Do you believe in evolution?
- Thread starter darknes
- Start date
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Clown Boy
Could be the same case with... um... I'm not going to even try the name... LOL
I know. The systematists persist in using unpronounceable Latin or Greek names. I prefer the approach of the fruit fly geneticists, who use far better names, for example: "turnip" for an intelligence defective mutant, and "Don Juan" for a sterile mutant.
Could be the same case with... um... I'm not going to even try the name... LOL
I know. The systematists persist in using unpronounceable Latin or Greek names. I prefer the approach of the fruit fly geneticists, who use far better names, for example: "turnip" for an intelligence defective mutant, and "Don Juan" for a sterile mutant.
ophiura
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
Mokele Mbembe is clearly a folkloric being, on a par with the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot. There are no, repeat, no verified sightings or findings to confirm the existence of this being, so whether it is a dinosaur or not is an open question. Either way, whether or not dinosaurs exist or not today has absolutely no bearing on evolution. There are other reptiles today, and their form and existence are evidence, in fact, in support of evolutionary theory.
Yup, again this mistaken idea of evolution having a "goal" and "improving" over time. There is no such thing.
There are LOADS of animals that existed WAY before dinosaurs and are still around (echinoderms are a great example) but it doesn't matter.
There is a whole lotta misunderstanding about evolution.
BTW, once again, the idea of God creating man, and the evolutionary process, are in no way at odds, IMO.
Mokele Mbembe is clearly a folkloric being, on a par with the Loch Ness monster and Bigfoot. There are no, repeat, no verified sightings or findings to confirm the existence of this being, so whether it is a dinosaur or not is an open question. Either way, whether or not dinosaurs exist or not today has absolutely no bearing on evolution. There are other reptiles today, and their form and existence are evidence, in fact, in support of evolutionary theory.
Yup, again this mistaken idea of evolution having a "goal" and "improving" over time. There is no such thing.
There are LOADS of animals that existed WAY before dinosaurs and are still around (echinoderms are a great example) but it doesn't matter.
There is a whole lotta misunderstanding about evolution.
BTW, once again, the idea of God creating man, and the evolutionary process, are in no way at odds, IMO.
ophiura
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
I know. The systematists persist in using unpronounceable Latin or Greek names. I prefer the approach of the fruit fly geneticists, who use far better names, for example: "turnip" for an intelligence defective mutant, and "Don Juan" for a sterile mutant.
As a systematist, I will only take slight offense
I know. The systematists persist in using unpronounceable Latin or Greek names. I prefer the approach of the fruit fly geneticists, who use far better names, for example: "turnip" for an intelligence defective mutant, and "Don Juan" for a sterile mutant.
As a systematist, I will only take slight offense
jerthunter
Active Member
It seems that some people have made claims that radioactive dating is invalid. I find this to be very interesting and would love to know how and when radioactive isotopes change their halflife.
Does Potassium-40 decay faster on tuesday or is it mondays?
Does Potassium-40 decay faster on tuesday or is it mondays?
lil' tanker
Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
Why is a reptile-bird so hard for you to believe? It's possible, it was even mentioned in the bible:
http://www.biblemysteries.com/library/archaeopteryx.htm
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/....11&version=31 I don't see that do you?
Why is a reptile-bird so hard for you to believe? It's possible, it was even mentioned in the bible:
http://www.biblemysteries.com/library/archaeopteryx.htm
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/....11&version=31 I don't see that do you?
darknes
Active Member
Originally Posted by lil' tanker
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/....11&version=31 I don't see that do you?
You're reading an English translation. Go look at different bibles, and they all list different creatures for verses 18 and 30. You're gonna have to learn some Hebrew if you want the truth.
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/....11&version=31 I don't see that do you?
You're reading an English translation. Go look at different bibles, and they all list different creatures for verses 18 and 30. You're gonna have to learn some Hebrew if you want the truth.
lil' tanker
Member
garnet13aj said:
lil' tanker
Member
Originally Posted by Darknes
You're reading an English translation. Go look at different bibles, and they all list different creatures for verses 18 and 30. You're gonna have to learn some Hebrew if you want the truth.
Ok well what about this
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...11;&version=9;
this one is in King James which is the oldest translation of the Bible, it was done by people who were told that even if the King himself walked into the room not to acknowledge him because they were doing God's work. If they messed up at all on one page they started over. These were not liers and deceivers, these were men who committed their lives to give us the best God blessed translation of the Bible.
You're reading an English translation. Go look at different bibles, and they all list different creatures for verses 18 and 30. You're gonna have to learn some Hebrew if you want the truth.
Ok well what about this
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...11;&version=9;
this one is in King James which is the oldest translation of the Bible, it was done by people who were told that even if the King himself walked into the room not to acknowledge him because they were doing God's work. If they messed up at all on one page they started over. These were not liers and deceivers, these were men who committed their lives to give us the best God blessed translation of the Bible.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by lil' tanker
Ok well what about this
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...11;&version=9;
this one is in King James which is the oldest translation of the Bible, it was done by people who were told that even if the King himself walked into the room not to acknowledge him because they were doing God's work. If they messed up at all on one page they started over. These were not liers and deceivers, these were men who committed their lives to give us the best God blessed translation of the Bible.
According to Wikipedia (FWIW), the King James translation came after almost 200 years of previous translations into English.
Ok well what about this
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...11;&version=9;
this one is in King James which is the oldest translation of the Bible, it was done by people who were told that even if the King himself walked into the room not to acknowledge him because they were doing God's work. If they messed up at all on one page they started over. These were not liers and deceivers, these were men who committed their lives to give us the best God blessed translation of the Bible.
According to Wikipedia (FWIW), the King James translation came after almost 200 years of previous translations into English.
darknes
Active Member
Originally Posted by lil' tanker
Ok well what about this
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...11;&version=9;
this one is in King James which is the oldest translation of the Bible, it was done by people who were told that even if the King himself walked into the room not to acknowledge him because they were doing God's work. If they messed up at all on one page they started over. These were not liers and deceivers, these were men who committed their lives to give us the best God blessed translation of the Bible.
I'm not calling any translator a liar. Certain words are translated differently by different people. Some languages have words that do not translate well into another language; for example, "beautiful" and "gorgeous" might both translate into the same word Greek.
If the same Hebrew word was used in both verses, shouldn't they have both translated into the same animal? The link I posted is just one scholar's account; I'm not trying to convince you of anything or change your mind; just to give you something to ponder.
Ok well what about this
http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...11;&version=9;
this one is in King James which is the oldest translation of the Bible, it was done by people who were told that even if the King himself walked into the room not to acknowledge him because they were doing God's work. If they messed up at all on one page they started over. These were not liers and deceivers, these were men who committed their lives to give us the best God blessed translation of the Bible.
I'm not calling any translator a liar. Certain words are translated differently by different people. Some languages have words that do not translate well into another language; for example, "beautiful" and "gorgeous" might both translate into the same word Greek.
If the same Hebrew word was used in both verses, shouldn't they have both translated into the same animal? The link I posted is just one scholar's account; I'm not trying to convince you of anything or change your mind; just to give you something to ponder.
jerthunter
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
According to Wikipedia (FWIW), the King James translation came after almost 200 years of previous translations into English.
Although I personally like to stay away from Wikipedia I have to agree with it. The King James translation is not the oldest translation of the bible into english, it merely has the benefit of being made most popular.
Now even if the claim that the King James version was the oldest was true, which unforunately it is not, it would not make it any better then other translations. One of the amazing things about humans is our ability to gather information over time. So newer translations have the benefit of all the previous research to build upon.
According to Wikipedia (FWIW), the King James translation came after almost 200 years of previous translations into English.
Although I personally like to stay away from Wikipedia I have to agree with it. The King James translation is not the oldest translation of the bible into english, it merely has the benefit of being made most popular.
Now even if the claim that the King James version was the oldest was true, which unforunately it is not, it would not make it any better then other translations. One of the amazing things about humans is our ability to gather information over time. So newer translations have the benefit of all the previous research to build upon.
lil' tanker
Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
According to Wikipedia (FWIW), the King James translation came after almost 200 years of previous translations into English.
Yes parts of books that are now in the Bible mostly the letters of Paul and the Gospels. But, the Bible had never been compiled, some books were left out and put in a book called the Apocrypha.
According to Wikipedia (FWIW), the King James translation came after almost 200 years of previous translations into English.
Yes parts of books that are now in the Bible mostly the letters of Paul and the Gospels. But, the Bible had never been compiled, some books were left out and put in a book called the Apocrypha.
lil' tanker
Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Although I personally like to stay away from Wikipedia I have to agree with it. The King James translation is not the oldest translation of the bible into english, it merely has the benefit of being made most popular.
Now even if the claim that the King James version was the oldest was true, which unforunately it is not, it would not make it any better then other translations. One of the amazing things about humans is our ability to gather information over time. So newer translations have the benefit of all the previous research to build upon.
I see where you're coming from but the Bible won't change. There may be different Versions but the Bible isn't going to be added upon or subtracted from. In fact, in the Bible it says that if you take out anything or put in anything, well, lets just say God won't be happy. Take for instance the incident in Texas if you know what I mean.
