a 2 million year old hominid has been discovered that had cancer in its foot - making it the oldest neoplasia found in the human lineage.
now, as to why cancer predates original sin by nearly 2 million years, i'd love to hear christian apologists try and explain.. http://sajs.co.za/osteogenic-tumour-australopithecus-sediba-earliest-hominin-evidence-neoplastic-disease/patrick-s-randolph-quinney-scott-williams-maryna-steyn-marc-r-meyer-jacqueline-s-smilg-steven-e.
According to Catholicism the human body was formed through evolution.
At one point God inserted a soul (directly created) in one humanoid and then he became the first man.
Before the insertion of a soul, it was an animal subjected to physical death as any animal.
i often comment in threads that interest me on this forum.
moreover, some of you may know that i study the history of early christianity.
i once wrote an extensive comment on the historicity of jesus' existence in one of the threads.
I don't know anything about MT. I'm not trying to defend anyone but I see a total incongruence about things I know.
It's like to say JW's performing blood transfusions or giving bread and wine to dying people to get a free pass to paradise.
i often comment in threads that interest me on this forum.
moreover, some of you may know that i study the history of early christianity.
i once wrote an extensive comment on the historicity of jesus' existence in one of the threads.
I don't know about the info presented here but it's a blatant lie about sisters performing baptism. In the Catholic faith women cannot perform baptism. And baptism is not performed to sick or dying people because there's a specific sacrament to them.
i think i'm just ornery when it comes to equality.
ever since i can remember, i've always believed that all people were created equal.
the colour of a person's skin is irrelevent to me.
This whole thread offends me. You are a bunch of racists!
now the majority of people nowadays do no go by the hope of old times.
now the reason for this is important and goes beyond mere words.
our culture sees ethics especially national or civil politics as the rules and standards by which we guide ourselves.
Sola scriptura atheists...
pigs.
i hope they hunt them down before they cause more harm.
and my money is on the "religion of peace" for this one too.
your qualifications are way above mine so i'd love to hear more about the specifics of what you have researched and how that supports the existence of a deity.
k99, i am not really convinced that you're interested in my conclusions.
in nature amino acids formed to then form dna.
The evolution can be guided using the very chance factor. But there's no way to detect that. But nothing prevents the chance factor being guided.
This is called faith. It's a good thing if you don't try to search horns in horses' heads.
There's is no materialistic hand detectable in evolution. NONE.
And I believe in guided evolution. But metaphysically guided.
You're just being a JW Kate. You still have the positivist approach in things that are not material. Just like to find the mathematical formula for love or happiness.
so again we go to the quality of evidence used by the wt.. you can read the article here - https://www.jw.org/en/publications/magazines/awake-no5-2016-october/did-jesus-really-exist/.
you see the wt refer to experts with quotes.
as is usually the case the credentials are not represented, just that they are experts (so take their word).
I think the most important argument to Jesus is the fact that Jews never said he never existed. Jesus was a threat to Jewish religion and they would use the never existed argument.
hi dan!.
i came across this logical positivism term and was wondering what your view on it is.
the great philosophers did it as a proffessional career.
JW's are positivists because they take a spiritual concept (worship to most high being) and applies a materialistic method to it with relatories and questions-answers studies.
does anyone here accept the doctrine of transubstantiation?
if so, please elaborate.
theology: the changing of the elements of the bread and wine, when they are consecrated in the eucharist, into the body and blood of christ (a doctrine of the roman catholic church).
Question for John Mann: what is a difference between a "transformation" that is not physically observable, and atransformation that is said to only occur symbolically?
A non physical transformation still is a transformation.
Deniers of transubstantiation doesn't say a transformation takes place. Symbolically or not.
