hammer01

Well, while I don't know of many organs that are appearing, the appendix is a useless thing in humans that may have previously had an evolutionary purpose. There are probably other cases like that too

The appendix is not useless. Some studies have been done and it was discovered that it functions like a fallout shelter. When a disease invades your digestive system that you aren't able to fight off, all of the organisms in your guts that help with getting nutrients retreat into your appendix until you pass whatever it was that was dangerous... thus minimizing the damage done.

 the creatures will addapt and change acordanly

this is the whole problem with evolution. What proof is there that creatures adapt outside of their species? If this hypothesis were true, wouldnt you think that ants would get larger? or even smaller forms of bacteria(yes, bacteria does use oxygen, i just studied about them in my biology) would get significantly larger?

Here is another problem with macro-evolution. Organs. There are so many different types of animals and we have not found one with a useless "Organ". If Evolution were true, then we would find so many animals with half developed organs that currently have no function. Yet we do not. Why is that?

...just create a new card and play...

I believe in both macro and micro. As for the Cambrian explosion, the levels of oxigene rose, and so the animals changed drastically because of it, becoming, bigger and more complex. In the theory of evolution it's pretty easy to explain, the reason for the rise in oxigene is the problem, which isn't part of the theory. But even to those there are a few hipoteses, thought they have nothing to do with evolution.

 

Pretty much, with the raise of the levels of oxigene, the animals and the like could become bigger, and so they evolved like that.

I dont think so... your stateing that a rise in oxygen could have everyone evolve drastically...? where is the proof for that?

This is basically the GMs saying, "Malinor, don't get mad, but we're letting you get crushed,"

Exactly what i said...

Well... Althought I do not go agaisnt the way of thinking that people might easily believe both creationism and evolution (I once did for example, thought a very diferent view of creationism), there is abiogenisis (I don't remember if it's a theory or a hipoteses), which would explain the forming of life, which evolution talks nothing about.

 

As for those that don't believe evolution, I can explain the proofs that it has, IF, you don't bring the bible into it. I really can't argue with people that say "The bible said this", because that basicly means they won't believe anything else. Tell me what you don't believe or understand about evolution and I'll try to explain it, just keep in mind these concepts: Evolution has nothing to do with the formation of anything, be it the earth, life or the universe.

Explain whether you believe in Macro-evolution or Micro-evolution or both. Plus how do you explain the Cambrian Explosion?

Head down the path....

((fee to join...? no way...))

Says the guy who almost always copy pasted everything he said.

Says the guy who is incorrect about almost all of his Christian knowledge. 

Guys, guys! lets not turn this into a rage thread!

*Sigh* Oh well! Elven nomads are fun rp too... I guess! 

But dankee for the words of encouragement, although many people will still rage when things don't go right ^-^

Look at the bright side! at least the orcs aren't getting it!

In the near future, both server-wide events and small-scale events will provide the potentiality for loss of possessions. Nevertheless, we must recognize that this is a roleplaying server, and we must be willing to accommodate these changes. The outcomes of events or wars may not always yield our desired results, but we must accept them for what they are. If everyone achieved their aspired outcome, the server would lose its dynamic aspect and unpredictableness.

...there goes Malinor...

I guess i was wrong on that point. It just seems very unlikely for people to have been around millions of years and it having skipped so many generations.

besides evolution is not supported according to genesis one.

EDIT: My dad just so happens to be a pastor, so ill ask him. I WILL get back to you on this. He will be back sometime today, so any other questions while i wait?

Me and my found this answer:

 

First of all, it's important to understand that

ancient Jewish genealogies differed in the form they took. There were

both ascending and descending genealogies; also, while some were

segmented, others were linear.

Genealogies also varied in depth—that is, they

varied in the number of generations included. Most of the time, they

were not meant to be comprehensive. It was a common practice to skip

generations, depending on the genealogy’s purpose (e.g., to establish

inheritance rights, citizenship, or even the legal right of a king to

rule).

In ascending genealogies, the Hebrew word ben can mean either “son,” or a more distant descendant (in Genesis 29:5, it denotes Laban, who was actually Nahor's grandson).

Likewise, in descending genealogies, the Hebrew word av can

mean either “father” or a more distant ancestor. For example, when

Matthew says that Joram was the “father” of Uzziah (see Matthew

1:9)—also known as Azariah— he’s actually skipping three generations

(compare to 1 Chronicles 3:10-12).

We also know (by comparing other OT accounts) that

the four generations from Perez to Amminadab spanned roughly 450

years—so there are obviously gaps at that point in the genealogy

(because we would ordinarily expect four generations to encompass less

than 200 years). The only people who have a problem with any of this

are modern readers who are unfamiliar with the nature, character, and

purpose of genealogies in ancient Israel.

But let's apply a little common sense here. If the

genealogies in Matthew and Luke were identical, then one of them would

have been unnecessary. And since God is the ultimate economizer of

space, logic dictates that the differences between the genealogies must

be purposeful.

When we study them in detail, it becomes apparent

that the two royal genealogies are complementary, not contradictory—

and that their distinctive features are rich in meaning and

significance.

Matthew's account, for example, presents Yeshua

(Jesus) of Nazareth as the “Son of David” (this title occurs numerous

times in Matthew), and also as the promised King of Israel—He’s called a

“king” seven times. So it should come as no surprise that Matthew’s

genealogy (see Matthew 1:1-17) emphasizes Jesus’ legal claim to the

throne of David, tracing His royal descent from David and Abraham.

Matthew may have had another reason for arranging his

royal genealogy the way he did. He presents the names in three sets of

14 generations each (see Matthew 1:17). In Jewish Gematria (an ancient

practice that assigns a numerical value to each letter in the Hebrew

alphabet), David’s name (DVD in Hebrew, which has no vowels) has a

value of 14 (dalet + vav + dalet, or 4 + 6 + 4

= 14). Also, David is the fourteenth name listed in Matthew’s

genealogy. So, this was a distinctive and stylistically Jewish way to

present the Lord Jesus as a royal descendant of King David and the

rightful heir to the throne.

Luke's Gospel, on the other hand, was written by a

physician-scientist whose purpose was to emphasize the Lord’s

humanity—in Luke, the Lord refers to Himself as “the Son of Man” more

than 20 times. Dr. Luke’s genealogy (see Luke 3:23-38) differs from

Matthew’s because it emphasizes the Lord’s biological descent from

David—and from Adam, the first man.

Doctoral dissertations have been written on the

messianic genealogies, so we make no pretense of having dealt with the

subject exhaustively here. There are other questions (like why two

different people are listed as Joseph’s father in Matthew 1:16 and

Luke 3:23), but there are many possibilities and numerous theories that

have been proposed to resolve them. Therefore, it is the height of

arrogance and presumption when a casual reader, with only a cursory

knowledge of the facts, notes the differences in these two genealogies

and jumps to the conclusion that one or both of them is in error.

 

Dat work for ya?

How is this thread still limping on after the invokation of Godwin's law?

...I dont quite know what you mean by that... i think its a joke... maybe...?

What I think he means is that they are not worshipping the statue, they are just worshipping the person Jesus. Most people don't even notice the statue after the first couple times going there. I think the statue is probably just there for decoration and because they think that the guy they're worshipping, Jesus, looked like that.

^^^^^^^

What dat guy said.

What I said about priests:

You: 'commandment number 2 completely wrong... it means that we should never make an image to worship.'

Since it is not allowed to worship a figure/image, the traditional "Jesus on the chross" in the back of every church seems rather ironic. Ask your dad why he does that, breaks the second commandmend every day, and why he didn't stop it after he read the bible.

He isn't worshiping the Cross, but rather what it stands for. Jesus. Thus when we bow down, it doesn't matter if we bow down facing the cross or facing away from the cross, but rather who we are worshiping. I really don't think you understand most of what Christians do...

it seems my father has not got back yet... ill ask him tomorrow...

