ANSWERS: 32
  • No one person or entity created humans. Instead humans, like all living things, evolved over millions of years to get to be what they are today.
  • In religious terms, God. In biological terms, it is down to the theory of evolution. Humans developed over time from our primate ancestors into the humans we know today
    • Utkarsh Jha
      Well to answer this first you should you should understand the darwin theory. We people earlier assumed that god created the world. And it fits to the logic that how can something come out of nothing. But today modern science is proving it without any doubt that things can come out of nothing in the empty space. Read the amazing facts about the universe and god https://dailyjunkies.com/15-amazing-facts-about-the-universe-and-god/ and you will get to know how the universe is working
    • Texasescimo
      You might tell these scientist about that proof: https://www.newsweek.com/universe-should-not-exist-cern-scientists-discover-692500
    • ReiSan
      There is no proof at all that gods exist. The Universe obviously exists, of course.
    • Texasescimo
      Yup, the Universe exist. Scientist now know it should not, barring some miracle like a Creator.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Hello ya, I wanted to save this thread for last to have a discussion with Utkarsh Jha in which he pulled a verbal drive-by on Biggie15. I can see he did not reply back.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, you have repeated the same broken record many times. Why don't you try repeating how the universe came to be without the existence of a God? As Utkarsh Jha mentions the Darwin theory, how it possible to have a universe from nothing out of nothing?
    • ReiSan
      How did God come into existence? You need to use Occam's Razor. If the Universe needs a creator, so does God. Special Pleading is a logical fallacy. Jenny has only logical fallacies, silly lies, vicious insults and poor fiction in the Bible in her invalid arguments, Claiming that the first thing to exist was an infinitely complex god is illogical and contrary to scientific observations.
  • Well, i dont believe we were 'created'. I believe in Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.
  • Jesus Christ. John chapter 1 teaches that Jesus is God and that He became flesh and dwelt among us. the Lord Jesus created all things. He created the heaven and the earth in six days and rested on the seventh. (see Genesis Ch.1) Thank you and God bless you!
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, you cannot disprove the accuracy of the Bible. You can argue with it, but that's all you can do.
    • Thinker
      Reisan have you ever researched the Bible? Have you ever read any of the early Biblical histories? If not then your statement is without evidence and therefore meaningless.
    • OC Joe
      With the inclusion of advice for selling one's daughter into slavery, the treatment of slaves, and stoning to death adulterers, and, of course, God telling Arbraham to kill his son, the Bible has some seriously crazy stuff in it. Any source of information peppered with crazy nonsense is NOT reliable. That also encourages people to cherry pick what they like and dislike and to feel righteous about doing so.
    • Sandra Ursula
      My parents are Christians, so I was taken to church every Sunday from the time I was born, and as soon as I learned how to read well enough, I was told to read the Bible every day. Even when I was a child, I doubted it and soon realized it's only primitive fiction that has lots of serious contradictions and is ignorant about nature. The plot is ridiculous and makes no sense. There's lots of savagery in it too. A god wouldn't write such poor stuff. Thomas Jefferson told his nephew in a surviving letter to read the Bible as critically as he would any other book, and that would surely show him that God isn't real. Lots of intelligent people in history have known the Bible isn't true. I took a coursed in Bible History in college, and it showed the Bible isn't true. Lots of people have disproved the Bible. Believers don't want to read books that do disprove it. Look up Richard Dawkins, Christopher Hitchens, Sam Harris, Michael Martin, David Mills, etc. Such men disprove the Bible very well. I didn't need them, because I did it myself.
    • Archie Bunker
      All religions are based on faith. Because you don't have any, it doesn't mean that it's not there.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Sandra Ursula, not one Bible contraction have you added in these comments. The historicity of the Bible is the question of the Bible's "acceptability as a history." This can be extended to the question of the Christian New Testament as an accurate record of the historical Jesus and the Apostolic Age. Many fields of study span the Bible and history; such fields range from archeology and astronomy to linguistics and comparative literature.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Sandra Ursula, quote: "There's lots of savagery in it too." It certainly the Old Testament you are referring to. Keep in mind that the Israelites were surrounded by enemies. Deuteronomy 25:17-18 "Remember what Amalek did to you on the way as you came out of Egypt, 18 how he attacked you on the way when you were faint and weary, and cut off your tail, those who were lagging behind you, and he did not fear God." In the Old Testament, it was kill or be killed. What then do you expect?
    • ReiSan
      The Bible is quite obviously quite poor primitive fantasy. 99.54% of Japan's people and 71% of the world's people do not believe the Bible. Jews were never in Egypt in great numbers. The Bible begins with two contradictory creation myths. Matthew and Luke disagree by several years about Jesus' birth date. No cuch man as Jesus Christ evr existed.
    • ReiSan
      Jenny_Rizzo must be joking when she asserts that I cannot disprove the accuracy of the Bible that has talking snakes, talking bushes, pi is just 3, the sky will roll up like a scroll, stars will fall to Earth, a man lived 3 days inside a large fish, men walk on water, etc.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, quote: "The Bible is quite obviously quite poor primitive fantasy. 99.54% of Japan's people and 71% of the world's people do not believe the Bible." In the US, belief in a deity is common even among the religiously unaffiliated a group composed of those who identify themselves religiously as atheist, agnostic or nothing in particular, and often referred to collectively as religious nones. But in early three-quarters of religious nones, 72% believe in a higher power. That doesn't include most of the world's population from different religions who believe in a god.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, quote: "Jenny_Rizzo must be joking when she asserts that I cannot disprove the accuracy of the Bible that has talking snakes, talking bushes," It must be a joke to know how you are a LITERAL thinker. The real question is how are we thinking? Are we thinking like man or are we thinking like God? As always, religious people use their Bibles to find the answers to our questions, because that's where God reveals His mind to us. The snake talking, the burnish bush was in the mind of mankind. As for the skies rolling up, while stars falling on Earth, the answer is based on Cyberwarfare.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Quote: "The Bible begins with two contradictory creation myths. Matthew and Luke disagree by several years about Jesus' birth date." Not quite, Luke gives us Mary's genealogy, while Matthew gives us Joseph's genealogy. This makes good sense, since Luke's birth narrative focuses on Mary. Luke tells the story from her perspective.
    • ReiSan
      Luke gives Joseph's ancestry,. and Matthew gives a contradictory one. Jews are patriarchs, so they did not record women's ancestries., Jenny cannot read that Luke says he gives Joseph's ancestry. Christians have only absurd lies, barbaric insults. logical fallacies and poor fiction of the Bible to use in their arguments. Faith is mindless and worthless. What is the point of quoting someone here.? Anyone can see what is written.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, quote: "Luke gives Joseph's ancestry,. and Matthew gives a contradictory lone." Joseph, known as the legal father of Jesus, as differently depicted in the Gospels of Matthew and Luke. These genealogies serve different purposes: Matthew's demonstrates the Abrahamic descent of Jesus as heir of David; Luke emphasizes that Jesus was the son of God through Adam. Accordingly, Matthew's genealogy descends from Abraham, while Luke's ascends from Jesus and Joseph to Adam and God.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, also, since Luke includes the pre-Abrahamic era, his list of ancestors is much longer, seventy-seven names compared to forty-one in Matthew. However, even in the periods where names overlap, Luke lists fifty-six names to Matthew's forty-one. From the time of David on, the genealogies are quite separate and intersect only on several occasions.
    • bostjan64
      I keep seeing this thrown around, that Luke has Mary's genealogy, but there is no mention of Mary on the list. The most official explanation given by the church is that Joseph's father died and he was raised by his uncle (by marriage), which is why the lineage is so different. However, even if that made sense in a genealogy (which it should be common sense), there is still a discrepancy later on, as Jenny Rizzo points out in her last post, there are a couple sequential names that overlap, but going back to the father of the eldest in that line, this person (Salathiel) also cannot have two different fathers (Neri or Jeconiah).
    • Jenny Rizzo
      bostjan64, if Luke had the evil intention of forging a genealogy, he would have made a like Matthew, but it is totally different after passing through David. This shows that he was describing the family of another person. Further evidence that the genealogy refers to Mary: the first 3 chapters give full emphasis to the birth of Jesus and the events surrounding Mary.
    • Texasescimo
      You might consider this from a study Bible: (Luke 3:27) son of Joan?an, son of Rhe?sa, son of Zerub?babel, son of Sheal?tiel, son of Ne?ri, : Shealtiel, son of Neri: According to 1Ch 3:17 and Mt 1:12, Shealtiel was the son of Jeconiah, not Neri. Perhaps Shealtiel married Neris daughter, thus becoming his son-in-law, and could therefore be called the son of Neri. It was not uncommon in Hebrew genealogical listings to speak of a son-in-law as a son. In a similar way, Luke apparently called Joseph son of Heli, Marys father. See study note on Lu 3:23.
    • Texasescimo
      A bit more: (Luke 3:23) When Jesus began his work, he was about 30 years old, being the son, as the opinion was, of Joseph, son of He?li, Joseph, son of Heli: According to Mt 1:16, Jacob became father to Joseph the husband of Mary. In Lukes account, Joseph is called the son of Heli, evidently meaning that he is Helis son-in-law. (For a similar case, see the study note on Lu 3:27.) When tracing the bloodline from a grandfather to a grandson through a daughter, it was customary for the Jews to focus on the men in the genealogies, which may be why Luke omits the daughters name and lists her husband as a son. Luke evidently traces Jesus descent through Mary, so it would seem that Heli was Marys father and the maternal grandfather of Jesus. See study notes on Mt 1:1, 16; Lu 3:27. 3:27
    • bostjan64
      "bostjan64, if Luke had the evil intention of forging a genealogy, he would have made a like Matthew, but it is totally different after passing through David." - Or it's all make-believe. It's not totally different, which was what I said. There is some overlap, which was my earlier point. If you'd like to discredit that point, go ahead and take a crack at it. "This shows that he was describing the family of another person. Further evidence that the genealogy refers to Mary: the first 3 chapters give full emphasis to the birth of Jesus and the events surrounding Mary." I mean, not just Mary, but her relative Elizabeth, Elizabeth's husband and their child, and, most importantly, Joseph, who *is* referred to as Jesus' father (Luke 2:33), as well as a cast of other characters. It might be that Luke traces the genealogy of Mary, but if that's the case, it's done so in a very misleading way. So, at best, this discrepancy comes about because the authors of the Bible were being purposefully unclear. At worst, it's all just made up details to make a made up story sound more believable to anyone who doesn't bother to take the time to try to trace its credibility.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      bostjan64, quote: "Or it's all make-believe." Not quite, most biblical scholars assume Luke is referring to the genealogy of Mary and that the genealogy recorded in Matthew is of Joseph. What's important to know, the lineage of Jesus according to prophecy relies on David. Jesus had to be born in the line of David. Samuel 7:12-13 "And when thy days be fulfilled, and thou shalt sleep with thy fathers, I will set up thy seed after thee, which shall proceed out of thy bowels, and I will establish his kingdom. 13 He shall build an house for My name, and I will stablish the throne of his kingdom for ever." The Davidic line reaches through the line of Seth to Noah, through the line of Shem to Abraham. Then through the lines of Isaac, Jacob, Judah, David, and to Jesus.
    • bostjan64
      Here's a question: how did the author of Luke know this family tree back so many generations? Here's another: for a line through Mary, how can they not mention Mary?
    • Texasescimo
      [how did the author of Luke know this family tree back so many generations?] Did you not know that the temple with all of the records was destroyed in 70C.E.? That's why Jews today do not know from what tribe they are really from as well as why they trace their genealogy maternally now rather than paternally as in the past. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2017529?q=%22Luke+adds+that+Mary+was+deeply+affected+by+all+these+events%22&p=par Why do Matthews and Lukes accounts about Jesus early life differ?
    • Texasescimo
      https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2016089?q=%22Why+the+seeming+discrepancy%22&p=par Who was Joseph?s father?
    • Jenny Rizzo
      bostjan64, that's like asking how did the Jews come across the word Messiah from many generations. Later biblical writers interpreted earlier biblical writings in ways that amplified earlier texts.
    • bostjan64
      Texasescimo, Luke was written after the destruction of the temple. Jenny Rizzo, I didn't ask anything about the word "Messiah," and I don't think that the word is a point of contention for anyone. Also, none of that answers either of those two questions.
    • Texasescimo
      No it was not. All kinds of claims regarding the Bible. Critics used to claim that there was no such person as Pontius Pilate, that don't make it so. In regards to Luke: Writing Completed: c.?56-58?C.E. Time Covered: 3?B.C.E.?33?C.E. Much of the family tree was in the Hebrew scriptures.
    • bostjan64
      Luke was written after 100 AD. The Marcionite controversey occured before the completion of the text, and that was in the 2nd century. No credible scholars place it as early as you claim. If any of it existed prior to that, it wasn't anything like the version we presently have. The very earliest estimates are around 80 AD for a written version that still differs greatly from the canonized version. Either way, though, it was after the destruction of the temple.
    • Texasescimo
      Your wrong Colonel Sanders, but believe as you like. [It was not until critics like Marcion came along in the middle of the second century C.E. that an issue arose as to which books Christians should accept. Marcion constructed his own canon to suit his doctrines, taking only certain of the apostle Pauls letters and an expurgated form of the Gospel of Luke. This, together with the mass of apocryphal literature by then spreading throughout the world, was what led to statements by catalogers as to which books they accepted as canonica.] https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101990103?q=%22When+did+Luke+write+his+Gospel%22&p=par
    • bostjan64
      Colonel Sanders doesn't belong to me. Marcion's version of Luke was not yet complete. How could that book have been incomplete in the second century if it was completed before the temple was destroyed?!
    • bostjan64
      Anyway, still makes no sense how Mary is absent from her own lineage, nor how the two lineages given overlap in the middle and all the way back, but diverge twice. It's simply not possible. And, if we assume for a moment that these lineages were copied from the temple somehow, it just means someone made a mistake copying one or both of them. Since both books were written after the destruction of the temple (look at any credible historical source), odds are pretty high that the lineages were just made up like many other odd things in the Bible, like rabbits that chew cud or four legged insects or Earth having four corners or whatever. Maybe just chalk it up to allegory or storytelling.
    • Texasescimo
      Marcion is not the author. There were copies of the letters and books that make up what we call the Bible passed around between congregations. I thought you understood? https://www.answerbag.com/q_view/3513849 https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2016089?q=%22Why+the+seeming+discrepancy%22&p=par
    • Texasescimo
      Quote [the lineages were just made up like many other odd things in the Bible, like rabbits that chew cud or four legged insects or Earth having four corners or whatever.] It is obvious that you have read books by critics of the Bible rather than the Bible itself as all of that is commonly parroted by opposers quite often. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001083?q=%22Why+does+the+Bible+classify+the+hare+as+a+cud+chewer%22&p=par
    • Texasescimo
      (Leviticus 11:20-23) Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is something loathsome to you. 21?Of the winged swarming creatures that move on all fours, you may eat only those that have jointed legs above their feet for leaping on the ground. 22?Of these you may eat: various kinds of migratory locusts, other edible locusts, crickets, and grasshoppers. 23?All other winged swarming creatures with four legs are something loathsome to you. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1958006?q=%22speak+of+insects+as%22&p=par
    • Texasescimo
      https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101997022?q=%22earth+to+be+literally+square%22&p=par https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001239?q=%22embracing+all+the+earth%22&p=par
    • Texasescimo
      Read the Bible for yourself. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101991001?q=%22a+few+simple+men+should+in+one+generation+%22&p=par A Historical Person Yet, strangely, some say that Jesus never lived that he is, in effect, a creation of some first-century men. Answering such skeptics, the respected historian Will Durant argued: That a few simple men should in one generation have invented so powerful and appealing a personality, so lofty an ethic and so inspiring a vision of human brotherhood, would be a miracle far more incredible than any recorded in the Gospels. Ask yourself: Could a person who never lived have affected
    • bostjan64
      I've read the Bible several times. In fact, I believed in the Bible until I read it in its entirety. That's when something seemed really off about it. ... I'm not sure where you were going with that, but locusts have six legs, you know. I never said Marcion wrote Luke, so maybe you got confused with another discussion. He had a version of it that was considered for canonization, and that version was not yet completed, meaning that the author of Luke at that time was not yet done writing it. For example, if I published a collection of George RR Martin's "A Song of Ice and Fire," and it was missing the last two novels, you could assume that they had not been completed yet at the time of publishing. It's not some sort of crazy trick I'm pulling on you, Texasescimo, it's the most widely accepted timeline by Bible scholars that Luke was still being written into the 2nd century. If the genealogy was being passed around before the destruction of the temple, it wasn't in its official form yet, because the written account we know had not yet been written down.
    • Texasescimo
      Which translation or translations have you read? https://animalcorner.co.uk/grasshopper-anatomy/ Their legs are long hind legs that are used for hopping and jumping. The short front legs are used to hold prey and to walk.
    • Texasescimo
      Whatever Marcion had access to only proves what Marcion had access to.
    • bostjan64
      Only in a religious debate would someone bother to go through the mental gymnastics required to try to prove that insects have only four legs. And why? Do you really think that you are going to convince any non-crazy person that 99.999% of biologists are wrong in their anatomy of the orthopterans! And you are correct about Marcion. What was I thinking? It's not like he was the first gnostic scholar who canonized the New Tedtament or anything like that... oh wait...
    • Texasescimo
      Be honest. Did I say or did the link I posted say "that insects have only four legs"? I am not trying "to prove that insects have only four legs". They mostly go about walking on four legs, and mostly use the other two, their hind legs "for hopping and jumping."
    • Texasescimo
      Please quote whatever words that I said that make you say all of that tripe about me saying insects only have four legs. https://animalcorner.co.uk/grasshopper-anatomy/ Their legs are long hind legs that are used for hopping and jumping. The short front legs are used to hold prey and to walk.
    • Texasescimo
      Which translation or translations have you read?
    • bostjan64
      Your own quote of Lev 11:23 says it right there.
    • Texasescimo
      Quote: [our own quote of Lev 11:23 says it right there.] No mention of grasshoppers in that verse. This is what Lev 11:23 says: All other winged swarming creatures with four legs are something loathsome to you. That also does not address what you claimed that I did. This is what you actually said: [Only in a religious debate would someone bother to go through the mental gymnastics required to try to prove that insects have only four legs. And why? Do you really think that you are going to convince any non-crazy person that 99.999% of biologists are wrong in their anatomy of the orthopterans!]
    • bostjan64
      Do you have a short attention span? The entire conversation is right above this comment. I'm not going to rehash everything you said just because you don't feel like scrolling up. This is a tangent off another side tangent anyway. Insects have six legs. The Bible talks about insects with four legs. It's a goofy inaccuracy. Let's move on.
    • Texasescimo
      Well LET IT GO then. Neither I nor the Bible said 'insects have four legs'. "winged swarming creatures that MOVE ON all fours". https://animalcorner.co.uk/grasshopper-anatomy/ Their legs are long hind legs that are used for hopping and jumping. The short front legs are used to hold prey and to walk.
    • Texasescimo
      Their (6) legs are (2) long hind legs that are used for hopping and jumping. The (4)short front legs are used to hold prey and to walk.
    • Texasescimo
      Their (6) legs are (2) long hind legs that are used for hopping and jumping. The (4)short front legs are used to hold prey and to GOETH UPON. Leviticus 11:21-23 King James Version (KJV) 21 Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; 22 Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind. 23 But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.
    • Texasescimo
      Which translation or translations have you read SEVERAL TIMES?
    • Texasescimo
      Verse 20, the very first verse in question, shows that Moses is referring to the mode of travel, goes on all fours.
    • bostjan64
      Lev 11:23, in your own earlier quote: "winged swarming creatures with four legs" Now you are quoting KJV, as if you weren't the one quoting the other version before. This is childish and pedantic. You ask me to let it go (in all caps, btw), then post four more comments beating that same horse.
    • Texasescimo
      You are the one that said: "I'm not going to rehash everything you said" and "Let's move on." I thought you may be serious so that is why I said: [Well LET IT GO then]
    • Texasescimo
      If verse 23 is still referring to the same types of creatures as verses 20-21, it's clarified in verses 20-21 in how many legs or feet they go about on. If referring to some other type of creatures, it doesn't say "insects only have four feet". What is the Hebrew word for insect? Which translation or translations have you read SEVERAL TIMES?
    • bostjan64
      You are misquoting me, by the way. Are you trying to say that the four legged creatures are not insects? Is a bat a type of fowl? Do rabbits chew their cud and have feet that are not divided at the hoof? You can't tell me that Leviticus chapter 11 is 100% accurate, biologically. If it just said "don't eat bats or rabbits or bugs (except grasshoppers, locusts, and crickets)," it'd be fine, but, no, it has to go into detail, and, in detail, it gets weird.
    • Texasescimo
      Where did I misquote you? Pretty sure everywhere that I said: [You are the one that said:] was followed by a direct quote. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200001083?q=%22Why+does+the+Bible+classify+the+hare+as+a+cud+chewer%22&p=par
    • Texasescimo
      Which translation or translations have you read SEVERAL TIMES?
    • bostjan64
      The last post right above where I said that has quotation marks around a group of words that I didn't say, presented as something I said, thus my comment pointing it out. Rabbits don't chew their cud, period. It may be nitpicky, but if you pick at that nit, it's just going to be another goofy inaccuracy from levitical law. My point is that there are a bunch of such goofy little inaccuracies that, for some rationally minded people, detract from the feeling of moral authority of the author in general... See, in general, Christians claim that the Bible was written by an omniscient God, not by humans. Even if there is one little nit picky inaccuracy in the book, it calls the omniscience of the author into question. It's only a small portion of Christians who believe that the Bible is purely allegorical. Furthermore, the little inaccuracies in levitical law may seem goofy now, but the enforcement of these laws meant people being brutally executed in the past. The fact that religious leaders see the laws as being perfect (when they can clearly be seen to not be so) means that they can never be revised (unless Jesus comes to Earth, but that's another topic for another thread). And, in case you haven't clued in, I don't want to get into another nit picking argument with you over the different translations of the Bible, because it's 100% irrelevant to that point; every translation has the same general message and the same little goofy inaccuracies, because the original Hebrew has the same goofy little inaccuracies in it.
    • Texasescimo
      Thank you Riddler. my next comment will be the post that I think you are referring to. Notice it is not a quote of what you said but rather just clarifying WHAT 23 DOES NOT SAY:
    • Texasescimo
      If referring to some other type of creatures, it doesn't say "insects only have four feet".
    • Texasescimo
      Which translation or translations have you read SEVERAL TIMES?
    • bostjan64
      1. These verses are clearly referring to what we call today "othopterans," which are a class of insects. 2. Why use quotation marks around a phrase that no one said? That seems just as silly as arguing with someone online whether insects, as a rule, have six legs, or not. 3. Whatever red herring you want to throw into this regarding different Bible translations has nothing to do with whether Lev 11 is wacky or not; it is wacky in the original Hebrew, too, so it's a moot point.
    • Texasescimo
      Sorry, I thought that you would understand that when in relation to verse 23 I said: [If referring to some other type of creatures, it doesn't say "insects only have four feet"], that you would understand that I was clarifying what verse 23 does not say.
    • Texasescimo
      Which translation or translations have you read SEVERAL TIMES?
    • Texasescimo
      In case you missed this: Which translation or translations have you read SEVERAL TIMES?
    • bostjan64
      It's clear that this is going nowhere, because you will neither read my comments before disagreeing with them nor use any logical process with which I can agree. Have a great day.
    • Texasescimo
      Deut 11:21 KJV Yet these may ye eat of every flying CREEPING THING that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth; Deut 11:21 (NIV)There are, however, some flying INSECTS that walk on all fours that you may eat: those that have jointed legs for hopping on the ground.
    • Texasescimo
      The Hebrew word OWPH does not say FOWLS although FOWLS are a flying creature. Saying all flying creatures or OMPHs are FOWLS is like saying all mammals are horses. Lev 11:13 (KJV) And these are they which ye shall have in abomination among the FOWLS; they shall not be eaten, they are an abomination: the eagle, and the ossifrage, and the ospray, Lev 11:13 International Standard Version "These are detestable things for you among WINGED CREATURES that you are not to eat, because they are detestable for you: the eagle, vulture, osprey, https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H5775&t=KJV flying creatures, fowl, insects, birds
    • Texasescimo
      The Hebrew word for birds or fowls specifically is tsippowr. https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H6833&t=KJV bird, fowl
    • Texasescimo
      Leviticus 11:13-20 (NWT) These are the FLYING CREATURES that you are to loathe; they should not be eaten, for they are loathsome: the eagle, the osprey, the black vulture, 14the red kite and every kind of black kite, 15every kind of raven, 16the ostrich, the owl, the gull, every kind of falcon, 17the little owl, the cormorant, the long-eared owl, 18the swan, the pelican, the vulture, 19the stork, every kind of heron, the hoopoe, and the bat. 20Every winged swarming creature that goes on all fours is something loathsome to you.
    • Texasescimo
      If you had read the Bible and told me what translation, I would know where you are coming from. Translated correctly, there would be no issue in regards to bats being called fowl or birds because IN THE HEBREW, they are NOT called fowls or birds. Of course you will not learn that on HATE sites where this type of tripe runs rampant, and where they consider context to be irrelevant.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Hello ya, I was away from AB for the last 3 weeks. Good to see ya!
    • Jenny Rizzo
      bostjan64, quote: "Rabbits don't chew their cud, period. It may be nitpicky, but if you pick at that nit, it's just going to be another goofy inaccuracy from levitical law." Neither do talking snakes exist as mentioned in the book of Genesis. The simple answer to the rabbit chewing cud is No. Not in the way that cows, goats and sheep do. But the purpose of the question is deeper. The Bible was not written in English. The Old Testament was written in Hebrew. It is to Hebrew that we should go to understand this conundrum. The interpretation of the phrase "chewing the cud" depends on the Hebrew words used for chewing and for cud. The Hebrew word for cud is gerah. This does not really mean cud, but actually is a broader term, meaning something that has been swallowed. To further speak of the rabbit chewing cud, the key issue is that they are re-eating something. I hunt rabbits with my rural friends so I know how they act. Their first swallowing does not complete the digestion process. Rabbits do something very similar. Rabbits produce two different sorts of fecal droppings. First, they produce a light brown dropping. This is actually partially digested food. The rabbits eat those droppings, which is why you might not often notice them. They re-digest these droppings, and then produce their second, darker colored droppings. In this way, the rabbits are raising and re-digesting something which they have already swallowed. Therefore, they fit completely within the terms of the broader Hebrew phrase, even though they cannot be said to chew the cud quite like cows do.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      bostjan64, quote: "My point is that there are a bunch of such goofy little inaccuracies that, for some rationally minded people, detract from the feeling of moral authority of the author in general..." The Bible is the most accurate religious book of any Religion. It might sound inaccurate to you and to anyone who takes the Bible literally. 1 Corinthians 2:14 states the man or woman without the Spirit cannot understand the things of God, because they are spiritually discerned. It comes to mind with perfect sense that you are only looking at the"surface" of the scriptures.
  • The creator of humans is the one true living God. He is the infinite force behind all that we see and come to know He is not a fantasy, He is not myth. Just as man was given the freedom to create things for their necessity and luxury, God possessed the devine freedom to create humans and every natural things that we see. for further information please research the New kings James Bible. God bless you.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, the Bible says in John 10:34 that humans are gods.
    • Thinker
      Jenny you cannot take a verse out of context and claim it to be so. You need to read the entire chapter and even book to understand what is said.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Thinker, John 10:34 is saying there are many gods, but one God. That is exactly what I added before some of my comments disappeared. The passage of John goes back to the book of Psalm to stay accurate. Psalm 82:6 "I said, You are gods, sons of the Most High, all of you;"
    • Texasescimo
      Jenny Rizzo is correct. The Bible shows that there are many gods (1Cor 8:5,6) such as the judges in Israel (John 10:34, Psalms 82:6), and Moses served as god to Aaron and Pharoah (Ex 4:16, Ex 7:1), but that the Father was the only true God. (John 17:3) http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Cor%208:5-6;%20John%2010:34-36;%20Psalms%2082:6;%20Ex%204:16;%20%20Ex%207:1;&version=9;16;77;47;15;
    • ReiSan
      Christianity is so poor that it can afford only one god or is it 3 of them, while Japan has 8,000,000 of them.
    • Texasescimo
      Lol. That's funny. Never heard that one before.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, 8,000,000 of them who do not hold water in comparison to the Christian God.
    • ReiSan
      The Christian God does not hold water. The Bible is an arbitrary collection of ancient Jewish crude fiction. Jenny says it is true just because she and it claim that. She has nothing to support her grandiose assertions.
    • Texasescimo
      Texasescimo is so poor that he can only afford one username. Papasan ReiSan obviously very rich in answerbag accounts.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, quote: "The Christian God does not hold water. The Bible is an arbitrary collection of ancient Jewish crude fiction." Saying the Bible is crude fiction without proving it does not make it a fact. Time and time again, biblical archaeology involves the recovery and scientific investigation of the material remains of past cultures that can illuminate the periods and descriptions in the Bible.
    • ReiSan
      It proves itself crude fiction to objective humans, Thomas Jefferson said that critically reading the Bible shows God dos not exist. Isaac Asimov said the Bible is the most potent force for atheism ever conceived. Mark Twain said the Bible is full of lies. Jenny is quote illogical. The logical burden of proof is hers when she claims the Bible is true with its many silly contradictions and staements that are patheticqalaly ignorant. Snakes do not talk, Burning bushes and donkeys do not talk either. Pi is not just 3. The sky cannot roll up like a scroll. Men do not walk on water. Stars cannot just fall to Earth. Jesus could not be born twice 15 or more years apart. Jenny is comical.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, Christianity only grew larger and stronger without what Thomas Jefferson, Isaac Asimov and Mark Twain had to say. Donald Trump embraces the Bible. The faith of Trump discusses how his religious beliefs mold his personal life as well as inform his vision and politics.
    • Texasescimo
      Hmmm, Thomas Jefferson and the others are just men, I formed my own opinion of the Bible and God after reading the Bible. Also, this is attributed to Thomas Jefferson: The studious perusal of the Sacred Volume will make better citizens, better fathers, better husbands" "The Bible makes the best people in the world" In 1803, United States president Thomas Jefferson wrote: To the corruptions of Christianity, I am, indeed, opposed; but not to the genuine precepts of Jesus himself.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Texasescimo, ReiSan seems to be inspired by Thomas Jefferson, but fails to understand the "miraculous" victory of Trump in the election. :)
    • ReiSan
      Thomas Jefferson forbid teaching the Bible in public schools. I favored Donald Trump over Hillary Clinton. Texas whatever is anotheerr of Jenny's accounts.
  • Anti-troll innoculation! I believe God was the creator.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, very funny. There is no such thing as a god with four heads and four arms.
    • Sandra Ursula
      There are lots of creator gods in different religion. There's no valid reason to prefer any one of them. None have any real evidence for them.
    • Archie Bunker
      Sandra, there's no real evidence of greed, either, yet we still believe in it. Can you point to "greed"? Can you show me a "greed"? Instead we take a bunch of ideas and concepts and put it all together and call it something else.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Sandra Ursula, I lost you comments in my feedback. I'm glad I found them. Quote: "There's no valid reason to prefer any one of them." Of course there is a valid reason to choose from. How is love generated in our lives? The Apostle Paul says in 1 Timothy 1:5, "The aim of our charge is love that issues from a pure heart and a good conscience and a sincere faith." Faith for Paul is about dependence on Jesus. It's about radical affirmation of our neediness and Christ's sufficiency. It is the only means by which we receive help, hope, Salvation and satisfaction from God. From what other religious book will you hear this from?
    • ReiSan
      Quoting extremely bad fiction of the Bible is futile. It has many dumb contradictions and much ignorance about reality.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      You have not mentioned any contradictions in the Bible. other than misunderstanding a talking snake, a talking bush, the sky and the stars which are symbolic.
    • mushroom
      @Archie Bunker Greed is an intangible noun, not a physical object. Greed is defined by societal norms, though most societies consider it a negative attribute. The same is true of sloth, lust, wrath or anything taken to an extreme. Without some basic responsibilities, self-control and cooperation, a society cannot grow and advance past a certain point of stability.
    • Archie Bunker
      'Shroom - I'm not disagreeing, but again, there are things that science cannot explain. We know that many of the things going on in our heads are due to chemical reactions. But science cannot explain why I love one person over another. Why you might cry when your dog dies but not when your grandmother dies. While "greed" might be a noun, we also know that it is a real thing (although not tangible).
