DeMann

"Sir, it was in my school textbooks! I was forced to take tests on that trash many long years ago!" So DeMann, Just how old are you and where did you go to school. The claim of Nebraska man, although always dubious, was withdrawn in 1927. You must be in your 90's! ok. dude. let me reiterate in a more clear context. NO we did not study that trash in particular (Nebraska man) as current theory. nor did we, for example, that baby humans, while in the womb, have tails. But those and other ideas (theories??) were indeed covered, and we did most certainly have to take tests

no, he needs not a psych. Solomon said,"Dead flies cause the ointment of the apothecary to send forth a stinking savor: so doth a little folly him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor". this guy needs pity. there but for the grace of God go we also. I still pray for him everyday. several times each day, in fact. All he needs to do is ask God to make him new inside. God will do it if Zorn wants and allows it done. That, my friends (do I have any here?) is grace. God's grace. He is able to forgive and restore not only that girl in question, but Zorn. Now, please don't le

shucks, guys. I'm still trying to figure out how Charles Manson got into this thing.

In Genesis 1, God created all of the animals then he created man and woman. In Genesis 2, God created man, then because man was lonely he started making animals. Finally he made woman. Which part is true? Did the animals come first or second? Is woman just an improvement on the Irish Setter? Maybe, maybe not? Setters don't nag Actually, Gen 1 is the general overview of the creation experience. Then, Chapter 2 gives the details. The part that gives you trouble is in verse 19 when it is reiterated that God made the animals from the dirt. Here, as is common for those looking to fabrica

"Okay DeMann, so there's a book from 1954 that goes into Hebrew law. That still doesn't address my question. Are there records from a higher court stating that the verdict was null and void? " ok. you seem to be a little clueless, although you state that you are well read on the subject matter. the book shows that Hebrew law stated that a court session could only be held in the day time and that if it was not, it was automatically null and void. in fact, those holding it could be beaten for the "violation of the prisoner's rights" if you will. all the history books agree tha

ok. I admit it. I am just a dumb country boy who used to run barefooted in the grassburs and chunked cowpies at his friends when he got bored. I surely am not as brilliant or learn-ed as you guys. so, here goes. answer me these questions: 1) if life came from the ooze, how long did the first one live, and how did it ever come to reproduce? by what method did it, mitosis or meosis? 2) did the first organism have dna, and if so, was it in chromosomal form. if not, why is there no other forms of life like that today? 3) if God had nothing to do with it, why did any early

Now for some observations: This is simply false. It is one of the most well supported theories in science. It has been tested for nearly a century and a half and is stronger than ever. You need to read something other than creationism You, sir, are full of some stinky stuff. There is not proof anywhere. Just theories based upon theories. Punctuated Equalibrium? That one came along when the proof was trashed by observation. I pointed out to you that this was never in the scientific literature. The Nebraska man was based on over-zelous press reports. Have you responded? No you si

This model is referred to as Punctuated Equilibrium and it is widely accepted as true, at least in some cases. Now, doesnt this sound contradictory? Man, this site is full of it. You know, stated concepts without factual basis. No wonder you can take this stuff as truth. All he has to do is make a statement, and you will swallow it right up. It postulates that speciation is (usually) due to the gradual accumulation of small genetic changes. This is equivalent to saying that macroevolution is simply a lot of microevolution. Now, I have not seen any evidence (as you state

"I will give you a hint. the first trial was illegal since it was held at night. by Hebrew law, it was null and void. Do you have any evidence other than some self serving books written by the criminal's followers? Are there 2000 year old records from the court? How about some Roman records?" OK. Read The Pharisee of the Old Testament, Oxford Press, 1954 printing, chapters 7-8. This book is based upon texts found in the Middle East in modern (1880-1950) archeological digs. It is both a history lesson of the Pharisee sect of the Jewish religion, as well as of the common law of

Christ was a criminal who was tried and executed. o.k. big boy. what was the crime, what was the verdict. I will give you a hint. the first trial was illegal since it was held at night. by Hebrew law, it was null and void. the second was held by Pilate, and he found him innocent of all charges. yes, he was executed. but he was never found guilty in a legal court. also, by the way, the charge against him was that he said that he was the Son of God. HMMM..... was he guilty? oh, and to those who chide the use of "I AM"...get real. you did not understand what was m

I suspected that you from an alternative universe. In mine we were able to break water into the constiuent components in my HS chem class. Yes, you did. But you did it with the addition of more energy than was generated in the formation of the water molecule. Do you remember heat of fusion calculations in your chem.II class? Again, you need to find the real definition of the second law. So you admit that abiogenesis is not part of the theory of evolution, glad you cleared that up. Oops, I guess you changed your mind... Sir, it is a fact that the modern evolutionary theory i

3) The OT speaks to the creation of world. It's not logical, and a little less than sincere, to invoke Jesus' name on a topic for which he did not address. Nevertheless, Jesus' teachings did not negate or deny the OT. I don't mean to criticize you (PLEASE don't take this as criticism!),but you need to read a little more. Jesus said ,"I and my father are one". the words mean exactly that. it indirectly infers that Jesus made the world. He said that if you see him(Jesus), you also are seeing his Father. At the temple one day, Jesus answers the question of who he is when he says in Hebr

by the way..... who came up with Science, and who came up with the Bible? If God wrote one and man the other, who do you think is right? if man wrote them both,then how can we possibly know what God has to say?

