Do you think god created us or did we come from apes?

Comments

• "not mutually exclusive concepts" - totally agree!

  • Report
  

  by Bon Basil on January 16th, 2008

• The Bible has stunningly accurate cosmology:
  
  Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heavens...", i.e. the Big Bang, stars (light), earth, planets, etc. In 6 days? Psalm 90:2,4 says "a thousand years [or eons]...are like a day". Thus, six days is a perfectly good metaphor. The frame of reference is at the "surface" of the earth with darkness "over" the surface, indicating at least a thin, opaque atmosphere from comet collisions, etc., before the "expanse" and the water accumulated in the "sky". Night & day eventually became visible through the atmosphere as dust settled. The word "let" in "let there be light" can mean natural process, which God created. On the fourth day the stars and moon became visible as the atmosphere continued to clear. It says "God made two great lights...". The word "made" can be past sense. "Let the land produce vegetation...and...living creatures" also allows natural processes, with plants & animals amazingly categorized into modern geological periods.

  • Report
  

  by Equal Sexes on February 26th, 2008

• I agree totally. Science doesn't prove that God doesn't exist or didn't create. It just explores his toolbox.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on July 6th, 2008

• Equal - Stunningly accurate????
  There are a couple vague correlations if you allow plenty of poetic license but no more. And this explanation of yours loses all coherence after "cosmology:".

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on August 22nd, 2008

• im sorry but the bible was written long before modern science, they didnt have any clue how the earth began, how long the universe had been around, how it began (no big bang theory yet) or ANY thing we now know, such as evolution. so.... how can the bible be accurate when our understanding of the universe and the earth have only come to be in the last 400 years and they just finished the new testament in 50-95 AD? its a coincidence, they didnt even know the earth wasnt the center of the universe until Nicolaus Copernicus (February 19, 1473 – May 24, 1543) suggested it.

  • Report
  

  by Fenchurch on April 1st, 2009

• Well, that would be true if the knowledge came only from men. But if God is real and He created the earth and the universe, would He know what he'd done?

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 2nd, 2009

• Blessed - Since there is no evidence to support the God is Real Hypothesis - the rest of your thought is cast into doubt.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on April 3rd, 2009

• ty 23skidoo

  • Report
  

  by Fenchurch on April 3rd, 2009

• NP :-)

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on April 4th, 2009

• There is no evidence to support the God is not real hypothesis either. Science can't prove it either way, so it is left up to you to decide. Either way you decide, you take it on faith.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 14th, 2009

• There is no evidence to support that Tinker bell is not real hypothesis either. Science can't prove it either way, so it is left up to you to decide. Either way you decide, you take it on faith.
  .
  The same statement is equally true for an infinite number of conjectural beings. Therefore, to be consistent, one should believe in the all equally or disbelieve in them equally. I find the latter much more reasonable.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on April 14th, 2009

• Tinker Belle never claimed to have created the universe. You don't have to deal with that one.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 14th, 2009

• That has nothing to do with it. We were discussing their existence - an obvious prerequisite to doing anything like creating universes.
  .
  
  Besides, maybe she's just modest. In Never Never Land the Holy Books talk of Tink creating your god. There is not one , single piece of evidence you can present me to

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on April 15th, 2009

• Skiddoo, I would expect better of you than a strawman argument. Just because you can stand Tinkerbelle up and knock her down doesn't mean you can do the same with God.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 15th, 2009

• That's not what I meant. It's simply a logical fact that the number of things, places, or being that could exist is limited only by human imagination - and so effectively is infinite. The amount of evidence to support the notion of their existence - or the evidence against - is exactly the same in every case: none.
  .
  And that applies equally for Tinkerbel and for God.
  .
  No straw man and no special exemption for God.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on April 15th, 2009

