Hmm...Agenda, anyone?

Gato_Solo said:
Like I said. If you take things out of context, thats where you run into the problems. Take into account the bolded portion. That may be legally correct for the time, but not biblically correct. ;)
Click to expand...

hear ye hear ye

scope of inquiry expanded to other examples of past 'tradition' or 'social convention' that one may not want to retain or backslide to inspired by your phrase 'lowering the standard'

what say ye now
 
2minkey said:
hear ye hear ye

scope of inquiry expanded to other examples of past 'tradition' or 'social convention' that one may not want to retain or backslide to inspired by your phrase 'lowering the standard'

what say ye now
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. You're taking a secular idea and trying to compare it to a spiritual idea. In this case, if you have to expand your inquiry to include other examples, you have already lost your focus. The biblical standards have not changed. The church standards have. Apples and oranges...what say ye, now?
 
catocom said:
Actually the book I go by does allow for Some evolution.
Click to expand...

I'm no biblical scholar but evolution could fit within creation (see the Catholics) & is not outright denied in any Judeo-Christian bible.
 
I agree in much of it.

It seems most disagreement come in the time-line, but I have my own theory on that.
Along the lines that time is refereed to, and was measured differently...

IMO the science, and doctrine complement each other, to some degree.:nerd:

The part I disagree with is that man came from monkeys.
I do think there were Neanderthals.

It is my belief that Cain, mated with a monkey of some kind, to create them.
 
Gato_Solo said:
Apples and oranges. You're taking a secular idea and trying to compare it to a spiritual idea. In this case, if you have to expand your inquiry to include other examples, you have already lost your focus. The biblical standards have not changed. The church standards have. Apples and oranges...what say ye, now?
Click to expand...

i say "fuck it" and "culturally universal fodder for vertrationalitat" but i'm too lazy to explain.

lost focus? nah... but i can see the forest... hey how's that stump?
 
catocom said:
I do think there were Neanderthals.

It is my belief that Cain, mated with a monkey of some kind, to create them.
Click to expand...

:rofl:

dude that rocks!

neandertals had on average a brain 50cc bigger than ours. they are essentially modern humans with some phenotypic features that conferred survivability advantage in colder climates. there's many examples of skulls being found showing a kline (or range) of features between homo sapiens like us and neandertals. in other words, there are intermediate forms. like the occipital bun 9classic neandertal) and finer brow ridges (us, except australian aboriginals).

you could have a baby with a neandertal.

you could not have a baby with a monkey.

neither could a neandertal.
 
aaah, Neanderthal meandershmal....

coulda been whatever form before that.

What part I do understand is that there was in the beginnings, Adam, Eve, Cain, and Able.
Cain killed able, and was driven away where he met, and knew, his Mate.

THEN, Adam and Eve had other children.

NO-One knows what the genetic makeup was back then.:shrug:
 
2minkey said:
i say "fuck it" and "culturally universal fodder for vertrationalitat" but i'm too lazy to explain.
Click to expand...

Now that I can believe. :p

2minkey said:
lost focus? nah... but i can see the forest... hey how's that stump?
Click to expand...

Kinda like being the worlds greatest sniper, and forced to use a shotgun with rabbit shot? ;)
 
catocom said:
NO-One knows what the genetic makeup was back then.:shrug:
Click to expand...

in around 4000 BC when the ussher chronology places adam and eve?

dude, those would be anatomically modern humans. the genetic makeup is well known. in fact it's fully mapped as of a few years ago.

but if you like your stories, that's fine...
 
A mule is the offspring of a horse and a donkey, and is unable to have offspring of its own, I thought.
 
catocom said:
The part I disagree with is that man came from monkeys.
I do think there were Neanderthals.

It is my belief that Cain, mated with a monkey of some kind, to create them.
Click to expand...

Science disagrees that 'man came from monkeys' as well, you'll be happy to know. The theory of evolution postulates that we (humans) share a common ancestor with other primates, not that we descend from them. ie proto-primate led to :

1) proto-monkey... which led to modern-monkey
2) proto-ape... which led to modern-ape
3) proto-hominid... which led to modern-hominid



Minkey? It was more like 100cc. Average neander was around 1450cc, whilst the average sapiens sapiens was around 1350cc.
 
BeardofPants said:
Science disagrees that 'man came from monkeys' as well, you'll be happy to know. The theory of evolution postulates that we (humans) share a common ancestor with other primates, not that we descend from them. ie proto-primate led to :

1) proto-monkey... which led to modern-monkey
2) proto-ape... which led to modern-ape
3) proto-hominid... which led to modern-hominid

Minkey? It was more like 100cc. Average neander was around 1450cc, whilst the average sapiens sapiens was around 1350cc.
Click to expand...

i'm not sure catocom would be so pleased since yer saying that we evolved from something that preceded current monkeys and was presumably more primitive. "we evolved from something like a monkey, just probably a little dumber..."

yeah you may be right about the brain thingy. i've not had my head in that stuff for about ten years.
 
IMO, there could be any number of scenarios, but except for some archaeologist recognition, there's no point really.
All were destroyed in the flood.

To me it makes Just as much since that man mated, and had offspring
with something other than another human, as it does that man 'evolved'
from something else.:shrug:
 
catocom said:
To me it makes Just as much since that man mated, and had offspring
with something other than another human...
Click to expand...

um, interspecies reproduction doesn't tend to work very well.

try plooking a bird. see what comes out of the cloaca...

Avian_cloaca.jpg


...in nine months.
 
I not into bestiality.
THAT does happen to outside the realm of what is permissible by the religion
of which happens to be my faith.

I do know OF some lesser 'inclined' people that do though.


I believe that the two that 'hook up' would have to be of the same genus
though, in theory.:shrug:
 
definitionally - if i remember correctly - is that "species" means "can produce viable offspring" meaning that the offspring produced is also able to reproduce. genus = no viable offspring.

in theory, of course.

but with jesus, certainly all things are possible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top