that evolution is not directed by the need to conform to environmental factors, then your teachers are hardly qualified to be teaching it. There are no disagreements on the basics of evolution among biologists. You must be assuming that because of your misunderstanding of what evolution is, the scientific community misunderstands it, too.

You haven't answered my question. If, as suggested in your later post, you agree that taxonomy is vague and unreliable, then where exactly is the line that stops speciation from occuring? You've basically said you agree that animals can adapt, but you refuse to accept that over time a new species can develop. Where is the line that prevents this from happening? It works through the same process and there are no genetic parameters that determine how much a group of organisms can change. What evidence do you have that says adaption, over time, can't lead to a new species? There have been some examples of speciation observed both in the lab and in the wild, which you can read about here. And here is an extract:

"Three species of wildflowers called goatsbeards were introduced to the United States from Europe shortly after the turn of the century. Within a few decades their populations expanded and began to encounter one another in the American West. Whenever mixed populations occurred, the specied interbred (hybridizing) producing sterile hybrid offspring. Suddenly, in the late forties two new species of goatsbeard appeared near Pullman, Washington. Although the new species were similar in appearance to the hybrids, they produced fertile offspring. The evolutionary process had created a separate species that could reproduce but not mate with the goatsbeard plants from which it had evolved."

Yes, I have. My previous post highlighted your misconceptions on evolutionary theory.

You haven't used any scientific evidence showing that evolution is impossible, you've merely said repeatedly that you don't believe in it because you think it's impossible for it to work. No explanations of why, and no science.

Are you sure it wasn't because you realised you were losing the debate?

I'll start with this:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comd..._forelimbs.gif

(A) Ornitholestes, a theropod dinosaur
(B) Archaeopteryx
(C) Sinornis, an archaic bird from the lower Cretaceous
(D) the wing of a modern chicken

What does this kind of continuity suggest if not the chronological progression of intermediate forms? Why do fossils show that chickens didn't exist in the time of Ornitholests, Archaeopteryx, or Sinornis? The fossil records show a progression of change. As for the human footprints alongside dino prints: Click.

They are in the same genus. Meaning, they both evolved from a similar animal, so naturally there DNA is similar. Therfore they could be artifiucially bred. The Liger probably has some mutations, witch may more may not be visible. If a lion and a tiger mated, hypathettically speaking in the wild, and had a cub, it probably wouldn't last out there. But,lets say they keep having kids. After a while, perhaps one gets an immunity to some disease that they kept dying from. Thats adaptation right there. If these animals lived on for quite some time, they would eventually evolve into a new species.

When did they start making Ligers? Or is this hypathetical?:fuzconf:

Ok. So, in that case, why is it a sin for Homosexuality to be abound? If Gods plan wasn't to create more humans, then why is he saying Homosexuals are sinners and go against his will?

No, Angels who turned away from Gods light are the Fallen Angels. There are other Demons that have no affiliation with God and reside in Hell and other otherworldly planes of existance.

But PA, why did God create the Shedim?

You also never answered my question in the extinction thread.

Oh and OANST were you capable of fuelling your drug-addiction? As in, were you working or did you have enough money to purchase them?

Jacob, who is Shedim?:fuzconf:

The Shedim are Demons who are said to be like Bulls with wings. There origins are random, yet some texts claim they are the offspring of Lilith and Adam when Lilith slept with Adam.

Ok, who is Lilith? :fuzconf:

Lilith, in Jewish tradition, was created with Adam from the dust of the Earth and became his first wife. She was stubborn, though, & refused to be subservient to her husband. Instead of becoming Adam's servant, she left him & was turned out of Paradise. However, before God created Eve, He sent 3 angels to try to convince Lilith to return to Adam. She refused, & God cursed her by sentencing 100 of her offspring to die each day. After her expulsion from Paradise, however, she slept once more with Adam, & bore the Shedim, Lilin, & Rauchin.

Ummmmmm..........I'm not Jewish, and I don't think Jacob is either.

I'm not Jewish either, so what's up with this Jacob? I didn't know you were jewish!:D

Ligers are real and usually are part of a circus or are a curiosity at a zoo.

An evolutionist would say that there is no line right? I say that the line depends on the situation. A worm does not carry the genes for feathers. This means that a worm could never become a bird, no matter what. Which evolution would require, even if not directly. No matter what a worm could become, it doesn't carry genetically whatever would make a bird.

I know you are going to say that I don't understand evolution. I KNOW that evolutionists are saying that worms have magically become birds. Worms became early vertebrates, became fish, became early reptiles, eventually became birds. No matter how much the intermediate stages make since, how obvious a slow progression may be, the results are still the same. The worm, is somehow becoming a bird. No matter what path it takes, evolutions believe that it is possible. HOW? I might not have given you any scientific evidence, but neither can an evolutionist. You haven't given any sceintific evidence either. Science does not show that it is possible. Evolution requires faith in the unknown. It cannot be tested.

It could easily suggest that all the creatures were created by the same person (God), who used the same basic guidlines in the skeletal structure. That is what it suggests to me. Like I said, it is all in the interpretation of the facts. You choose to believe that your example is evidence of evolution, but it is not any any more scientifically factual than my arguments.

Similarities between parts of different animals is not PROOF that evolution has occured. I might suggest, but it is not a testable scientific fact. Evolution is NOT science, it is a belief. And since there is no real science to evolution, it is hard to scientifically argue with it, especially since your only response to all my evidence is "You don't understand evolution. You are wrong because I say you are confused."

I'm tired of arguing with you, since I know you aren't really listening to me. You already made it clear you don't think I know what I'm talking about. Why should I continue this discussion?

If anyone really cares to learn more of what I have to say (read: if you agree with me and are willing to listen to evidences of an alternative to evolution) please PM. I really do have a lot of good information, if you are open minded. Hopefully some of you understand that what I am saying is true, even if Sydney thinks I'm just stupid.