• See, the problem here is that I think you are looking at God too generally and too simplistically. You are rejecting it out of hand without subjecting it to serious scrutiny. You reject the idea of intelligent design out of hand. Have you ever actually listened to their arguments and considered that they might have merit? That is what a scientist does, if they are a decent scientist. A scientist is supposed to gather evidence and then follow where it leads, even if it leads in an unexpected direction, even if he doesn't like that direction. Otherwise, he isn't doing science. Suppose Gallileo had ignored what he'd seen in his telescope because it didn't fit his world view? When you reject what you see in your telescope without even considering it because it doesn't fit your world view, that is what you are doing.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 16th, 2009

• Are you even aware that there are solid, respected, credentialed scientists out there who don't have a problem with believing in God? Who show up in church every week to worship a God that they do genuinely believe in? I studied under one. I was highly skeptical at the time, as I was at the tail end of my atheist phase, but the more I studied the more I saw that there was merit to the God argument. It was another 12 years or so before I was ready to commit to Christ, but I began to see that the idea was at least, not ridiculous about that time. The bottom line is, science can't answer this question. There are respected scientists on both sides of the question. They don't agree on this. You can't settle the argument by saying "well, science says" because for every scientist who agrees, there will be one who disagrees. In the end, you have to decide alone.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 16th, 2009

• I have read ID. And it simply isn't science. Their arguments are not based on evidence and what they call theory isn't testable at all (probably THE most important element of a scientific theory - it has to be falsifiable). As you say, a scientist goes where the evidence leads - ID began with a premise and then set out to convince the public. It never passed through any peer review.
  .
  Most the the specific complaints ID has about evolution that I know of have been shown to be bunk - flagellar locomotion, the eye, etc.
  .
  As for scientists who believe - sure, I have heard about many. And I've read some. Everyone is entitled to believe what he wants. It still doesn't change the simple fact that the basic arguments - the primary one being that there is no evidence to suggest any of it's true. One is free to believe anyway - that's faith.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on April 16th, 2009

• One issues I come across frequently is that many religious people seem to think atheists reject god out of hand, that they never examined faith closely. This is simply a wrong statement. Some were never infected with the God meme - true enough. But most grew up surrounded by their local religion and many, like me, got to atheism via a personal search for god and examination of religions.
  .
  That's a point that actually fits better to many believers- they have never honestly and with an open mind considered that there might not be a god. But whatever - it's irrelevant, really.
  .
  If any evidence in favor of god were presented, I would consider it. If it was compelling I would re-examine my position. And in the end, I could be convinced... if the evidence was convincing. So far, I've seen none.

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on April 16th, 2009

• Keep looking.
  
  Many believers have honestly consider the idea that there isn't a God, and found it very lacking. Science can answer many questions, but there are also many it can't answer by its very nature. There are many questions for which there is no way to create a testable and verifiable theory. If you limit your thoughts to only those things that are testable, you often miss the boat entirely.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 16th, 2009

• Science doesn't answer everything, true enough.
  .
  But without the slightest evidence in favor of one direction, we end up back with the Tinker bell argument. :-) There have been literally 1000's of gods worshiped during our history. Objectively, there is nothing at all to favor one over another.
  .
  As for missing the boat - I'm curious - what exactly am I missing?

  • Report
  

  by 23Skidoo on April 16th, 2009

• There are literally thousands of gods. They are not all equal. Thats like saying there are thousands of cars and a Yugo is the same as a BMW. They don't all say the same things. Some never said anything at all. Very few were ever known outside a single village or island. Of those who did achieve worldwide recognition, how many kept it over time? How many actually espoused justice, righteousness, love, and selflessness? Now you are down to a pretty small handful. Of those, how many sacrificed themselves for you?

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 16th, 2009

• As for what boat you are missing, I'll give you an analogy. When I was teaching, we were only allowed to right measurable and testable scientific goals for kids in special ed. Now how many people do you know who read books because they can read so many words per minute, can turn in so many assignments on time or know x number of phonics rules or one vowel words? Nobody! The best predictor of whether kids will continue to read and progress in reading is whether they learn to enjoy reading. People read for the sheer joy of reading. The goals we wrote may have been measurable and testable, but if we were trying to produce lifelong learners and readers, we were totally missing the boat.