    • ReiSan
      Archie underestimates Science. It tells us more than he knows, and religion tells us nothing. Religions are crass con games based upon extremely bad fiction. Reverend Billy Graham had $25,000,000 from conning naive retards. Many churches demand tithing. Archie and Jenny have surely bought pastors new Rolex watches.
    • mushroom
      @Archie Bunker Science can certainly explain the benefits of affection leading to protection, shared resources and transfer of acquired knowledge. Just the same, many people may find others who just rub them the wrong way for no apparent reason. That too has a role, because dominant personalities will clash. Without that variation, we would all be just a bunch of drones, doing our part but never questioning our destiny. Vive la difference!
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, quote: "Archie underestimates Science." Science is a system of arbitrary symbols and interactions dependent on a mind interacting with the universe. Not just that, science does not favor Religion or Atheism. Science will always be valid and in fact we would modify the circuits according to our science and what we think the effects would be. But in the long run after a long run, we may end up with completely different minds from which the world view could be completely different.
    • ReiSan
      Jenny does no even begin to comprehend Science. She is prejudiced for one set of bad fiction used in a con game. She has been brainwashed. She belongs to a weird cult that Christians despise. She cherry ppicks Bible verses and ignores others that modify or contradict her cherry-picked ones.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, no one will say that science shows favoritism. Science has no agenda while those applying it may have any number of biases or ideological beliefs which are then used in scientific studies.
    • ReiSan
      Science refutes the Bible quite well. It does not need gods to explain anything..
  • Humans were not "created" that's impossible, they evolved.
  • Evolution...
  • God of course.
    • ReiSan
      Of course NOT!
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, of couse so.
    • ReiSan
      Why choose The Jewish deity rather than one of many others. In japan, Amaterasu is Empress of 8,000,000 gods.
  • How many have seen an abandoned house? Does it stay the same or does it deteriorate? An Abandoned car eventually falls to pieces. If you were on another uninhabited planet and as you walked along you found a wrist watch laying on the ground how did it get there? What about all the parts etc. it took to make that watch? The design of that watch? What I am saying is something left alone rots and disappears, something made had to have a designer and someone with the intelligence to make say that watch. What about the tools to make the watch? Everything we use had some kind of intelligent design behind it; it just didn't happen. Look at this very planet we live on; it was precisely designed and placed so life could exist. We as humans are precisely designed. To me this all takes a designer someone of intelligence; call that intelligence a creator or God or by any other name and you come back to the same point ~~~ there had to be a designer of it all!
    • mushroom
      What was the point of burying fossil relics as well as valuable minerals and other resources, if they were all just placed there in a one-time act, but not meant to be taken "seriously"?
    • Sandra Ursula
      There's lots of flaws in this planet and in humans. If a designer was real, he'd be an amateur.
    • Archie Bunker
      Who says that they are flaws? That's a subjective term, Sandra.
    • ReiSan
      No, flaws are objective.
    • Archie Bunker
      No, subjective. What you might see as a defect, I might see as a strength. It all depends on your perceptions and opinions.
    • ReiSan
      Archie is too biased. Why are all humans born sinners, if the universe is so perfect. The appendix is useless and may become infected. Having urine and sperm emerge from the same body cavity is absurd.
    • mushroom
      @ReiSan "Having urine and sperm emerge from the same body cavity is absurd." Nature is often conservative in duplication of function. Should we also eat and speak through different organs? And the appendix is actually a staging area for beneficial bacteria as part of the immune system.
    • Texasescimo
      I imagine it can turn your world upside down knowing that barring some miracle like an intelligent creator, the universe should not even exist. After all of the years of being lied to. https://cosmosmagazine.com/physics/universe-shouldn-t-exist-cern-physicists-conclude
    • ReiSan
      I am a lady, and I am only angry when evil trolls insult me. I understand far better than Texas...There is no need for a creator. Theists are the people who believe absurd lies. Science needs no gods. Texas.... is just lying horribly. What a crass hypocrite who wantinluy violates so many Bible rules
  • Nature and brains.
  • There is no creator. Who created your creator? If the creator does not need a creator, then neither does the universe.
    • Jenny_Rizzo
      You need to check your spelling. What exactly are you trying to say? Or is your intention to troll around?
    • ReiSan
      Just leave, Jenny_Rizzo. You are the worst troll here. I do not see any misspelled words in my answer. Your imagination is wild again.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Quote: "I do not see any misspelled words in my answer." That's because you lied by editing your answer.
    • ReiSan
      using typographical errors against someone is immature and illogical. It only shows that such trolls as Jenny have no valid arguments.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Actually, using "proper spelling and grammar" is the way to have a mature and logical argument. Many writers are unsure of the correct spelling of the word grammar. This uncertainty leads to embarrassing mistakes by your lack of writing proper English.
    • ReiSan
      Jenny knows nothing about mature and logical arguments. She evades communication.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Mature and logical arguments are not based on name-calling and profanity in which you highly like to use.
  • god was
    • ReiSan
      Izanami and Izanagi were th3e creators in Japan's Kami no Michi!
  • God. (Genesis 1:27) The Bible describes mankind was created in the image of God. Jesus is the express image of the Father. And being a human being, it makes perfect sense how mankind is described in comparison to humans being members of a large group of animals known as mammals in the Evolution theory of Class Mammalia.
    • ReiSan
      Izanami and Izanagi are the creators in Japan's Kami no Michi (Shen Tao in Chinese). Prove that they do not exist, and then use the same method to prove your God does not exist either..
    • Jenny Rizzo
      The Japanese gods are meaningless throughout the world. The God of the Bible is accepted worldwide. Thousands of ancient, hand-copied documents referred to as manuscripts provide proof of the Old Testament and New Testament's historical consistency.
    • Archie Bunker
      The Bible is not accepted worldwide. There are almost just as many muslims are there are Christians, so that should tell you something.
    • ReiSan
      71% of the world's population do not accept the Bible. Using the Bible to prove the Bible is illogical. The Bible has myriads of dumb contradictions. It also displays pathetic ignorance of the universe. The basic plot is simply goofy.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Archie Bunker, nations like China were there is a growing Christian population yet purchasing and downloading a Bible is extremely regulated and illegal in some cases. In the middle-east, Islamic countries do allow Christians to preach the Gospel. If religious liberty was accepted in China and in the middle-east, more people would have a Bible.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, quote: "71% of the world's population do not accept the Bible." Actually, the Bible is one of the most read books in all of human history. The encouraging stat is that 5.4 billion of the 7.6 billion people on Earth have the whole Bible in their language. Quote: "The Bible has myriads of dumb contradictions." But you couldn't bring up any contradictions without going over them. Do you mind sharing some passages that you find contradicting?
    • ReiSan
      The Bible begins with two contradictory creation myths. Luke and Matthew give contradictions abut Jesus' birth date, Joseph's ancestry, etc. Did God or the Devil inspire David's census?
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, quote: "Luke and Matthew give contradictions abut Jesus' birth date," If you just take those passages without analyzing Scripture, then it would appear to be a contradiction. But Jesus being Mary's son descended from Nathan. Jesus can inherit rule over Judah because of Mary's marriage to Joseph, whose genealogy shows he was Heli's son-in-law.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, quote: "Did God or the Devil inspire David's census?" Census-taking under the Law of Moses was not inherently evil. In fact, God actually commanded Moses to number the Israelite soldiers on two different occasions; once in the second year after deliverance from Egyptian bondage, and again about forty years later near the end of Israel's wanderings in the desert.
    • Texasescimo
      [David humbly confessed his sins was when Satan incited him to take a census of the men qualified for the military forces].?2Sa 24:1-17; 1Ch 21:1-17; 27:24; https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1200003676?q=%22David%E2%80%99s+Calamitous+Registration%22&p=par
  • uThe Annunaki -if you're into the ancient astronaut theories. Else, God
    • ReiSan
      Ancient Astronauts is a hoax, not a theory. ETs cannot visit Earth..
  • BILLIONS of individuals have perused or heard what the Bible says in regards to the start of the universe. The 3,500-year-old record begins with the notable explanation: "before all else God made the sky and the earth."
