Christians endorse ejaculting into vaginas. They are against any forms of birth control, even pulling out as they believe the sole purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction.
Of course that's the official stance.............99% of Christians are hypocrites and don't even live by the beliefs their church tells them to have.
Originally posted by Evil Dead
Christians endorse ejaculting into vaginas. They are against any forms of birth control, even pulling out as they believe the sole purpose of sexual intercourse is reproduction.Of course that's the official stance.............99% of Christians are hypocrites and don't even live by the beliefs their church tells them to have.
OK ok....you did nothing wrong.....you can talk about it...You can talk about it all you want.....
Originally posted by Evil Dead
Chibi Boy...........seems your posts are becoming more intelligable....keep it up.I'm sorry, that's just inaccurate. A fact is something that has been proven to be true. It is a certainty. Faith is something you believe to be true, despite the fact it has never been proven. The definitions of the two words make them contradictory to each other. It is impossible to be both. If something is a fact, you cannot have faith in it as it has already been proven to be true.
nor should you believe any different. You believe what you believe to be true. All people reserve the same right. My only problem is the way you present your beliefs. You present your beliefs as if they have been proven fact, meaning anybody who believes different from Chibi Boy is wrong. That is very disrespecful to the other 5 billion people on the planet who are not Christians and do not believe what you believe. As a matter of fact, it's also disrespectful to other members of your own religion whom follow a different denomination with different beliefs. Needless to say, that is quite arrogant coming from a 14 year old boy......"5 billion people are wrong, I'm right, that's the end of it".
Australopithecus afarensis
Australopithecus africanus
Australopithecus anamensis
Australopithecus garhi
Australopithecus aethiopicus
Australopithecus boisei
Australopithecus robustus
Homo habilis
Homo rudolfensis
Homo ergaster
Homo erectus
Homo neanderthalensis
Homo sapiens (that's us, today)actually......there are now 14. It seems a new species of dwarf humans was discovered in October of last year (now that I think about it, I remember watching a show on the Discovery channel about this)......it was found on the island of Flores. It's name is Homo floresiensis.
That's 14 structurally different forms of human. None look the same. Yet the bible says man was created in god's image. This must mean god has 14 different images as all of these men were made in his image, yet look completely different. If that's the case, what's so special about being made in god's image?.......it's not special, it's the rule......not the exception. It doesn't make us special......it merely makes us equal with all the other species of man.
Also, since man was created from two specimens, Adam and Eve.........which species was it?........and what of the other 13 species.....there's no mention of them in the bible, yet they did exist.....
If you think god doesn't exist, I have NO reason to believe that! You seem to be moving into the fairy tale zone, with Elves, dwarves, fairies and giants. As they are all human-like 😆
Otherwise there are these suggestions:
1. Those different kinds of people could have simply been genetic mishaps, randomnly placed across time. And have you heard of dwarfism?
2. You never know, some mad humans could have tried to breed with animals once in their life.
Plus, the only reason I automatically claim these things i say as true is because it would take forever to explain all that has gone on in my brain. I have been thinking of these sort of things for a long time since i was young.
Hold on, these findings could have been anything, just because they seem to look like us doesn't mean they are actually related. I've seen the skeletons of all the homos and they're exactly the same as a humans, there is a large difference between the homos and the Australopithecus. Not forgetting that they have only found a few.
Hold on, these findings could have been anything, just because they seem to look like us doesn't mean they are actually related. I've seen the skeletons of all the homos and they're exactly the same as a humans, there is a large difference between the homos and the Australopithecus. Not forgetting that they have only found a few.
while I don't doubt you've seen your fair share of homos in your day.........I believe you are mistaken. No, all members of the homo genus are not the same. The differences are the very things that classify them into different species. Only found a few? What the hell do you classify as a few?
Those different kinds of people could have simply been genetic mishaps, randomnly placed across time
no......according to you the earth is only 7000 years old.......and human life began from two specimens (which is genetically impossible), Adam and Eve. What's this "placed across time" stuff? According to you the earth did not exist during the time these species roamed the earth. According to you Adam and Eve were the very first humans, negating any humans "placed across time" of other species.
by the way......are you getting so desperate that you post nonsense like "Elves, dwarves, fairies and giants" knowing full well that I've never posted about any............desperation tactic, backed into a corner.......time to troll.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
1. Those different kinds of people could have simply been genetic mishaps, randomnly placed across time. And have you heard of dwarfism?