"Drug resistant bacteria and pesticide resistant insects being a couple of examples observed in nature." A scientist, sir, you are not. When left alone (without the drug they are resistant to) the bacteria in question revert back to their weaker state. the insects do also. albiet they do have a better resistance to them, they do indeed weaken again. this is a fact. punctuated equalibrium? sir, that one was thought up when the creationists called the hand of the evolutionists because it was noted that various species were found in different strata, showing that the species did no

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Ahhh, quoting the Bible can be such a fun game. What about this counter: Ah, the wonders of the bible. It says whatever you want it to say. -------------------- How I wish!!! see, if it did, it would say that I don't have to stay in the bounds of marraige. it would also say that I can steal and get away with it. and that lying is ok. but it does not. in fact, it just goes against the way I FEEL like living my life. However, since God wrote it, I follow it. Is it my crutch? heck, man, it is

gee whiz, folks, we just got too many rabbits running right now. I am truly sorry I am on call like I am..... getting back to this is just too difficult to stay up with the many great ideas being tossed around here. so with that, let me get out the .270 and shoot a few of these rabbits and get them out of the way. 1) this debate will not change the mind of the major actors. it will sway the minds of the casual readers. therin lies the true value of it all. 2) please don't spout off about needing scientific evidence and then try to ignore the second law of thermodynami

ok, Zorn. You seemed to have missed my previous post. here it is again: "Face it, God doesn't change people, people change themselves. The girl was bad news from day one, nearly destroyed her family and you think that she deserves another chance. Maybe you think that Charles Manson deserves parole as well? " Now where did I give the impression that we are not to suffer consequences for our actions? Where in the Sam Hill did you draw that conclusion? Charles Manson needed help long before the murder spree. Heck, Scouting might have been the ticket for him for all you or I kno

now, dang it! (can I say that here?) you guys jumped all over this and stretched it all out. I was looking to really get my hooks into somebody here and now I have too many rabbits to chase. I hoped to see a different idea and notion that has not been brought into this debate (if you can call it that) as of yet. I am gone too much to stay on top of all this. But that is ok. I like others having their say. I really like expressing my views on certain topics (can you tell?). anyway, let me see if I can throw out a little food for thought. OK. God can make all that w

"Face it, God doesn't change people, people change themselves. The girl was bad news from day one, nearly destroyed her family and you think that she deserves another chance. Maybe you think that Charles Manson deserves parole as well? " Now where did I give the impression that we are not to suffer consequences for our actions? Where in the Sam Hill did you draw that conclusion? Charles Manson needed help long before the murder spree. Heck, Scouting might have been the ticket for him for all you or I know. For you to say that some children should have been drowned at birth sca

'Amicus briefs in opposition to the BSA policy were submitted or joined by the General Board of Church and Society of the United Methodist Church, The Episcopal Church, the United Church of Christ, The Religious Action Center of Reform Judaism and the Unitarian Universalist Association. One brief noted that even some individual churches within the Southern Baptist Convention have ordained gay clergy.' still no hard, factual survey of the people. no numbers. Interesting about the Southern Baptist Convention. the convention speaks for no individual church. and the group for whom yo

Zorn, I once ate a t-bone that was tough as leather. but they all are not so. in fact, if that one had been handled correctly, it would have been well worth the eating. I personally think that all t-bones are great, and that they all have great potential. it is not the fault of that girl because of her birth. she did make some poor decisions, but God still loves her. and, should she ask for him to change her, he is more than capable of doing so. I am taken aback by your stance. I have a feeling that you don't have that many boys trying to get into your troop. In fact, I be

This statement seems, at least to me, to show that a study was done, and that either actual numbers of respondents or percentages thereof are available to support the statement that a 'large portion' of the membership of the United Methodist Church publicly disagree with the stance of the BSA. Where can I obtain a copy of this finding? You can find that the UMC had different factions filing opposing briefs before the Supreme Court and that this church, which is the second largest sponsor of Scouting units, has internal division of the BSA's stance. I am sorry. I must be den

"Oddly enough, if a town has a troop sponsored by the United Methodist Church (a large portion of which publicly disagreed with the BSA before the Supreme Court), that troop, that chartering org, those parents and that town has no option for allowing a gay Scout to be a member" This statement seems, at least to me, to show that a study was done, and that either actual numbers of respondents or percentages thereof are available to support the statement that a 'large portion' of the membership of the United Methodist Church publicly disagree with the stance of the BSA. Where can I obtain

I am curious. What denomination (or 'religion') believes in the origin of man as purported in the theory of evolution? How can one claim Christianity and believe this theory? my most pressing question is, "Do those who believe in evolution believe that the Bible is God's revelation to man?"

My! Such a lovely discussion! While I have not read every posting, I have read enough to wish I had been in on this one from the start. Who believes that evolution is a fact? Who discounts 7-day creation of the universe? I would love to know which denomination suports this one. Science? What is it and where did it come from? What constitutes a fact? Gee.....this could get interesting, provided of course that this thread has not died. I find the creation/evolutionist quite difficult to take. two seemingly distant and diverse ideas announcing that they can exist in harmony....