Oskar is going to LOVE the fact that your dad's a pastor.

Ikr...

 

oops... didnt read that right... ill edit this when i get the answer...

EDIT: My dad just so happens to be a pastor, so ill ask him. I WILL get back to you on this. He will be back sometime today, so any other questions while i wait?

DOUBLE EDIT: I do know the answer to the Matthew and Luke difference. Matthew was uneducated and Luke was Educated. In those days you were not supposed to go through a womans line. Luke went through Marys line. He just jumped from Joseph, to Marys father.

EDITRAMA!: Ugh... i cant seem to get this editing vs replying right...

oops... didnt read that right... ill edit this when i get the answer...

EDIT: My dad just so happens to be a pastor, so ill ask him. I WILL get back to you on this. He will be back sometime today, so any other questions while i wait?

 

 

 

God gave us the ten commandments to show us how imperfect we are and how much we fall short. and no, you cannot just ignore your sins. the fact that your sinning and not confessing and repenting means that you probably don't have faith in God.

I really dont understand what you jest said about priests, and what relevance it had, so if you could please explain it would be my pleasure to try to show you the answer.

You're avoiding my point, and the biggest point of 'the war on atheism' it's because religion is forced upon children, Hitler is a great exapmle of that, he didn't believe in god because god came down to him and told Hitler he existed, only because his mother have been utter brainwashed to believe that a holy guy that sits in the skies, made the earth.

 

Red = Broken - Green = Hold - Gray = Idunno

Now to to commandments:

1: Thou shalt have no other gods before me - Pretty easy.

2: Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven image - Have you ever had a photo taken of you? OF COURSE!

3: Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain - Have you ever said; OMG/Jesus christ!/Holy ****? OF COURSE!

4: Remember the sabbath day, to keep it holy - Have you ever done any kind of work on a Saturday? (Like homework) OF COURSE

5: Honour thy father and thy mother - We have all hated our parents at some point, so, OF COURSE!

6: Thou shalt not kill - THE BEST ONE OF THEM! ATHEIST KILL BECAUSE THE COMMANDMENTS SAY ONLY CHRISTIANS NEVER KILL! HNNGF BEST COMMANDMENTS EVAH! I <3 JESUS + MOSEZ - Hopefully not.

7: Thou shalt not commit adultery - Who dosen't?

8: Thou shalt not steal - Have you ever stolen a you little sisters doll, or a buck so you could buy that T-Shirt? OF COURSE!

9: Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour - I've done this, I bet you have too, but I can't be too sure, but remember, god knows EVERYTHING, and if you lie, and say you haven't (If you did it) you would have broke two commandments, at the same time!

10: Thou shalt not covet thy neighbour's wife - pretty easy.

 

Hitler did ONE more thing that I would assume you would do, so, see ya in hell.

 

This is exactly why Jesus came down from heaven and died for us. So that we would be forgiven. Do you think God didn't know that we would break those commandments? Oh and BTW you got the definition of commandment number 2 completely wrong... it means that we should never make an image to worship.

oh and some things in science aren't true. like you know that we used to think that maggots were born from meat...

Matthew leaves out names and generations. Uzzi'ah was not Joram's son, for example.

What are the sources that he gives? how did he find this out? how do we know that Joram wasn`t the father of Uzzi`ah? The point is we have no way of finding that out. Thus the genealogy is still relevant.

push the drum down the stairs. Definitely.

In the genealogy thing, the bible is clearly skipping generations. At one point in Matthew it says, "Jesus Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham" when we clearly know that Jesus is the son of Joseph and just descended from David. And David is descended from Abraham.

On the same site, there's stuff about the days, let me get it out: http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/day-age.html

Err... note that it gives the genealogy right after that... that way there is no mistake...

@ Hammer.

 

 

I'm an agnostic myself. Do you believe the whole God made the world in seven days was to be taken literally? 

If it isn't taken literally, then you cant take any of the Bible literally... so yeah, i take it very literally...