Welcome
Welcome to SuiJurisForum.com --- You are currently viewing our boards as a guest. Members of this FREE Community are able to gain access to write capabilities, private messaging, a chat room, extra forums, and more!

***If you decide to Join our FREE Community... then DON'T FORGET to PASS/SKIP the multiple ADVERTISEMENTS during Registration that ask for Phone Numbers!! ***

"Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of God

Discuss matter relating to bible and others.

Re: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of

Postby lostandfound » Mon Jan 16, 2017 6:42 pm

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-Va2esIqKU


No one will be in hell because God put them there. They will be in hell because they CHOSE to REJECT the provision God has made.


"Consider for a few moments the enormous aesthetic claim of its (Christian theology - PG) chief contemporary rival - what we may loosely call the Scientific Outlook...Supposing this to be a myth, is it not one of the finest myths which human imagination has yet produced? The play is preceded by the most austere of all preludes: the infinite void, and matter restlessly moving to bring forth it knows not what. Then, by the millionth millionth chance - what tragic irony - the conditions at one point of space and time bubble up into that tiny fermentation which is the beginning of life. Everything seems to be against the infant hero of our drama - just as everything seems against the youngest son or ill-used stepdaughter at the opening of a fairy-tale. But life somehow wins through. With infinite suffering, against all but insuperable obstacles, it spreads, it breeds, it complicates itself: from the amoeba up to the plant, up to the reptile, up to the mammal. We glance briefly at the age of monsters. Dragons prowl the earth, devour one another and die. Then comes the theme of the younger son and the ugly duckling once more. As the weak, tiny spark of life began amidst the huge hostilities of the inanimate, so now again, amidst the beasts that are far larger and stronger than he, there comes forth a little naked, shivering, cowering creature, shuffling, not yet erect, promising nothing: the product of another millionth millionth chance. Yet somehow he thrives. He becomes the Cave Man with his club and his flints, muttering and growling over his enemies' bones, dragging his screaming mate by her hair (I could never quite make out why), tearing his children to pieces in fierce jealousy till one of them is old enough to tear him, cowering before the terrible gods whom he has created in his own image. But these are only growing pains. Wait till the next Act. There he is becoming true Man. He learns to master nature. Science comes and dissipates the superstitions of his infancy. More and more he becomes the controller of his own fate. Passing hastily over the present (for it is a mere nothing by the time-scale we are using), you follow him on into the future. See him in the last Act, though not the last scene, of this great mystery. A race of demigods now rule the planet - and perhaps more than the planet - for eugenics have made certain that only demigods will be born, and psycho-analysis that none of them shall lose or smirch his divinity, and communism that all which divinity requires shall be ready to their hands. Man has ascended his throne. Hence forward he has nothing to do but to practice virtue, to grow in wisdom, to be happy. And now, mark the final stroke of genius. If the myth stopped at that point, it might be a little pathetic (sic). It would lack the highest grandeur of which human imagination is capable. The last scene reverses all. We have the Twilight of the Gods. All this time, silently, unceasingly, out of all reach of human power, Nature, the old enemy, has been steadily gnawing away. The sun will cool - all suns will cool - the whole universe will run down. Life (every form of life) will be banished, without hope of return, from every inch of infinite space. All ends in nothingness, and "universal darkness covers all." The pattern of myth thus becomes one of the noblest we can conceive. It is the pattern of many Elizabethan tragedies, where the protagonist's career can be represented by a slowly ascending and then rapidly falling curve, with its highest point in Act IV. You see him climbing up and up, then blazing in his bright meridian, then finally overwhelmed in ruin.

Such a world-drama appeals to every part of us. The early struggles of the hero (a theme delightfully doubled, played first by life, and then by man) appeals to our generosity. His future exaltation gives scope to a reasonable optimism; for the tragic close is so very distant that you need not often think of it--we work with millions of years. And the tragic close it self just gives that irony, that grandeur, which calls forth our defiance, and without which all the rest might cloy. There is a beauty in this myth which well deserves better poetic handling than it has yet received: I hope some great genius will yet crystallize it before the incessant stream of philosophic change carries it all away. I am speaking, of course, of the beauty it has whether you believe it or not. There I can speak from experience: for I, who believe less than half of what it tells me about the past, and less than nothing of what it tells me about the future, am deeply moved when I contemplate it. The only other story--unless, indeed, it is an embodiment of the same story--which similarly moves me is the Nibelung's Ring. Enden sah ich die Welt.

We cannot, therefore, turn down Theology, simply because it does not avoid being poetical. All world views yield poetry to those who believe them by the mere fact of being believed. And nearly all have certain poetical merits whether you believe them or not. This is what we should expect. Man is a poetical animal and touches nothing which he does not adorn.

There are, however, two other lines of thought which might lead us to call Theology a mere poetry, and these I must now consider. In the first place, it certainly contains elements similar to those which we find in many early, and even savage, religions. And those elements in the early religions may now seem to us to be poetical. The question here is rather complicated. We now regard the death and return of Balder as a poetical idea, a myth. We are invited to infer thence that the death and resurrection of Christ is a poetical idea, a myth. But we are not really starting with the datum "Both are poetical" and thence arguing "Therefore both are false". Part of the poetical aroma which hangs about Balder is, I believe, due to the fact that we have already come to disbelieve in him. So that disbelief not poetical experience, is the real starting point of the argument. But this is perhaps an over-subtlety, certainly a subtlety, and I will leave it on one side.

What light is really thrown on the truth or falsehood of Christian Theology by the occurrence of similar ideas in Pagan religion. I think the answer was very well given a fortnight ago by Mr. Brown. Supposing, for purposes of argument, that Christianity is true, then it could avoid all coincidence with other religions only on the supposition that all other religions are one hundred per cent erroneous. To which, you remember, Professor Price replied by agreeing with Mr. Brown and saying: "Yes. From these resemblances you may conclude not 'so much the worse for the Christians' but 'so much the better for the Pagans'." The truth is that the resemblances tell nothing either for or against the truth of Christian Theology. If you start from the assumption that the Theology is false, the resemblances are quite consistent with that assumption. One would expect creatures of the same sort, faced with the same universe, to make the same false guess more than once. But if you start with the assumption that the Theology is true, the resemblances fit in equally well. Theology, while saying that a special illumination has been vouchsafed to Christians and (earlier) to Jews, also says that there is some reason. The picture so often painted of Christians huddling together on an ever narrower strip of beach while the incoming tide of "Science" mounts higher and higher, corresponds to nothing in my own experience.
That grand myth which I asked you to admire a few minutes ago is not for me a hostile novelty breaking in on my traditional beliefs. On the contrary, that cosmology is what I started from. Deepening distrust and final abandonment of it long preceded my conversion to Christianity. Long before I believed Theology to be true I had already decided that the popular scientific picture at any rate was false. One absolutely central inconsistency ruins it; it is the one we touched on a fortnight ago. The whole picture professes to depend on inferences from observed facts. Unless inference is valid, the whole picture disappears. Unless we can be sure that reality in the remotest nebula or the remotest part obeys the thought--laws of the human scientist here and now in his laboratory-in other words, unless Reason is an absolute--all is in ruins. Yet those who ask me to believe this world picture also ask me to believe that Reason is simply the unforeseen and unintended by-product of mindless matter at one stage of its endless and aimless becoming. Here is flat contradiction. They ask me at the same moment to accept a conclusion and to discredit the only testimony on which that conclusion can be based. The difficulty is to me a fatal one; and the fact that when you put it to many scientists, far from having an answer, they seem not even to understand what the difficulty is, assures me that I have not found a mare's nest but detected a radical disease in their whole mode of thought from the very beginning. The man who has once understood the situation is compelled henceforth to regard the scientific cosmology as being, in principle, a myth; though no doubt a great many true particulars have been worked into it. (1)

It is not irrelevant, in considering the mythical character of this cosmology to notice that the two great imaginative expressions of it are earlier than the evidence: Keats's Hyperion and the Nibelung's Ring are pre-Darwinian works.

After that it is hardly worth noticing minor difficulties. Yet these are many and serious. The Bergsonian critique of orthodox Darwinism is not easy to answer. More disquieting still is Professor D. M. S. Watson's defence. "Evolution itself," he wrote, "is accepted by zoologists not because it has been observed to occur or... can be proved by logically coherent evidence to be true, but because the only alternative, special creation, is clearly incredible." Has it come to that? Does the whole vast structure of modern naturalism depend not on positive evidence but simply on an a priori metaphysical prejudice. Was it devised not to get in facts but to keep out God .Even, however, if Evolution in the strict biological sense has some better grounds than Professor Watson suggests--and I can't help thinking it must--we should distinguish Evolution in this strict sense from what may be called the universal evolutionism of modern thought. By universal evolutionism I mean the belief that the very formula of universal process is from imperfect to perfect, from small beginnings to great endings, from the rudimentary to the elaborate: the belief which makes people find it natural to think that morality springs from savage taboos, adult sentiment from infantile sexual maladjustments, thought from instinct, mind from matter, organic from inorganic, cosmos from chaos. This is perhaps the deepest habit of mind in the contemporary world. It seems to me immensely implausible, because it makes the general course of nature so very unlike those parts of nature we can observe. You remember the old puzzle as to whether the owl came from the egg or the egg from the owl. The modern acquiescence in universal evolutionism is a kind of optical illusion, produced by attending exclusively to the owls emergence from the egg. We are taught from childhood to notice how the perfect oak grows from the acorn and to forget that the acorn itself was dropped by a perfect oak. We are reminded constantly that the adult human being was an embryo, never that the life of the embryo came from two adult human beings. We love to notice that the express engine of today is the descendant of the "rocket;" we do not equally remember that the " Rocket" springs not from some even more rudimentary engine, but from something much more perfect and complicated than itself-namely, a man of genius. The obviousness or naturalness which most people seem to find in the idea of emergent evolution thus seems to be a pure hallucination.

On these grounds and others like them one is driven to think that whatever else may be true, the popular scientific cosmology at any rate is certainly not. I left that ship not at the call of poetry but because I thought it could not keep afloat. Something like philosophical idealism or Theism must, at the very worst, be less untrue than that. And idealism turned out, when you took it seriously, to be disguised Theism. And once you accepted Theism you could not ignore the claims of Christ. And when you examined them it appeared to me that you could adopt no middle position. Either he was a lunatic, or God. And He was not a lunatic.

I was taught at school, when I had done a sum, to "prove my answer." The proof or verification of my Christian answer to the cosmic sum is this. When I accept Theology I may find difficulties, at this point or that, in harmonising it with some particular truths which are embedded in the mythical cosmology derived from science. But I can get in, or allow for, science as a whole. Granted that Reason is prior to matter and that the light of that primal Reason illuminates finite minds, I can understand how men should come, by observation and inference, to know a lot about the universe they live in. If, on the other hand, I swallow the scientific cosmology as a whole, then not only can I not fit in Christianity, but I cannot even fit in science. If minds are wholly dependent on brains, and brains on biochemistry, and biochemistry (in the long run) on the meaningless flux of the atoms, I cannot understand how the thought of those minds should have any more significance than the sound of the wind in the trees. And this is to me the final test. This is how I distinguish dreaming and waking. When I am awake I can, in some degree, account for and study my dream. The dragon that pursued me last night can be fitted into my waking world. I know that there are such things as dreams: I know that I had eaten an indigestible dinner: I know that a man of my reading might be expected to dream of dragons. But while in the nightmare I could not have fitted in my waking experience. The waking world is judged more real because it can thus contain the dreaming world: the dreaming world is judged less real because it cannot contain the waking one. For the same reason I am certain that in passing from the scientific point of view to the theological, I have passed from dream to waking. Christian theology can fit in science, art, morality, and the sub-Christian religions. The scientific point of view cannot fit in any of these things, not even science itself. I believe in Christianity as I believe that the Sun has risen not only because I see it but because by it I see everything else. -- The Oxford Socratic Club, 1944. pp. 154-165

Notes:

1. Quoted in Science and the B.B.C., Nineteenth Century, April, 1943.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 325 time
Have thanks: 186 time

 

Re: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of

Postby country_hick » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:06 pm

Why would it be so important to try to convince kids that man is an animal to create this propaganda film if it was known to be true?

You are A Human Animal HD Jiminy Cricket Disney
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irlkxki41PA
There is a reason that LEO has a new meaning: Legally Entitled to Oppress. Thanks to Bob Livingston for this one.

Williams v. United States, 341 US 97 - Supreme Court 1951
It is the right of the accused to be tried by a legally constituted court, not by a kangaroo court.

Penhallow v. Doane's Administrators, 3 US 54 - Supreme Court 1795
Judges may die, and courts be at an end; but justice still lives, and, though she may sleep for a while, will eventually awake, and must be satisfied

country_hick has been thanked by:
User avatar
country_hick
Freeman
 
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Feb 04, 2016 2:19 am
Has thanked: 1 time
Have thanks: 49 time

Re: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of

Postby lostandfound » Mon Jan 16, 2017 8:24 pm


Imago Dei: What Does It Mean?

By Kenneth R. Samples

The Bible reveals that of all God’s creatures, only man (humankind) was created in the expressed image of God. While Scripture mentions the imago Dei (Latin for the “image of God”) several times (Genesis 5:1, 9:6; 1 Corinthians 11:7; Colossians 3:10; James 3:9), Genesis 1:26–27 is the most important text.

Hebrew references to “image” (tselem) and “likeness” (demût) convey the idea of an object similar to or representative of something else, but not identical to it.1 Further, the words “image” and “likeness” should not be understood as referring to two different things, but rather as interchangeable terms that reflect a Hebrew form of synonymous parallelism.2 The New Testament Greek word for image (eikōn) conveys virtually the same meaning as the Hebrew. Both languages indicate that God created humans to be similar to himself, but not identical to himself. Therefore from a biblical perspective, human beings are in some sense both like and unlike the God who made them.

What exactly does it mean for man to be like God? Three qualifications must be made before examining this question further. First, Scripture contains an implicit rather than explicit explanation of the image of God. A definition for imago Dei must come from drawing proper inferences from the biblical text, buttressed by careful reflection about the state of the human condition.

Second, a complete understanding of the imago Dei’s meaning simply isn’t possible because it would require an exhaustive understanding of God’s nature (in addition to that of man).3 Finite creatures by definition cannot comprehend or fully fathom the infinite nature of God; therefore, by necessity people are faced with mystery and limited knowledge.

Third, throughout church history different theological traditions have taken a variety of positions on the exact meaning of the divine image. For example, the three branches of Christendom (Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, and Protestant) have each emphasized different aspects of the image.4

Representative View


This position asserts that humankind possesses a formal nature that serves to represent God. This nature then possesses certain qualities, characteristics, or endowments (spiritual, rational, volitional, etc.) that make humankind like God.

Relational View

This perspective, while allowing for the idea of formal traits, nevertheless insists that humans are most like God when it comes to their unique relational qualities. Thus it is man’s ability to engage in complex interpersonal relationships that best reflects the divine.

Functional View

This viewpoint insists that being made in the image of God is more about what a person does than what a person is. Thus when human beings perform certain functions (take dominion over nature or appropriately represent God on Earth) then the divine image is most deeply reflected.

All three views have their biblical strengths and weaknesses. However, rightly formulated and integrated, all three positions could reflect the different ways that human beings reflect the image of their Creator.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5sLx5-Ig4ZU
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 325 time
Have thanks: 186 time

Re: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of

Postby lostandfound » Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:29 pm

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 325 time
Have thanks: 186 time

Re: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of

Postby wealllbe20 » Thu Mar 23, 2017 11:51 am

I say.

What is the difference? :D

I believe God IS the Truth.
Image
... man's power is evil no matter the noble words with which it is employed or the motives urged when enforcing it .... -Cicero
---
Atheism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that no god exists." -wealllbe20
------
"Do we want to live in a society where we live totally naked in front of government, and they are totally opaque to us?" -Edward Snowden

wealllbe20 has been thanked by:
wealllbe20
Sui Juris Freeman
 
Posts: 1389
Joined: Tue Mar 20, 2012 12:38 pm
Has thanked: 49 time
Have thanks: 86 time

Re: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of

Postby lostandfound » Wed May 24, 2017 6:45 pm

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 325 time
Have thanks: 186 time

Re: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of

Postby lostandfound » Wed Jun 07, 2017 3:52 pm

country_hick wrote:Why would it be so important to try to convince kids that man is an animal to create this propaganda film if it was known to be true?

You are A Human Animal HD Jiminy Cricket Disney
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=irlkxki41PA




Very few people can say that they found God or religion at college or graduate school. The university, after all, is a radically secular institution that either ignores or disparages religious belief in God.

Yet, one day, when I was a graduate student in international affairs at Columbia University, I had what can honestly be called an epiphany.

I remember it very clearly. Since entering graduate school, I was preoccupied with this question: Why did so many learned and intelligent professors believe so many foolish things?
Why did so many people at my university believe nonsense such as Marxism? I was a fellow at the Russian Institute where I specialized in Soviet affairs and Marxism, and so I encountered professor after professor and student after student who truly believed in some variation on Marxism.

Why did so many professors believe and teach the even more foolish notion that men and women are basically the same? At college, it was a given that the differing conduct of boys and girls and of men and women is a result of different, i.e., sexist, upbringings. The feminist absurdity that girls do girl things because they are given dolls and tea sets, and boys do boy things because they are given trucks and toy guns, was actually believed in the mind-numbing world of academic intellectuals.

And why were so many professors morally confused? How could people so learned in contemporary history morally equate the Soviet Union and the United States, regard America as responsible for the Cold War, or regard Israel as the Middle East's villain?

One day, I received an answer to these questions. Seemingly out of nowhere, a biblical verse -- one that I had recited every day in kindergarten at the Jewish religious school I attended as a child -- entered my mind. It was a verse from Psalm 111: "Wisdom begins with fear of God."


The verse meant almost nothing to me as a child -- both because I recited it in the original Hebrew, which at the time I barely understood, and because the concept was way beyond a child's mind to comprehend. But 15 years later, a verse I had rarely thought about answered my puzzle about my university and put me on a philosophical course from which I have never wavered.

It could not be a coincidence that the most morally confused of society's mainstream institutions and the one possessing the least wisdom -- the university -- was also society's most secular institution. The Psalmist was right -- no God, no wisdom.

Most people come to believe in God through what I call the front door of faith. Something leads them to believe in God. Since that day at Columbia, however, I regularly renew my faith through the back door -- I see the confusion and nihilism that godless ideas produce and my faith is restored. The consequences of secularism have been at least as powerful a force for faith in my life as religion.

If our universities produced wise men and women, curricula of moral clarity, and professors who loved liberty and truth, not to mention loved America -- there is no question that my religious faith would be challenged. I would look at the temple of secularism, the university, and see so much goodness and wisdom that I would have to wonder just how important God and religion were.

But I look at the university and see truth deconstructed, beauty reviled, America loathed, good and evil inverted, elementary truths about life denied, and I realize that one very powerful argument for God is that society cannot function successfully without reference to Him.

So as much as I shudder almost every time I read of another academic taking an absurd position, I also feel my faith renewed.

Ironically, the worse the universities get, the greater their tribute to God.

https://townhall.com/columnists/dennisp ... a-n1170952

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xliyujhwhNM
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 325 time
Have thanks: 186 time

Re: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of

Postby Nunya_Bizness » Wed Jun 07, 2017 6:37 pm

When I am reading statutes and codes.
I always first look to the area in the codes that defines the terms.

I do not go to Websters, or Blacks or Bouviers, or the bible.

When I want to look up a term that applies to Biology I will look up that term the way Biologists define or use that term. I am not going to go to Statutes, codes, Websters, Blacks, Bouviers or any other dictionary, and definitely not the bible.

The below definition comes from a resource called Biology-online. That not only defines terms, but has many of the other words in the sentences defined. As they are used in biology.
If you will click on the link provided, one will be able to click on the individual highlighted terms. So that one can read how the terms are defined in biology, and not how one uses the colloquial every day terms.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Animal
Animal

Home » Animal

Definition

noun, plural: animals

A living organism belonging to Kingdom Animalia that possess several characteristics that set them apart from other living things, such as:

(1) being eukaryotic (i.e. the cell contains a membrane-bound nucleus) and usually multicellular (unlike bacteria and most protists, an animal is composed of several cells performing specific functions) (
2) being heterotrophic (unlike plants and algae that are autotrophic, an animal depends on another organism for sustenance) and generally digesting food in an internal chamber (such as a digestive tract)
(3) lacking cell wall (unlike plants, algae and some fungi that possess cell walls)
(4) being generally motile, that is being able to move voluntarily
(5) embryos passing through a blastula stage
(6) possessing specialized sensory organs for recognizing and responding to stimuli in the environment

adjective

Of or relating to animals, e.g. animal functions.


Supplement

The following are the grand divisions, or subkingdoms, and the principal classes under them, generally recognized at the present time: Vertebrata, including Mammalia or mammals, Aves or birds, Reptilia, Amphibia, Pisces or fishes, Marsipobranchiata (Craniota); and Leptocardia (Acrania). Tunicata, including the Thaliacea, and Ascidioidea or ascidians. Articulata or Annulosa, including Insecta, Myriapoda, Malacapoda, Arachnida, Pycnogonida, Merostomata, Crustacea (Arthropoda); and Annelida, Gehyrea (Anarthropoda). Helminthes or vermes, including Rotifera, Chaetognatha, Nematoidea, Acanthocephala, Nemertina, Turbellaria, Trematoda, Cestoidea, Mesozea. Molluscoidea, including Brachiopoda and Bryozoa. Mollusca, including Cephalopoda, Gastropoda, Pteropoda, Scaphopoda, Lamellibranchiata or Acephala. Echinodermata, including Holothurioidea, Echinoidea, Asterioidea, Ophiuroidea, and Crinoidea. Coelenterata, including Anthozoa or polyps, Ctenophora, and Hydrozoa or Acalephs. Spongiozoa or Porifera, including the sponges. Protozoa, including Infusoria and Rhizopoda. For definitions, see these names in the vocabulary.


Word origin: Middle English, from Latin, from animāle, neuter of animālis, living, from anima, soul.

Related forms: Animalia (noun), animalian (adjective).
Related phrases: Animal Kingdom, animal pole, animal cell culture, animal cell immobilization, germ-free animal, sentinel animal, animal testing, warm-blooded animal, animal rights, conventional animal.

Synonym: fauna.
Compare: plant.
See also: zoology.

First | Previous (Anima) | Next (Animal Kingdom) | Last
Any Man or Woman that declares that they are not an animal is just plainly being ignorant.
Apistevist
noun
- a person (not a legal person)who does not use faith to know things, especially in the religious sense
The burden of proof lies(Prevarication) on religion.
Theism:
"The belief that logic and the brain deducing the logic is not flawed to the point that one can come to the conclusion/belief that god(s) exists." -Nunya_Biziness
Definition of God = The total sum of human ignorance.
If you propose the existence of something, you must follow the scientific method in your defense of it’s existence, otherwise, I have no reason to listen to you.
*Faith* The excuse people give for believing something without good reason.>> *Faith, The grownup word for pretend.
Not a person
http://bindingthefirm.myfastforum.org/d ... b3c912fb94
User avatar
Nunya_Bizness
Freeman
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon Mar 14, 2011 5:53 pm
Has thanked: 127 time
Have thanks: 55 time

Re: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of

Postby lostandfound » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:30 am

A little girl asked her Mom, “Where do humans come from?”

Her Mom answered, “God made Adam and Eve and they had children and that’s who we all descend from.”

A few days later the girl asked her Dad the same question.

Her Dad answered, “Many years ago there were monkeys from which people evolved.”

The confused girl returned to her mother and said, “Mom, how is it possible that you told me the people were created by God, and Dad said people evolved from monkeys?”

Her Mom answered, “Well, dear, it’s very simple: I told you about my side of the family, and your father told you about his.”

So you may be a cosmic accident a trouser wearing ape. While I am created by the hand of God.

Scientists have recognized that human differ from animals not just by degree, but by kind.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.

lostandfound has been thanked by:
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 325 time
Have thanks: 186 time

Re: "Does God exist? Is there evidence for the existence of

Postby lostandfound » Fri Jun 09, 2017 7:43 am

http://www.reasons.org/articles/evoluti ... -is-a-myth

Mutations = mistakes.

Thats evolution, mistakes built upon mistakes until man recognized his mortality.
"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free. The truth has been kept from the depth of their minds by masters who rule them with lies. They feed them on falsehoods till wrongs look like right in their eyes." ~ Johann Wolfgang von Goethe

If you want a picture of the future, imagine a boot stamping on a human face, forever.
User avatar
lostandfound
King of my Own Domain
 
Posts: 2169
Joined: Mon Feb 07, 2011 2:40 am
Location: Out peering in
Has thanked: 325 time
Have thanks: 186 time

PreviousNext

Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

suspicion-preferred