    • Sandra Ursula
      71% of the world doesn't use the Bible. Your argument backfires on you. A few billion people have been Christians, but lots more haven't.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Sandra Ursula, quote: "A few billion people have been Christians, but lots more haven't." Christianity is presently the largest religion of all with approximately 32.2% of the world's population.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, Christians remained the largest religious group in the world, making up 32.2% of Earth's 7.53 billion people, not counting Non-denominational Christians and other Christians in the middle-east. Quote: "Why does Jenny quote so much. We can do the same to her." Be my guest. :D
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Reisan, quote: "No, Christians are 29% of the world's population." Not exactly, Christians are 32.2% worldwide. Just in Protestants, there are approximately 800 million in the world, comprising 37% of the global Christian population. That's without counting Non-denominational Christians in the middle-east were they have to discreetly preach the Gospel. The growing popularity of Non-denominational identity is the result of two trends: the decline in the number of Protestants overall, as more people eschew any religious affiliation becoming the nones.
    • ReiSan
      Jenny constantly lies. Appeal to Popularity is illogical anyhow. The masses of humans have many wrong beliefs on all levels. Many of them are slaves to the media, so they believe anything media tells them. Media's main source of revenue is advertising, thus the media will praise junk if paid well for it. Many people mindlessly believe Rolex watches are the best and most expensive watch brand, when it is actually a mass-produced entry level luxury brand. Saying that many people believe the Bible and believe Rolex is the best and most expensive watch only demonstrates that there are many people who have wrong belifs.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, quote: "Appeal to Popularity is illogical anyhow." I'm not the one who brags and bases my understanding on the majority of people in Japan who do not accept Christianity. You can't always side with the majority who are entering by the narrow gate; for wide is the gate and broad is the way that leads to destruction.
  • In the beginning, there was nothing. Which exploded. That's what evolutionists have you believing. Religious folks will have you believe that some dude started it all.
    • Sandra Ursula
      Evolution doesn't say anything about the beginning of life or the universe. The Big Bang tells about the beginning of the present state of the universe, and it has variations. Abiogenesis tells about he beginning of life, and some of that has been recreated in labs.
    • Archie Bunker
      Yeah, but where did it all come from? The number of factors that had to come together for life to form, and impossible odds that that would actually happen...it boggles the mind.
    • Sandra Ursula
      The odds against gods are a lot more impossible. Read some science. The beginnings of life have been recreated in labs.
    • Archie Bunker
      And we knew what had to do where to do that. We knew when and how much of exactly what to add to start those basic together. The chance that it just happened randomly?? Unfathomable. Just look at the "Goldilocks Parameters" that are needed for life on Earth. It's not just 2 things that are needed, as Carl Sagan said back in '66. That list is now well over 200. And many of those 200 necessities have to be exact to support life. The galaxy has to be perfect shape, size and age. The location of the solar system within that galaxy has to be in the perfect location. The planet has to be within an absolute certain distance from it's star, which has to be a certain size, shape and age. The planet has to be a certain size and age to support any life. The atmosphere has to form at the right time with the right ingredients. The growth of the star and the growth of life has to be synchronized. Just looking at Earth, if you have too much direct light, you have too much greenhouse gases. That means no life. Not enough light? No life. Planet not tilted on the right axis? Temperatures would not be ideal and.....no life. If the Earth was just 2% either closer or farther away from the Sun, we'd have no water. Equals no life. If the earth spun just a little bit faster? It would be too fast and we'd all be blown away. Too slow? We'd cook. Or freeze. Moon not at the right distance? No tides. And if you look even further out in the solar system. What if there was no Jupiter and Saturn? Then we'd have been blown to smithereens by asteroids millennia ago. But since Jupiter pulls them away, we're good. And it only does that because it is the perfect size and the perfect distance away to make that happen. If one of "Godilocks Parameters" was off, just a little bit....the whole house of cards would crumble. Theoretical physicist Paul Davies, "...the appearance of design is overwhelming." Even Carl Sagan was not an atheist. He just had no evidence of a creator's existence. Even his widow said he was an agnostic. And even modern science agrees that the chances of being here, let alone with our mental capacities, those chances are damn close to zero. And even looking outside all that, you can go to how Kent Hovid explained it. (paraphrasing here) God is outside all of that. He is not subject to time, space or matter. (ALL which are needed) And ALL of those things had to come into existence, simultaneously for anything to exist. (Which, according to the Bible, God created all of those in the very first sentence.) In closing here, don't just limit yourself to a few people's opinions. Do your own research (as I do) and make up your own mind and your own faith (as I did). In short, I've read the science.
    • Archie Bunker
      Sandra, creating a single cell organism is "easy" compared to where that cell would have to go to become the guy looking in the microscope. After all, they just took a new chromosome and put it in another cell. A cell they didn't create on their own. Just sayin'.
    • ReiSan
      If humans are impossible, gods are infinitely impossible. The claim that the first thing to exist was a god is contrary to scientific observation. A god is the hypothetical end of evolution, not the beginning.
    • Archie Bunker
      You're only assuming that God is within the confines of reality. God is outside all that. God cannot be explained scientifically. God is outside time, space & matter. Those three things not only have to have to exist and but they must come into existence at the exactly the same time. Explain how that is scientific.
    • mushroom
      If our universe started from a single point, then we can never reference anything before that point. If you create a game "universe," the occupants of that environment cannot reach past whatever boundaries you have defined. If you want to say God created that environment, or that singular point, go right ahead. Science is the process of measuring and exploring the universe within which we are bound.
    • Archie Bunker
      Science cannot reference anything before that point, 'shroom. Again, religion comes back to faith alone. This is only one of the things that science can not explain. I'm not a big religious guy, but there are things that science cannot and, I believe, will never explain. Faith/religion/existential manipulation can explain some things as well. I guess it's all up to what you believe.
    • Archie Bunker
      Reisan - I don't want to sound preachy 'cause I'm not a big religious guy trying to "spread the good word." Believe as you want or don't. Anyhoo, I'm not saying humans are impossible. That's pretty obvious. I don't think that religion and science are mutually exclusive of each other. You can have both.
    • ReiSan
      Religion does not actually explain anything. It uses logical fallacies, e.g.. Argument From Ignorance, Appeal to Popularity, etc. Science and Religion have basic conflicts,. Faith is mindless and worthless. Members of all religions have faith in heir different gods. Science doers not use such unreliable stuff as faith and beliefs.
    • Archie Bunker
      "Science doers not use such unreliable stuff as faith and beliefs." - Tell that to the climate change enthusiasts. And religion can explain a lot of things, if you have faith that it does.
    • ReiSan
      Climate change is pseudo--science. Religion avoids any explanations. "God did it", is merely Argument From Ignorance. Faith is blind and worthless. All members of all reli9gions have faith in their differ3nt gods.
    • Archie Bunker
      The climate change advocates usually end up avoiding the science part of it. Only because they need their grants paid. While we usually agree ReiSan, I disagree with you here. Faith is not worthless. Many times, faith provides the individual with perseverance in the face of adversity. And yes, all members of all religions have faith in their different gods.
  • Marduk according to ancient Babylonians. Brahma says the Hindus. Pan Gu says the Chinese. Izanami and Izanagi says the Japanese. Science doesn't need creators. Humans evolved from earlier primates. We have fossil records of that.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Quote: "Science doesn't need creators." But scientists have a Creator. The key word to notice here is the preposition "through." Since God is a Spirit, His inner life reflects on what we refer to as "knowing and willing." For the essence of any spirit is to know and to will. Any time we utter a word to another or do a scientific research, we must first have some idea in our minds.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Quote: "Humans evolved from earlier primates. We have fossil records of that." Not exactly. Man's excellence consists in the fact that God made him to His own image by giving him an intellectual soul, which raises him above "the beasts of the field."
    • ReiSan
      Jenny_Rizzo denies Science, since it refutes her ignorant beliefs. Yes, there are fossil records that show evolution. Evolution has tons of supporting evidence, while gods have none whatsoever. If you insist upon believing in imaginary things, why not Amaterasu, Zeus, Odin, Quetzalcoatl, Volos and many other gods besides God? You cannot disprove these other gods.
    • Texasescimo
      ReiSan, according to the fossil record, all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged. With all of the missing links for all of the life forms and missing link hoaxes leading to humans, you have a lot of faith. But blind faith will get you no where.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, Christians do not deny science. in fact, Christian Science is about feeling and understanding God's nature.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Texasescimo, well said.
    • ReiSan
      Texawsescri.. does not comprehend genuine science.. He does not say anything well. The fossil record exhibits evolution. Faith is not used in Science. You show that you do not comprehend Science at all. Yes, Christians must deny Science, since it refutes their Bible thoroughly. Snakes do not talk. Pi is not just 3. The sky cannot roll up like a scroll. Stars cannot just fall to Earth. Bats are not birds. whales are not fish. There could not have been a world flood that submerged the tallest mountains by some meters. The Bible was obviously written by ignorant barbarians..
    • bostjan64
      "...[A]ccording to the fossil record, all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged." A fossil record does not, and cannot, work like that. First, whether or not an animal becomes a fossil depends a lot on the weather in the area. Even then, there is a lot left to chance. It's not as though ever animal that ever died became a fossil. The overwhelmingly vast majority of animals that ever lived had their bodies broken down by other animals, fungi, bacteria, etc. So, there is simply no way that the fossil record can tell anyone that an animal appeared suddenly. What we do know about the pace of evolution is based off of what we see ongoing. For example, humans, on average, have fewer wisdom teeth than we did a thousand years ago, because our food is easier to eat, and having extra grinding teeth has no advantage. New genetic alleles are being discovered now, like CCR5delta32, which provides immunity to HIV, a disease that didn't even exist a hundred years ago. That's how evolution works, small changes on a small scale, one generation at a time. No one who takes evolution seriously ever claimed that a gorilla gave birth to a human one day and -bam humans!
    • Texasescimo
      Well I guess that explains it. Just a bunch of guesses and hunches as humans are still humans although some have more teeth than others. Finches are still birds although they can have different characteristics. Ants, Blue Whales, Humans, Platypus's all came from the same common ancestor, no evidence needed because they "had their bodies broken down by other animals, fungi, bacteria, etc". I suppose that the observable fact that life comes from life and humans come from humans is a ridiculous concept. Even scientist that can mix existing cells and place them under circumstances to continue to thrive and reproduce require an intelligent designer and preexisting matter. Interesting read about the universe: https://www.newsweek.com/universe-should-not-exist-cern-scientists-discover-692500
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, quote: "Texawsescri.. does not comprehend genuine science.. He does not say anything well." First, you say Archie Bunker does not understand science. Second, you say Texasescimo does not understand genuine science. It looks like you don't have a clue about science. How can Christians deny science when we are using the scientific research of the internet? Quote: "Yes, Christians must deny Science, since it refutes their Bible thoroughly." Science does not contradict the Bible. Most of the great scientists of the past believed in God and took the Bible seriously. These people are reminders that science is not a threat to be feared, but a journey we can embrace with confidence, knowing that all truth can only be revealed as God's truth.
    • bostjan64
      Texas, I'm not sure what your point is. You made a claim. I was addressing that. I had not claimed that life doesn't come from life, that was your claim, that "all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly," yet you now say "the observable fact [is] that life comes from life." I think you are either confused or you don't know what you are trying to claim in the first place.
    • Texasescimo
      Sorry, didn't mean to confuse you. Most that believe in macro-evolution also believe that everything just happened by chance. No God and no previous life needed. I'm guessing that all of the prehuman human forms of humans with tails or 4 legs or whatever, had their bodies broken down by other animals, fungi, bacteria, etc. Humans in the form they are now were not affected as much? Same with the platypus, whales, gators etc.
    • Texasescimo
      You seemed to want to make issue with my point but then seem to have agreed with it by making excuses as to why what I quoted was accurate. Most macro-evolutionists claim they believe in evolution because of the evidence. Now it's something like we just know it. All of the solid evidence vanished but I and everyone else I agree with believes it so no evidence required.
    • Texasescimo
      Never heard wisdom teeth as proof of evolution before but this is interesting, considering other variables as an honest person might. (Edit: not saying you are not honest, just stressing to take a deeper look.) https://answersingenesis.org/human-body/vestigial-organs/are-wisdom-teeth-evidence-evolution/ Getting to the Root of the Problem Humans having problems with space for wisdom teeth and/or wisdom tooth impaction is a recent phenomenon, having its beginnings around the Industrial Revolution in the 1700 and 1800s. Prior to this, every indication is that there were few to no issues with wisdom teeth.2 Various theories have attempted to explain this fact. However, the most satisfactory and easily shown explanation is that many of the issues with wisdom teeth can be traced back to the human diet and the utilization of teeth in preindustrial populations. MANY OF THE ISSUES WITH WISDOM TEETH CAN BE TRACED BACK TO THE HUMAN DIET AND THE UTILIZATION OF TEETH IN PREINDUSTRIAL POPULATIONS. Prior to the 1700s, the human diet was generally much coarser; consequently, people experienced an increase in tooth wear, or attrition.3 Attrition causes a reduction in the height of the crown, or top of the tooth. If this reduction progresses far enough, it actually creates more space in the dental arch, space that can allow for wisdom teeth to erupt normally and function like any other molar. Humans in preindustrial times showed this pattern of tooth wear and, in almost every case, had erupted wisdom teeth with no visible signs of pathology.4 In addition, when an individual eats a diet composed of much tougher, abrasive material, the bones of the jaws will become larger and more robust. This happens due to the increased forces placed on the bone by the masticatory (or chewing) muscles, both during jaw development and over an individual's lifespan. The attrition of the teeth and the resultant growth and development of the jaws both combine to create a larger dental space for all the molars, making wisdom teeth not only useful and advantageous, but also necessary for individuals to withstand the harsh demands placed upon the dental system in preindustrial times. As a side note, wisdom teeth are advantageous not only for chewing and grinding food, but also for being used as a tool (e.g., tearing, grasping, cutting) by many humans in times past and still today. Chew on This We observe the traits of attrition and larger jaws not only in people who lived prior to the 18th century, but also in certain modern subpopulations that still depend on a nonmodern diet for their everyday sustenance. In t
    • bostjan64
      There is a lot to address here, which is difficult with the limited space of the new format of AB. If I miss something you'd still like to discuss, please let me know. You seem to have taken issue with the fact that some fossils are found and others are not found. I don't know what to tell you about that. Animals tend to live during a time period and over a geographical range. When that range is arid over that time period, there is a higher likelihood of fossils forming. If that area is wet over the time when an animal that lived there existed, there is little chance of it forming a fossil. So some animals live and die and form no fossils, and that can go on for thousands of years. So we have fossils of some animals and not of others. I think it's a moot point, though, because, if we assume the creation narrative: God created people and all of the other things within a week of the same time, so, if everything becomes a fossil, there should be fossils of humans going back just as far as fossils of everything else. This is not the case, so, I mean, the logic you are presenting here sort of breaks down. The solution I offer is that not everything can become a fossil. I think you have to accept that to help out your own case here. So, what the fossil records tell us, which is based on the fossils we have seen, is that there were some kinds of animals a long time ago that no longer exist, and that there are newer kinds of animals that did not seem to exist that long ago. The evolutionary model of the past generally links things together. There were reptiles, but they were not like modern reptiles. Then, later, there were dinosaurs that had some bird-like structures in their bones, particularly the shapes of their hips. Then, later, there were dinosaurs that were more bird-like and had feathers. Then, later, there were birds that looked sort of dinosaur-like. Now, we have birds. So, the idea is that birds descended from a type or a few types of dinosaurs. I don't think that's too crazy of a conclusion to jump to. It's not like we have a fossil of everything in between this fossil and that fossil, so no sane biologist is going to sit there and make up some story about how tyranosaurus begat gianotosaurus, which begat birdosaurus, which begat a turkey or some other nonsense. We don't know. But saying that we don't know something specific is not the same as saying that we don't know in general what was going on. As for us agreeing, see my next comment...
    • bostjan64
      You said "[A]ccording to the fossil record, all the major groups of animals appeared suddenly and remained virtually unchanged." I 100% disagree with that statement, without equivocation. That's not what the fossil record says, that's not how fossil records work, and that's also not true.