  • Report
  

  by bagicide stayed 10 months too long on April 16th, 2009

Comments

• Can you pls. explain the difference.

  • Report
  

  by Namaste formerly future_health_educator on March 1st, 2008

• I think he meant that we are apes, and that we (apes and us) both evolved from/both have as our ancestor the same species of creature, possible a monkey or something along those lines.

  • Report
  

  by Time Lord on March 3rd, 2008

• Kindly don't put words in my mouth.
  To answer your question, FHE, it means that there was a single ape-LIKE species that diverged into two separate species -- one line eventually became apes, and the other became us.

  • Report
  

  by The Reverend Soleil on March 3rd, 2008

• Okay. So do you believe both concepts. Or more acurately do you believe that one concept negates the other.

  • Report
  

  by Namaste formerly future_health_educator on March 3rd, 2008

• Reverand Soleil: I meant no offense, but seeings as you hadn't responded I tried to explain the difference for future_health_educator.

  • Report
  

  by Time Lord on March 3rd, 2008

• The Reverend Soleil: that is not exactly accurate, either. We are apes: it's not that we diverged from the ape-line, it's that we and other apes share a common ancestor. At least that's the going theory I've heard.

  • Report
  

  by Teresa on August 17th, 2008

• Saying that humans came from apes is like saying that you came from your cousin. Evolutionary theory states that humans and apes evolved from a common ancestor. A grandparent in the above example would be the common ancestor.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on October 2nd, 2008

• No, saying humans came from modern apes is like saying that you came from your cousin. There's a reason that "Australopithecus" translates to "southern ape".

  • Report
  

  by Cirbryn on November 5th, 2008

• It's more like saying you came from yourself. Humans ARE apes. Apes are not a specific kind of animal: they're a category of animals, a category to which we belong.

  • Report
  

  by Teresa on November 6th, 2008

• True.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on November 6th, 2008

• Right. You have to sort of read in the term "other apes". Humans evolved from other apes. Among those were some of the Australopithecines, or "southern apes". They probably did not evolve from any other apes currently in existence, although it remains possible that the common ancestor of chimps and humans was essentially a chimp.

  • Report
  

  by Cirbryn on November 7th, 2008

• If we evolved from apes then why are there still apes. If there is an evolution, then where does the additional info come from for it to evolve. @ what point did they stop evolving. because animals that evolve today dye because they are different and considered weak. If there is a pack of black dogs in the wild and suddenly a white is born, what do you think happens to the white one. It is killed, therefore not reproducing.

  • Report
  

  by soulman on March 16th, 2009

• Evolution is not linear. Something doesn't have to become extinct for another species to surface. Say there is one large population of a species. If that species becomes divided into two populations by some environmental factor like a flood, mountain, canyon, fence, etc. and both populations survive but have no contact with each, they can start diverging from one another and eventually could become separate as species.
   
  Evolution can be driven by mutation which is a change. If DNA is changed enough from its original form it can cause more dramatic changes in the organism. Eventually those changes can become so great that the organism is no longer able to reproduce with the original species. That would fit the biological definition of a separate species.
   
  Nothing ever stopped evolving. Organisms are constantly changing and evolving. You can't expect to see dramatic evolution when we've only been studying it for so little time.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on March 17th, 2009

• "If there is a pack of black dogs in the wild and suddenly a white is born, what do you think happens to the white one. It is killed, therefore not reproducing."
   
  What makes you automatically assume that the white dog is killed? How do you know the white dog doesn't have an advantage over the normal black dogs? Maybe the white dog survives better during winter because of the snow cover and is able to reproduce more than the black dogs. That's how species become so diverse.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on March 17th, 2009

• "because animals that evolve today dye because they are different and considered weak"
  Actually an animal is not considered to be evolving if it is weak and dies. That is what natural selection is all about. It weeds out the weak and the better adapted survive.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on March 17th, 2009

• Soulman: As we've been saying, the idea that "we evolved from apes" isn't true. First of all, we ARE apes. An "ape" is not one kind of animal, like how a house-cat is an animal. "Ape" is a class of animals, like how "feline" is a class that includes many, many different animals.
  .
  The true idea is that we share a common ancestor with other apes; aka we, and other apes alive today, evolved from an earlier, more primitive ape life-form which isn't around today.

  • Report
  

  by Teresa on March 18th, 2009

• Soulman: There's at least two ways for a new animal to evolve from another animal. One way is random genetic mutation, like the white dog in a pack of black ones. Random genetic mutations are sometimes lost, like if the black dogs gang up on the white one. But if a genetic mutation is useful, say provides for better camouflage as Aquatic Eagle suggested, and if it isn't lost in the first generation, then more of that animal's offspring will survive than the others', and eventually there'll only be the white ones around. But another way for a new animal to evolve is if a population becomes split by a physical barrier, say an island breaks off from the mainland, with a group of cats on the island and a group of cats on the mainland. Over time, those two groups will evolve independently to suit their different environments, so the cats on the mainland might stay the same because their environment hasn't changed, and the cats on the island will come different: a new species.

  • Report
  

  by Teresa on March 18th, 2009

• bulldogs ARE dogs but they have as many as 4 extra chromosomes and yet the can still be back breed to other dog stocks. Humans and great apes have a similar chromosomal difference, in that humans have a joined chromosome for a total of 23 pair to the great apes 24 pair. Science COULD look to see what happens in back breeding but Ethics refuses to let that happen. People, the joined chromosome makes an argument for an intervention, whether by God, or some space travelers, we can not KNOW, or until science finds a mechanism that can conjoin chromosomes in subspecies in a way that then makes them non-inter-breed able. The Ice Ages are god's/Times joker in the deck, for the evolution of the swimming talking Ape. On the savannas we evolved to hunt and chase others off their prey so as to up the fat and protein open to us, we learned to run prey into the ground and kill with heat exhaustion or to turn them at bay to our stone spears and then cook them for our short digestive system. but once

  • Report
  

  by MadMike on March 29th, 2009

• off the savannas the coastal areas opened up fish and shellfish and a road to world exo-migration. In waves, as the Ice ages came and went. We are like Homo-5.0, and Neanderthals are Homo-4.0 and the "Australopithecus" are likely Homo-1.3 or 1.5 but I doubt that the major migrations were overland and argue that they were seashore largely, 'cause the food is ALWAYS there if you look for it. Where there are rocks and sand there are clams and mussels, and digging for clams is much like digging for edible roots.

  • Report
  

  by MadMike on March 29th, 2009

Comments

• "The Bible was expressed in the imperfect language of ordinary people, but in nature God's truth was revealed more perfectly in a language that can be learned by careful observation and scientific reasoning."--Galileo

  • Report
  

  by Observer on August 13th, 2009

Comments

• Take some more then. Sheesh! Why do they do this for opinions. I guess they feel threatened or something.

  • Report
  

  by Galeanda on January 16th, 2008

• who knows what evil lurks in the minds of them?

  • Report
  

  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 16th, 2008

Comments

• apes were earlier humans ;)

  • Report
  

  by nimmi on January 16th, 2008

• no, apes are ex-husbands. :-)

  • Report
  

  by Dazed and Confused on January 16th, 2008

• apes can't be earlier humans if apes are still around lol

  • Report
  

  by Arty on January 16th, 2008

• Arty: yeah, humans then evolved,rationalised,married,became ex husbands as suggested by scuttled & turned to apes.I believe this theory. ;)

  • Report
  

  by nimmi on January 16th, 2008

• Hahaha!

  • Report
  

  by Dazed and Confused on January 16th, 2008

• If I came from my parents, why are my parents still here? We didn't evolve from the apes around today - we share a common ancestor.
  The tornado thing is such a dreadful argument even AnswersInGenesis advise you not to use it as an argument for creation. It is totally, completely and utterly NOT how anyone knows evolution to operate (unless they get their info from Hovind or someone equally daft).

  • Report
  

  by Friartuck on January 18th, 2008

• you were born from your parents, you didn't evolve from you parents. horrible comparison, read up on the definition of evolution.

  • Report
  

  by Arty on January 18th, 2008

• Evolution - the random changes in allele frequencies of populations over time. I know it.
  Okay, bad example, but it's a stupid, stupid answer. The common ancestor actually IS extinct. We don't "still" have apes. We have branches of the same family tree.

  • Report
  

  by Friartuck on January 18th, 2008

• We haven't had blisters on our knuckles for a very long time.

  • Report
  

  by koldkanuck on February 6th, 2008

• What's that got to do with the price of fish?

  • Report
  

  by Time Lord on March 3rd, 2008

• The cost of living is constantly changing.

  • Report
  

  by koldkanuck on March 3rd, 2008

• niche evolution and recurring ice ages, exo-migration, and the rise and fall of sea level. Mankind is the swimming Ape, that is why we have the breath control for talking and are generally hairless. sea level variations are what make the fossil record hard to find after we leave the early savannas. 8, 300 foot changes in sea level over the last 900,000 years. Swimming Apes with fire and stone edges on sticks, who plan their hunts with language, while short a chromosome(23) to prevent back breeding with the ancestral lines(24 chromosomes). ?Intervention and modification? Not creation? Fire up the Time machine and we'll go have a look.

  • Report
  

  by MadMike on March 29th, 2009

• Haha, I like the analogy Scuttlebutt;)

  • Report
  

  by Somedude81 on April 8th, 2009

Comments

• looks like we both got DR'd for this one...heres +6

  • Report
  

  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 16th, 2008

• TY :)
  I find it funny how people are scared to answer/challenge me. It just shows their immaturity.

  • Report
  

  by slothmister on January 16th, 2008

• or their lack of attention span...

  • Report
  

  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 16th, 2008

• sloth is right - we are STILL evolving - can you just imagine what future humans will look like ?

  • Report
  

  by rigby on January 18th, 2008

• I agree that we are still evolving...but I really can't imagine what we will look like.

  • Report
  

  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 18th, 2008

• A British researcher claims that the human species will evolve into distinct "coffee-colored" sub-species over the next 100,000 years, according to the BBC.
  Curry expects giants who live to the age of 1000 within 120 years.

  • Report
  

  by koldkanuck on February 6th, 2008

• We are evolving differently than we have in the past. Now we keep the cripple and deformed alive while in the older times they would die. Don't get me wrong i am glad we keep as many people alive as we can, but in doing so our genes are changing differently than the would have. We are now keeping the people's genetic mutations that gave them a deformity alive and thus spreading there genes. I wonder how this will impact us in the future. I know if we didn't keep these people alive we would have lost some of the greatest minds the world has seen.

  • Report
  

  by Observer on August 13th, 2009

Comments

• It looks like everyone..both sides are being DR'd for this one. Here's +6..not because I agree with you...but because this was a question asking for an opinion.

  • Report
  

  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 16th, 2008

• thanks for being one of the few truly open minded people out there - most others that disagree with me are very closed minded about my perceived closed mindedness
  When i read the question I knew my side would "lose".

  • Report
  

  by Someguy on January 16th, 2008

Comments

• all great apes have 24 chromosomes, we have 23, one of which appears to be a joined pair with 2 centermers and 3 sets of telemeres, one of which is 2X and in the middle. This might be an argument for "external design" or intervention. We have had fire and stone tools for up to, and / or over, 2 million years. Brain mapping to the human thumb and tung imply a long road to tool use and language. Apes have symboling, but lack a command level orienting for teaching. They can see and do, we can tell and do.

  • Report
  

  by MadMike on March 29th, 2009

Comments

• i have been waiting for someone to say that? thanks

  • Report
  

  by rolo69 on October 27th, 2007

• Because environmental conditions and natural selection favored those with higher intelligence and physical stamina, and if two groups of apes were separated from one another, the environmental conditions would be varied enough for them to evolve in different ways.

  • Report
  

  by Ender is back.. And slightly confused. on October 27th, 2007

• and also the fact that we keep breeding with other humans... not other apes

  • Report
  

  by Ash on January 21st, 2008

• because we evolved from a different type of species, which are related to apes

  • Report
  

  by Scooot on January 30th, 2008

• Because, as it has been stated in other answers, we did not come from apes. That's not what evolutionary theory teaches. It teaches that other apes and humans have a common ancestor. Humans actually are a species of ape.

  • Report
  

  by Aquatic Eagle on October 2nd, 2008

Comments

• me too! thanks

  • Report
  

  by rolo69 on October 27th, 2007

• in all honesty humans are really vain to think that god is the image of man. How do you know what he looks like?

  • Report
  

  by Ash on January 21st, 2008

• B/c the Bible said He created us in HIS own image 'Ash';)

  • Report
  

  by Somedude81 on April 8th, 2009

• So you believe the bible is entirely true? I know i am not convinced

  • Report
  

  by Observer on August 13th, 2009

• I do

  • Report
  

  by Somedude81 on August 14th, 2009

Comments

• thats right zack, thanks

  • Report
  

  by rolo69 on October 27th, 2007

• how do you know that it is right?

  • Report
  

  by Ash on January 21st, 2008

• Whatever faith I have left is tied up with how we all were created. Its all a faith thing.

  • Report
  

  by Zack on January 21st, 2008

• rolo are you going to reply to any of my comments or answers? i dont wat to fight with you but i would love to hear your opinions. i am really strong minded, but i like to know different points of views. it seems that you are replying to people who believe in god as the creator...

  • Report
  

  by Ash on January 21st, 2008

• Well Ash maybe we both can engage in a little conversation concerning this. I'm interested in all views too. How about it.:-)

  • Report
  

  by Zack on January 21st, 2008

• sounds good. have a look at my answer?

  • Report
  

  by Ash on January 21st, 2008

• Good answer Zack !
  
  Take care Pal.

  • Report
  

  by canbfrisky on April 22nd, 2010

Comments

• Ok so I got down rated for that! I think I will just start down rating all questions that have to do with sstuff like this since every time I answer them I get - signs!

  • Report
  

  by Chaysgirl24 on January 16th, 2008

• It looks like everyone..both sides are being DR'd for this one. Here's +6..not because I agree with you...but because this was a question asking for an opinion.

  • Report
  

  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 16th, 2008

• Thanks! :o)

  • Report
  

  by Chaysgirl24 on January 16th, 2008

• what ... you didn't learn to turn the other cheek, 7X70 times, Oh, but wait, you didn't say that you ARE Christian now did you.

  • Report
  

  by MadMike on March 29th, 2009

• WTF are u talking about and to whom are you talking?

  • Report
  

  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on March 29th, 2009

• CG24 and her "I'll down rate everything from now on " shit, 3 entrys up

  • Report
  

  by MadMike on March 29th, 2009

• okay..tnx

  • Report
  

  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on March 29th, 2009

Comments

• It looks like everyone..both sides are being DR'd for this one. Here's +6..not because I agree with you...but because this was a question asking for an opinion.

  • Report
  

  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 16th, 2008

• Thank you so very much. I thought I answered it short and sweet. I'm not getting involved in any of these questions anymore that have so much animosity on each side. Thanks again!

  • Report
  

  by shammers still slogging along on January 16th, 2008

• wise move...

  • Report
  

  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 16th, 2008

Comments

• and misunderstand and hate !

  • Report
  

  by MadMike on March 29th, 2009

Comments

• i see your point except we as humans create things everyday so how come something can't create us?

  • Report
  

  by rolo69 on October 27th, 2007

• Because human beings are tangible. An all perfect, all-knowing, all seeing, all powerful god lies outside the laws of Logic and Reason. And natural selection and science are observable, and mathematics are logical. Who's to say that the universe has not always existed, and our creation was a result of random acts of gravitation and chemistry?

  • Report
  

  by Ender is back.. And slightly confused. on October 27th, 2007

• i respect your view its just that the big bang theory isn't logical for me personally. thanks for commenting

  • Report
  

  by rolo69 on October 27th, 2007

• I agree with your answer. It is logical and makes sense. also the fact that the bible was written many many years after Jesus supposedly turned up. You know what happens when stories are passed along. And also the fact that it has been re-written a few times. The men that re-wrote it can NOT have been there at the time!

  • Report
  

  by Ash on January 21st, 2008

• But what if God exists in a different dimension and thus sparked the big bang?

  • Report
  

  by Observer on August 13th, 2009

Comments

• the bible duh

  • Report
  

  by Robert_Z579 on August 16th, 2011

• The bible isn't evidence of anything but that the bible exists, duh.

  • Report
  

  by Gingerminx on August 16th, 2011

Comments

Comments

Comments

• It looks like everyone..both sides are being DR'd for this one. Here's +6..not because I agree with you...but because this was a question asking for an opinion.

  • Report
  

  by DA BEN DAN yanggui zi on January 16th, 2008

Comments

• I don't agree with you, but I love your take on being created in God's image in a spiritual and not physical sense. That's a very novel way to think about it. Well said!

  • Report
  

  by SomeSayMarryMoney on January 16th, 2008

Comments

• Well said.

  • Report
  

  by J.R.C. on March 3rd, 2008

• Who created the apes?

  • Report
  

  by Sharona Life is a Tale Told by an Idiot on November 8th, 2008

Comments

• I think we started from a primordial soup lol

  • Report
  

  by DiSTurBiA on January 27th, 2008

• i also agree with that.

  • Report
  

  by Spunts.answered 67 questions in 1 hour. on January 28th, 2008

• I like Soup. Blue Green algae soup, mmum mmum good

  • Report
  

  by MadMike on March 29th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• I like your points but i have to imaging that some parts of the bible are true or hold relevance to humanity or else it would not have been around for such a long time. I don't believe the bible to be entirely true but i do believe it contains many symbols that have helped people become more human and moral and loving creatures, definitely not a bad thing

  • Report
  

  by Observer on August 13th, 2009

Comments

• So is gravity. It is no less accepted as truth.
  In scientific terminology, a fact is an observation or a piece of date. Scientific theories describe the coherent framework into which observable data fit. There have been many theories that attempt to explain the fact of gravity. That is, scientists ask what is gravity, and what causes it. They develop a model to explain gravity, a theory of gravity. Predictions can be made and tested based on this theory. Many explanations of gravity that qualify as a Theory of Gravity have been proposed over the centuries: Aristotle's, Galileo's, Newton's, and now Einstein's.
  In science, a current theory is the theory that has no equally acceptable alternate theory, and has not been falsified. That is, there have been no observations made which contradict it to this point and, indeed, every observation ever made either supports current theory or at least does not falsify it. Should new observations contradict the current theory, a new theory needs to b

  • Report
  

  by Littlebirrd on January 16th, 2008

• So, your point is?

  • Report
  

  by macdjug-Paxvobiscum on January 16th, 2008

• Litlebird...You haven't explained to me what your comment has to do with my answer. You start off saying that gravity is also a theory which is wrong. Gravity is a fact and can be proved. But the how and why of it remains a mystery. Therefore theories abound as to its source. And I understand how theory is like a fashion. It can change. No problem.
  There also is no fact to support the contention that we didn't evolve from ancient apes, not modern ones. There also aren't any facts to support that a God exists.What about my opinion or answer don't you understand? So I ask again. What is your point?

  • Report
  

  by macdjug-Paxvobiscum on January 16th, 2008

Comments

Comments

• Good point!

  • Report
  

  by Dazed and Confused on January 16th, 2008

• If we were created by God, then what created God?