2. You never know, some mad humans could have tried to breed with animals once in their life.
Plus, the only reason I automatically claim these things i say as true is because it would take forever to explain all that has gone on in my brain. I have been thinking of these sort of things for a long time since i was young.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
Hold on, these findings could have been anything, just because they seem to look like us doesn't mean they are actually related. I've seen the skeletons of all the homos and they're exactly the same as a humans, there is a large difference between the homos and the Australopithecus. Not forgetting that they have only found a few.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
Humans with congenital dwarfism differ in morphology to archaic human precursors.
Mammalian species cannot interbreed to produce viable fertile offspring - it is part of the definition of "species".
You don't seem to be grasping the difference between a belief and a fact. It doesn't matter how long you ruminate over something, it doesn't make it true.All the genus Homo are exactly the same? Incorrect.
There are large difference between the genus Homo and genus Australopithecus? Yes, because they are different geni, however the word "large" is subjective.
They're genetic mishaps, not evolution. Most of the so called Homo types are just a mans skull with a bulging mouth. All of the Australopithecus skeletons i have seen are in peices plus the same.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
If you think god doesn't exist, I have NO reason to believe that! You seem to be moving into the fairy tale zone, with Elves, dwarves, fairies and giants. As they are all human-like 😆
Otherwise there are these suggestions:1. Those different kinds of people could have simply been genetic mishaps, randomnly placed across time. And have you heard of dwarfism?
2. You never know, some mad humans could have tried to breed with animals once in their life.
Plus, the only reason I automatically claim these things i say as true is because it would take forever to explain all that has gone on in my brain. I have been thinking of these sort of things for a long time since i was young.
Hold on, these findings could have been anything, just because they seem to look like us doesn't mean they are actually related. I've seen the skeletons of all the homos and they're exactly the same as a humans, there is a large difference between the homos and the Australopithecus. Not forgetting that they have only found a few.
I don´t understand why science offends you, or your god... whatever. Science does not affect God, I mean we can´t know scientifically what God is, it is purely metaphysical, you agree with that right ? Science doesn´t tell us that god doesn´t exist... if someone say that god doesn´t exist, they will be just having faith in it. Maybe you don´t like atheism or something like it, because you don´t see why god shouldn´t exist. But atheism is just a faith too, it is a error to say that god does not exist like if science implied that.
Originally posted by Atlantis001
I don´t understand why science offends you, or your god... whatever. Science does not affect God, I mean we can´t know scientifically what God is, it is purely metaphysical, you agree with that right ? Science doesn´t tell us that god doesn´t exist... if someone say that god doesn´t exist, they will be just having faith in it. Maybe you don´t like atheism or something like it, because you don´t see why god shouldn´t exist. But atheism is just a faith too, it is a error to say that god does not exist like if science implied that.
The only reason that science does not say god exists is because noone ever bothers to try and find out. Too hung up in science. God i everywhere, we just cannot see him. And like other universes, he is way beyond our knowledge if we don't even try.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
The only reason that science does not say god exists is because noone ever bothers to try and find out. Too hung up in science. God i everywhere, we just cannot see him. And like other universes, he is way beyond our knowledge if we don't even try.
Read about Einstein. He believed in God and was trying to find the grand unification theory that he though would prove God.
Originally posted by Chibi Boy
They're genetic mishaps, not evolution. Most of the so called Homo types are just a mans skull with a bulging mouth. All of the Australopithecus skeletons i have seen are in peices plus the same.
Originally posted by xmarksthespot
If you want to be taken seriously you should try and do a little research into a subject before trying to rebut the theory.
Especially considering the implausibility of your alternative - the human population descending from a single pair.
There are distinct anatomical differences between the species within the genus Homo.
You argue that they are "genetic mishaps", yet your argument is spurious since you have no evidence of this being the case - as there are no modern "genetic mishap" humans that correspond to the archaic human species.
Dwarfism is a genetic mishap, there are people who have been under the effects of genetic mutations, and clearly you know the sort of effects. Yet do these scientists have the exact evidence for the existance of these beings altogether?