Vivane,
This is not about you. It's about a jawbone. Make up your own mind. I'm unconvinced.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31718336.
so this jaw bone of early man has been dated at 2.8 million years old.
that means that given a margin for error and allowing an unknown but short period of time for adam naming the animals the 1000 years starts in ummm, eerrr.
Vivane,
This is not about you. It's about a jawbone. Make up your own mind. I'm unconvinced.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31718336.
so this jaw bone of early man has been dated at 2.8 million years old.
that means that given a margin for error and allowing an unknown but short period of time for adam naming the animals the 1000 years starts in ummm, eerrr.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31718336.
so this jaw bone of early man has been dated at 2.8 million years old.
that means that given a margin for error and allowing an unknown but short period of time for adam naming the animals the 1000 years starts in ummm, eerrr.
Juvenile jaw bone without the wisdom teeth seems more likely than Village Idiot's assessment.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31718336.
so this jaw bone of early man has been dated at 2.8 million years old.
that means that given a margin for error and allowing an unknown but short period of time for adam naming the animals the 1000 years starts in ummm, eerrr.
Scientists lying? Gasp!!!!
"Knowing that scientists are highly motivated by status and rewards, that they are no more objective than professionals in other fields, that they can dogmatically defend an idea no less vehemently than ideologues and that they can fall sway to the pull of authority allows us to understand that, in Goodstein’s assessment, “injecting falsehoods into the body of science is rarely, if ever, the purpose of those who perpetrate fraud. They almost always believe that they are injecting a truth into the scientific record.” - Scientific American
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-31718336.
so this jaw bone of early man has been dated at 2.8 million years old.
that means that given a margin for error and allowing an unknown but short period of time for adam naming the animals the 1000 years starts in ummm, eerrr.
Amazing how these "3 million" year old molars look identical to "modern" molars.
bart ehrman noticed, in his book "god's problem", the fact that god was responsible for job's pain.
to show it, bart quoted the following verse:.
and they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the lord had brought upon him.
Satan sold ALL of Adams children into slavery of sin and then death.
if all religion is a snare and a racket as per judge rutherford, then has religion maybe lied to us on this score too?.
could jesus have meant: "if you belonged to the (religious) world, it would love you as its own.
as it is, you do not belong to the (religious) world, but i have chosen you out of the (religious) world.
IMHO the "world" that was being referred to is the self-directed world, or in the instance of religiosity... the "other-directed' world. Those in union with Christ are "spirit directed".
There is a "world" of difference between the two.
bart ehrman noticed, in his book "god's problem", the fact that god was responsible for job's pain.
to show it, bart quoted the following verse:.
and they showed him sympathy and comforted him for all the evil that the lord had brought upon him.
The idea that God is evil and satan is good is an old gnostic heresy.
i'm no expert and do not claim to be in regards to how evolution works but this small test did make think how all things are related and have evolved from one common ancestor.
the horrible example that i grew up hearing about a watch not being able to assemble itself or plane after a tornado, etc... dawkins would say, "well of course not" but mit seems to be on the path to make us think twice.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bnj1spfo4ek.
I guess that's the true miracle of evolution
I agree: evolution is completely indistinguishable from a miracle
hi people, may i firstly thank those who have responded to to my intro article, i am replying to you all as a new topic because the direct messaging is not working for me at the moment so i can clarify my perspective on bible study.
yes there are many arguments that are put forward to demonstrate for example that the bible has been composed of numerous preexisting creation story's ect, my focus is to give the bible the same opportunity to defend itself as anyone reasonably expects if charged with some crime they are not guilty of.. i find for example the account of jesus response when questioned about the divorce certificate 'but it was not so in the beginning' confirms that moses allowed changes to be made to the original, that said consider also the religious traditions moses people had been exposed to, the story of the god enki who seduced even his own grandchildren and the well known incest of the egyptian royalty, given the genetic cost, are such practices any more right now than they were then?
communities that practice close relative marriages today are well documented for there higher risk of numerous health problems so how would you find moses on that basis, guilty or not guilty as jesus did because he understood why moses took the creation story's of other cultures and gave his people there own creation story that taught them to avoid the general pagan practice of incest.before looking any deeper at moses creation story may i also ask the question why does jesus knowing that god promised he would never again destroy the world by a flood as he did in noah's day say 'as in the days of noah ..the flood came and took them all away' so what did jesus actually mean mt 24:.
The Ancient Church Fathers who were the disciples of the apostles, wrote A LOT. From their own writings you can precisely document that the same doctrine was faithfully transmitted to their descendants in the first few centuries. You can also learn where, when, and by whom, that heresies were introduced and how the disciples of the apostles reacted to them. The ancient church fathers make it very easy to know for sure what the complete teachings of Jesus were as well as the consensus on canonical books & letters.
I recommend the following book on the subject: