Bumper sticker. . .(shudder)

[Paulhoff]

I suggest you look in the mirror and speak that phrase to who you see there, then do exactly what you suggest. I have faith that you will keep on smiling, which is a good thing.

DR

If you care you will see I was not writing to you, thankyou.

Paul

 

[jimlintott]

So, if someone produced a ten thousand year old skeleton would that be proof that humans lived ten thousand years ago or proof that until ten thousand years ago no humans lived.

Take a long walk in the woods someday and count how many skeletons, of any type, you find. They are rare. It is almost lucky that we find any skeletons. It is no surprise to me that going back beyond the time of ceremonial, or otherwise deliberate preserving of remains, yields very little.

 

[Paulhoff]

It's realism. It's the way things are. It's science.

It isn't a lame excuse to blame God for a living, evolving universe.

If you have a so-called god who is the maker of all things, then who else would you blame, what is wrong with your so-called god, isn’t his shoulders big enough for the universe that he is suppose to have made. And why does someone have to pray to him for him to fix things, since he is all knowing and should already known about a problem and had fix it already, or does this so-called god need his ass kissed all the time. I know, he just likes to keep us in our place as little mortals.

Paul

 

[kurious_kathy]

kurious_kathy
Even more evidence that you don’t follow what you preach.

Ossai

How so? I have faith but I do not believe in the faith preachers out there. Most of the faith preachers like Benny Hinn are way off on their doctrine and the gospel they preach seems to be somewhat off. The true gospel is about repentance not getting healed.

And since I have been out of work almost three years now because of my neck I figured God may just choose to use my doctor to get me the help I need. When people start trying to make demands of God for healing then I would say to that person beware. Faith preaching has not helped us spread the gospel around the world, only preaching the true word of God!

Jesus still heals people at times with divine intervention, but many times He uses doctors to help us. It still took faith for me to go ahead and have a triple fusion done on my neck. I feel God gave my ortho doctor a gift to help me heal.

Here's another bumper sticker idea..."Jesus isn't Santa Claus" but He is the Messiah the true Son of God sent from heaven to save all who believe in Him!

 

[Paulhoff]

Jesus still heals people at times with divine intervention, but many times He uses doctors to help us. It still took faith for me to go ahead and have a triple fusion done on my neck. I feel God gave my ortho doctor a gift to help me heal.

What a cop out, that all it is, that is just like the boss taking all the credit for a job well done, when in fact he was on vacation. And why does this Jesus not fix things before they go wrong, I know, so he can get credit from people like you who buy into the god BS.

Paul



Here's another bumper sticker idea..."Jesus just isn't"

 

[Foster Zygote]

Whats up with the puacity of skeletal evidence anyway? There is an abundance of human remains all the way back to 4,000 B.C.. Why no further?
Do you think something might have happened?

You're surprised that the older the remains the less numerous they are? Have you considered that recent remains need not be fossilized to be preserved and that the human population has been growing exponentially since our earliest human ancestors walked the Earth? If human skeletons did not decay and therefor the relatively rare event of fossilization were not required to preserve them long term, and if the human population had remained constant in number throughout history you would certainly have a case. But very old remains dating from a time when human population numbers were small are much less likely to be preserved for long periods, and more recent remains dating from a time when human population numbers are much greater are far more likely to still be preserved for our examination.

The oldest human you are going to find is 12,000 yrs old. ( I think, I have it on good account but have not seen the proofs)

You have to back up your statements with evidence and cite your sources. Saying "I have it on good account" is not adequate evidence. What source do you take this claim from?

 

[Darth Rotor]

If you care you will see I was not writing to you, thankyou.

Paul

So what?

This is an open forum. I am free to reply to any post I choose. My replies are not pre ordained, nor limited, by your narrow minded view of how this forum, or anything else, works.

