Evolution is racist!!!!! (Page 9) zeffur: re: "Angry Beaver: Please provide proof that Darwin's work ever said man was descended from apes..... This should be interesting.... " Darwin postulated the notion that humans & apes have a common ancestor. His error is based on the false notion that similarities between birds, fishes, mammals and reptiles means that all life is related genetically--which of course has never ever been proven to be true in any way whatsoever. Thus he opened the door to the false notion that complex life forms evolved from simpler ones through natural selection & genetic mutations--which again has never ever been proven to be true in any way whatsoever. We know now of course from exhaustive fruitfly studies that natural selection never produces evolution due to genetic stasis preventing it from happening. We also know that there is no scientifically proven series of mutations that has ever led to any kind-level evolution. The conflation of normal natural genetic variations (which actually occurs within each kind of creature due to normal genetic expression) with the unverified biased, bogus, & imaginary beliefs of evolutioners is just a congame because it has never been shown to have ever occurred... (Edited by zeffur)   indigo137: Could not the powers that be create and then place evolution as the adaptable engine to drive life to adapt to the environment?  AretoNyx: What version of the bible and books taken out and what human interpretation of such? https://www.britannica.com/topic/hermeneutics-principles-of-biblical-interpretation https://www.britannica.com/topic/literal-interpretation en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_English_Bible_translations#Complete_Bibles en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_apocrypha en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_canon https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/earth/book-enoch-and-flat-earth/ https://evangelicalbible.com/translations/bible-translation-guide/ https://www.biblegateway.com/blog/tag/evolution/ (Edited by AretoNyx) AretoNyx: The bible still there are many versions and translations. Even people argue over language and translations over koran to other books deemed holy. Yes other religions that differ in method and beliefs have yec, and other christian churches in sect even with yec view vary on how to get to heaven or live life. I am mentioning because there is not just one way a bible is seen even literally besides what ever canonized version. https://www.britannica.com/topic/biblical-literature/The-process-of-canonization (Edited by AretoNyx) zeffur: Muhammad was a false prophet that brought nothing new to humanity. The koran is therefore of no importance. False prophet prophesies are not valid or beneficial to humanity. The only genuine God is the God of The Bible. Minor variations between denominations are unimportant to God. All that matters is Jesus & following Jesus as Jesus is the only begotten Son of God. No other religions are true/valid--except to the people who have been deceived to follow them... re: "I am mentioning because there is not just one way a bible is seen even literally besides what ever canonized version." You are mentioning it to try to confuse people. The differences that you point out have no significant importance in the bigger scheme of things. Jesus made it crystal clear when He said: "...I am the way, the truth, and the life: no man cometh unto the Father, but by me." Joh 14:6 KJV If you don't accept & follow Jesus, then you won't be saved on judgment day... (Edited by zeffur) AretoNyx: That is for Christians but Jewish to whatever religious are equally just as likely. Hindus even have older religious views than Christians. Jesus is even considered an alien by some. Mormons have way as well besides JW and others different views. Each make claims how is the way to some heaven. (Edited by AretoNyx) (Post deleted by staff ) (Post deleted by staff ) (Post deleted by staff ) (Post deleted by staff ) (Post deleted by staff ) zeffur: Catholics didn't write the NT. They took Christian sources & translated them into what is called the "Vetus Latina". In 382, Jerome used those Latin versions to produce the Vulgate version. To my knowledge Luther didn't change The Bible--To my knowledge Luther didn't change The Bible--he and others just had it translated into German in 1522 (which wasn't the 1st German translation) because of the corruption in the Catholic system. He wanted a pure version that wasn't intentionally kept in Latin to keep the masses ignorant of exactly what is in The Bible. He also published his '95 Theses' to show how the Catholics of that time were corrupt. That was in 1517--which is much earlier even than the King James sponsored translation of The Bible into English that was publish in 1611. "The Catholic Church affirmed the Vulgate as its official Latin Bible at the Council of Trent (1545–1563), though there was no authoritative edition at that time.[2] The Clementine edition of the Vulgate became the standard Bible text of the Roman Rite of the Catholic Church, and remained so until 1979 when the Nova Vulgata was promulgated." src: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulgate (Edited by zeffur) (Post deleted by staff ) (Post deleted by staff ) (Post deleted by staff ) | Science Chat Room 3 People Chatting Similar Conversations |