  • Report
  

  by SomeSayMarryMoney on January 16th, 2008

Comments

• you sure you arn't a test tube baby? Maybe theOb-Gyn guy made you ! thusly I refute you.

  • Report
  

  by MadMike on March 29th, 2009

Comments

Comments

• i am glad that the evolution people are responding, that happens not to be my personal belief but i do respect your insight. thanks K-Swam

  • Report
  

  by rolo69 on October 27th, 2007

• Same here.

  • Report
  

  by Kevisaurus is a Carnotaurus today on October 27th, 2007

• i agree with you K-saurus. +

  • Report
  

  by Ash on January 21st, 2008

• The few the proud, the ones that look for answers rather than listen to rhetoric.

  • Report
  

  by Kevisaurus is a Carnotaurus today on January 21st, 2008

Comments

Comments

• Sure you could. Where did the Big Bang come from? Could it be the will of the Creator? Sounds good to many.

  • Report
  

  by Sharona Life is a Tale Told by an Idiot on November 8th, 2008

Comments

• Oh boy do I love you. And boy are you gonna piss some people off.

  • Report
  

  by Sharona Life is a Tale Told by an Idiot on November 8th, 2008

Comments

• I agree, where are all the half man half apes running around at? Wouldn't apes still be evolving?

  • Report
  

  by Gina on February 6th, 2008

• Evolutions is a long process. Apes are still evolving. Turn on Rush Limbaugh or Bill O'Reilly. Don't tell me you are fooled into thinking they are human. I think Hannity is a chimpanzee and Combs is probably a baboon crossover.

  • Report
  

  by Sharona Life is a Tale Told by an Idiot on November 8th, 2008

• Then there's Obama

  • Report
  

  by koldkanuck on November 9th, 2008

• LMAO!

  • Report
  

  by Gina on November 10th, 2008

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• amen!

  • Report
  

  by rolo69 on October 29th, 2007

• You can say amen all you want, but I've yet to see your god. But then neither have you. I'll bet your parents told you that there is some kind of god out there so therefor you still believe it. Wow!

  • Report
  

  by Rain Cloud on September 15th, 2009

Comments

• thanks britttttt your awesome!

  • Report
  

  by rolo69 on October 27th, 2007

• so who created god? he cant of just magicaically appeared

  • Report
  

  by Ash on January 21st, 2008

• Surely you don't even believe what you said brittttttt. Evolution is a scientific fact. Unless you are not educated, you must know that. By the way, good question Ash. That one is always a show stopper for the fanatics.

  • Report
  

  by Rain Cloud on September 15th, 2009

Comments

• apes evoloved from other organisms.

  • Report
  

  by Ash on January 21st, 2008

• Hi Ash, I could go on forever, God made the organisms, or God made the Earth, or God caused the Big Bang.....Ad Infinitum :o)

  • Report
  

  by Worzel on January 21st, 2008

Comments

• thats positive. you never think about how it all happened?

  • Report
  

  by rolo69 on October 27th, 2007

• Not really because I believe that God created everything but I do have atheists in my family & they disagree. So I try & respect their views too. I think there's a reason for everything but we won't know until we get to Heaven

  • Report
  

  by Little big mouth on October 27th, 2007

• amen! i too respect other views opposite of mine, i just like the friendly forum of peoples views but more importantly their reasons. thanks

  • Report
  

  by rolo69 on October 27th, 2007

• I wish I had a reason to give you, I was just raised to believe that God knows all & I'm 41 but I still believe it without questioning it, although I think the Bible is crap

  • Report
  

  by Little big mouth on October 27th, 2007

• thanks lisa

  • Report
  

  by rolo69 on October 27th, 2007

• your welcome BTW I love your avatar

  • Report
  

  by Little big mouth on October 27th, 2007

• no ones said that before thanks

  • Report
  

  by rolo69 on October 27th, 2007

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

Comments

• and therein lies the rub.

  • Report
  

  by Sharona Life is a Tale Told by an Idiot on November 8th, 2008