Although I personally like to stay away from Wikipedia I have to agree with it. The King James translation is not the oldest translation of the bible into english, it merely has the benefit of being made most popular.
Now even if the claim that the King James version was the oldest was true, which unforunately it is not, it would not make it any better then other translations. One of the amazing things about humans is our ability to gather information over time. So newer translations have the benefit of all the previous research to build upon.
I see where you're coming from but the Bible won't change. There may be different Versions but the Bible isn't going to be added upon or subtracted from. In fact, in the Bible it says that if you take out anything or put in anything, well, lets just say God won't be happy. Take for instance the incident in Texas if you know what I mean.
jerthunter
Active Member
Originally Posted by lil' tanker
I see where you're coming from but the Bible won't change. There may be different Versions but the Bible isn't going to be added upon or subtracted from. In fact, in the Bible it says that if you take out anything or put in anything, well, lets just say God won't be happy. Take for instance the incident in Texas if you know what I mean.
Who decides what books belong in the bible? It seems that people have already added and subtracted books from the bible. Song of Solomon almost didn't make it into the current widely accepted version of the bible, and many other books have been removed.
Some denominations have added books to the bible, just look at the LDS church.
I see where you're coming from but the Bible won't change. There may be different Versions but the Bible isn't going to be added upon or subtracted from. In fact, in the Bible it says that if you take out anything or put in anything, well, lets just say God won't be happy. Take for instance the incident in Texas if you know what I mean.
Who decides what books belong in the bible? It seems that people have already added and subtracted books from the bible. Song of Solomon almost didn't make it into the current widely accepted version of the bible, and many other books have been removed.
Some denominations have added books to the bible, just look at the LDS church.
lil' tanker
Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
Who decides what books belong in the bible? It seems that people have already added and subtracted books from the bible. Song of Solomon almost didn't make it into the current widely accepted version of the bible, and many other books have been removed.
Some denominations have added books to the bible, just look at the LDS church.
What's LDS and the guy who was in charge of choosing was Jethro way back around the Reformation times.
Who decides what books belong in the bible? It seems that people have already added and subtracted books from the bible. Song of Solomon almost didn't make it into the current widely accepted version of the bible, and many other books have been removed.
Some denominations have added books to the bible, just look at the LDS church.
What's LDS and the guy who was in charge of choosing was Jethro way back around the Reformation times.
jerthunter
Active Member
Originally Posted by lil' tanker
What's LDS and the guy who was in charge of choosing was Jethro way back around the Reformation times.
LDS=Latter Day Saints, short for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If you don't know who that is you might know of them as the Mormon church. They have added the Book of Mormon to their christian canon.
As far as who determines what books made it into the christian canon, I doubt you will find any one person, but it was determined by the catholic church before the Protestant church split off.
Other groups have added to the bible, like Islam, which uses the Torah (Old testament), the christian new testament, and the Quran.
What's LDS and the guy who was in charge of choosing was Jethro way back around the Reformation times.
LDS=Latter Day Saints, short for the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints. If you don't know who that is you might know of them as the Mormon church. They have added the Book of Mormon to their christian canon.
As far as who determines what books made it into the christian canon, I doubt you will find any one person, but it was determined by the catholic church before the Protestant church split off.
Other groups have added to the bible, like Islam, which uses the Torah (Old testament), the christian new testament, and the Quran.
lil' tanker
Member
Originally Posted by Jerthunter
LDS=Ladder Day Saints, short for the Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints. If you don't know who that is you might know of them as the Mormon church. They have added the Book of Mormon to their christian canon.
As far as who determines what books made it into the christian canon, I doubt you will find any one person, but it was determined by the catholic church before the Protestant church split off.
Other groups have added to the bible, like Islam, which uses the Torah (Old testament), the christian new testament, and the Quran.
Well
1. The Mormons are in no way real Christians they believe something completely different IMO.
2. The Muslims aren't exactly Christians either In everyone's opinion I know.
LDS=Ladder Day Saints, short for the Church of Jesus Christ of Ladder Day Saints. If you don't know who that is you might know of them as the Mormon church. They have added the Book of Mormon to their christian canon.
As far as who determines what books made it into the christian canon, I doubt you will find any one person, but it was determined by the catholic church before the Protestant church split off.
Other groups have added to the bible, like Islam, which uses the Torah (Old testament), the christian new testament, and the Quran.
Well
1. The Mormons are in no way real Christians they believe something completely different IMO.
2. The Muslims aren't exactly Christians either In everyone's opinion I know.