DR

 

[Tricky]

You're surprised that the older the remains the less numerous they are? Have you considered that recent remains need not be fossilized to be preserved and that the human population has been growing exponentially since our earliest human ancestors walked the Earth? If human skeletons did not decay and therefor the relatively rare event of fossilization were not required to preserve them long term, and if the human population had remained constant in number throughout history you would certainly have a case. But very old remains dating from a time when human population numbers were small are much less likely to be preserved for long periods, and more recent remains dating from a time when human population numbers are much greater are far more likely to still be preserved for our examination.

Very true. Not to mention the fact that humans have not always had burial rituals.

 

[Paulhoff]

So what?

This is an open forum. I am free to reply to any post I choose. My replies are not pre ordained, nor limited, by your narrow minded view of how this forum, or anything else, works.

DR

Then don't quote me has if I was writing to you.

Paul

I showed my wife you remark, she is still on the floor laughing, she thanks you.

 

[Tricky]

Then don't quote me has if I was writing to you.

Who are you writing to?

 

[Paulhoff]

god

 

[Tricky]

god

He doesn't post anymore. We miss Him.

 

[Paulhoff]

Sick?

 

[Tricky]

Sick?

Retired.

 

[Paulhoff]

Me too, where can I find him?

 

[Tricky]

Me too, where can I find him?

You can find Him in the shower, I think. Don't drop the soap.

 

[Paulhoff]

Never mind, he is most likely lost again.

Paul

 

[Huntster]

.....Hunster, I dont know why you are not on this, there is really very little actual continuity of real evidence in 'evolution' its mostly conjecture.

The oldest human you are going to find is 12,000 yrs old. ( I think, I have it on good account but have not seen the proofs)

I've got some different ideas on creation, and I think I understand how it fits with evolution.

More, I've spent some effort reading into the sasquatch phenomenon. I believe this species still exists, and is the last of the bipedal apes which were believed common in the Miocene Era.

One theory I have for why many within the science industry oppose any and all research into the sasquatch phenomenon is that the discovery of a bipedal ape throws a huge ideological monkey wrench into the realm of human evolution (which has, itself, become an ideological science). For example, "Lucy", millions of years old, may have walked on two legs like her skeletal remains suggest, but that doesn't mean she was human:

Then God said: "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, the birds of the air, and the cattle, and over all the wild animals and all the creatures that crawl on the ground." God created man in his image; in the divine image he created him; male and female he created them

Because we were created in the "image and likeness" of God, that doesn't mean God has two legs, two arms with opposed thumbs, and that He walks on two legs. God is a spirit.

We became "man" when God created us spiritual creatures (which also could have been evolutionary, which is still God's creation).

The Roman Catholic Church does not oppose evolution, and never officially did. Nor do I.

Nor do I oppose creation. I marvel how people 3,000 years ago were so wise and inspired to write it as they did. Without the benefit of modern science, they weren't off at all. They just explained it the best they could. The problem is that people are using it to wage ideological war with each other, and it's like arguing apples against oranges.

 

[Huntster]

Originally Posted by Huntster
It's realism. It's the way things are. It's science.

It isn't a lame excuse to blame God for a living, evolving universe.

If you have a so-called god who is the maker of all things, then who else would you blame...

Blame for what? Biological reality?

what is wrong with your so-called god, isn’t his shoulders big enough for the universe that he is suppose to have made.

There's nothing wrong with the universe. I think it's a marvelous creation, and it works just fine.

And why does someone have to pray to him for him to fix things, since he is all knowing and should already known about a problem and had fix it already

Maybe He wants a relationship with His pride and joy of creation.........those created in His image and likeness.

or does this so-called god need his ass kissed all the time.

Mrs. Huntster knows I love her, but she wants to hear me say it now and then, and she wants......................kissing........., too.

Love flourishes best when it is happily given and shown.

 

[Jekyll]

One theory I have for why many within the science industry oppose any and all research into the sasquatch phenomenon is that the discovery of a bipedal ape throws a huge ideological monkey wrench into the realm of human evolution.

How so?

For example, "Lucy", millions of years old, may have walked on two legs like her skeletal remains suggest, but that doesn't mean she was human:

I think the majority of biologists would agree with you here.