    • bostjan64
      Frankly, if you don't believe in macroevolution, then you either don't believe in science or you are ignorant toward what science has to say. I contend that macroevolution has nothing to do with abiogenesis, which seems to me to be a more reasonable topic to fight over. Macroevolution is just microevolution over an extended period of time. Microevolution is observably happening right now and has been recorded in hundreds of cases over the past hundred-plus years. There is no way to resolve microevolution that is irrefutable and macroevolution over a long period of time. The fossils we have on record merely support that to a very large extent. What's more: Archaeologists keep finding more and more fossils of prehistoric people who fit somewhere in between fossils we have on record. Yet people like you keep saying "where is the missing link?!" Here's an analogy. We know there is red, and we know there is green. Someone says there is no connection between red and green. A scientist says that red is light and green is the same light, just with a shorter wavelength. The skeptic says "no, otherwise, where is the in-between color?" The scientist then discovers yellow and orange. The skeptic says "yellow is yellow and orange is orange, but there is still no connection." The scientist then discovers orangish red and reddish orange. No change. Then the scientist shows how a prism works, and the skeptic says, "still no connection." The scientist gives up and the skeptic believes he won the argument. Now, replace red and green with modern man and homo erectus. We've found denisovans, neanderthals, homo heidelbergis, etc. etc. etc. in between (as well as tools and burial sites that confirm how culture was slowly linearly changing from one find to the next), but you still say "where is the missing link?" There is nothing that will ever satisfy you in this regard, though.
    • Texasescimo
      "God created people and all of the other things within a week". Research a bit more: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010234
    • bostjan64
      I agree that the intent of Genesis 1 and 2 was to be allegorical. Unfortunately, a fair share of people take those to be literal, in spite of the fact that, taken strictly literally, they offer two different timelines. But, still, the link you posted says: "Both the fossil record and modern research support the idea that the fundamental categories of plants and animals have changed little over vast periods of time." I believe that wording is, at best, misleading. The article also insinuates that evolution is not possible, which would be flat out false. If you want to take the position that God created the Earth, and created life, and then that life evolved from plants and animals well suited for the warm, moist climate of the early Earth to the icy dry climate of the ice age(s), to modern times, with all of the changes in between, then you are coming from a rhetorical position that does not ignore the evidence of fossils and basic geology. But, on the other hand, if you take up a position that there is no such thing as evolution, as defined by biology: the process by which organisms develop different traits and diversify into different species over many generations, then you are in a position that simply disagrees with hundreds of pieces of both indirect and direct scientific evidence.
    • Texasescimo
      Did you get the point that they were not literal 24 hour days? Genesis 2:4. I think that the cat kind are still the cat kind and the dog kind are still the dog kind. The fish kind are still the fish kind, finches or whatever. In regards to two different timelines, see if this helps: https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1101989037?q=%22two+accounts+of+the+creation+discuss+it+from+two+different+viewpoints%22&p=par
    • Jenny Rizzo
      bostjan64, scientists often date fossils such as dinosaur bones and those termed human or early man thousands, tens of thousands or even millions of years before the creation of Adam. Although we understand the interest generated by this subject, it is not the primary duty of the church to enter a field that properly belongs to geologists, paleontologists and anthropologists. None of the facts discovered by science contradict the Bible, though certainly many of the theories proposed by scientists to explain their facts are at odds with God's Word. We believe in the fossil records, How one explains the formation of fossils depend on one’s worldview. When viewed from a biblical perspective, the evidence is consistent with what one would expect from a worldwide flood.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Texasescimo, nice job of quoting Genesis 2:4.
    • bostjan64
      Jenny Rizzo: I think we are getting closer to agreeing, even if we will never agree, so that's good. I would still say that, since fossilization is a chemical process, we understand it pretty well between biology, geology, and chemistry. I think that extending the explanation of that process to a "worldview" is a bit silly, but I can just shrug at that notion. As for a worldwide flood, no. There is no geological evidence for that. Also, as I mentioned earlier, wet conditions pretty much rule out fossilization, so finding fossils doesn't mean that a lot of animals died in a flood. It doesn't rule it out, but it would make it unlikely.
    • bostjan64
      Texasescimo: Yeah. I'm not sure what you mean by cat kind and dog kind, since there are no agreed upon definitions of those. Is a wolf still a dog kind? What about a fox? Is it a dog or something else? Is a coyote a dog? I would tell you that, when you start to really put some thought into it, you start getting trapped, which is why we have the field of taxonomy, and why it is the entire reason the theory of evolution exists in the first place.
    • Texasescimo
      Well as it seems to be obvious to you by your grouping them together, those are not the fish kind or cat kind. Unless your point is that a wolf resembles a cat or fish as much as it does a dog? I know that with scientist that they have defined and redefined species. Basically, a dog came neither from a whale like creature, platypus like creature, a flea, etc, nor vice versa. I believe that dogs, coyotes, foxes, wolves, etc, all came from a dog like creature, perhaps a some sort of a dog or wolf like creature? Do you disagree with that?
    • Texasescimo
      In the English language, Days can mean a long period of time: In those days (= that period in history), people had large families. https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/day
    • Texasescimo
      In the Bible, day (yowm) B ii [as a division of time] D [time, period (general)] https://www.blueletterbible.org/lang/lexicon/lexicon.cfm?Strongs=H3117&t=KJV
    • Texasescimo
      Day in Genesis 2:4 groups all 6 creative periods in Genesis 1 into one larger time period. Day in Genesis 2:4 groups all 6 creative days in Genesis 1 into one day. (Genesis 2:4) This is a history of the heavens and the earth in the time they were created, in the day that Jehovah God made earth and heaven.
    • bostjan64
      I mean, if a fox and a wolf came from the same anscestral animal, that's what I call macro-evolution. You can't breed a fox with a dog, so they are different kinds of animals. If you go a little wider, you can throw in jackyls and hyenas and dingoes in with the rest of the dog like things, then look even wider, to include bears, since they are more like dogs than cats, even though they are not as much like dogs as foxes are... I think we are talking about the same things, just using different language, maybe.
    • Texasescimo
      I would think that a dingo would likely have a common ancestor with dogs and wolves. Not sure what the hyena is related to if anything? I do not think that bears are related to dogs, although they have the same creator. I've heard that foxes and dogs cannot interbreed due to differences in chromosomes and such. That doesn't mean they did not come from a common ancestor. From what I understand, most if not all mules are sterile. That doesn't mean that donkeys and horses or even two mules did not come from a common ancestor. Just googled this about foxes and dogs: http://www.macroevolution.net/dog-fox-hybrids.html
    • Texasescimo
      You might read this to get where I am coming from in regards to microevolution. https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/1102010233#h=1:0-57:0
    • ReiSan
      JWs are a weird cult who do not use th3e Christian Bible.
    • Texasescimo
      What translation do you agree with or is that just an Ad Hominem Fallacy?
    • Jenny Rizzo
      bostjan64, quote: "I think that extending the explanation of that process to a "worldview" is a bit silly," All of the other religions, including Buddhism, Hinduism, Islam, Jainism, Daoism, modern Paganism, Wicca and other have no issue with the fossil records. The YEC Creation Museum in Kentucky, a project of Answers in Genesis maintains that humans and dinosaurs co-existed, and that dinosaurs were the original dragons. In order to do this, they have to deny much of quantum mechanics and general relativity; much of chemistry, especially biochemistry, all of geology and all of biology. The Bible has a clear view on dinosaurs with historical records, mounting scientific evidence to show that dinosaurs were in the Garden of Eden and throughout the flood.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, how do you know which version and which not do Christians use?
    • bostjan64
      There's that claim again! Jenny Rizzo, we've had this discussion before, and there are no dinosaurs in the Bible. There are no historical records of living dinosaurs, especially in the Bible.
    • Texasescimo
      I haven't read about a direct mention of dinosaurs in the Bible. I think the dinosaurs were extinct by time man was created. https://www.jw.org/en/bible-teachings/questions/dinosaurs-in-the-bible/
    • Texasescimo
      National Geographic apparently reported the find on the missing link between dinosaurs and birds in 1999: https://abcnews.go.com/Technology/story?id=98685&page=1
    • Texasescimo
      Then we have other missing links like Piltdown man, Lucy, etc.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      bostjan64, quote: " As for a worldwide flood, no. There is no geological evidence for that." Guess again. Marine archaeologists have found the first evidence of a people who perished in a great flood of the Black Sea that has been linked with the story of Noah's ark. Using robot underwater vehicles more than 300ft below the sea's surface, they begun to map a rolling landscape, fed by meandering streams and marked with wattle and daub houses that was flooded more than 7000 years ago.
  • Revelation 11:4 “11 “You are worthy, our God, to receive the glory and the honor and the power, because you created all things, and because of your will they came into existence and were created.”
    • ReiSan
      The Bible is merely bad fiction. Gods do not exist.
  • God made man to fellowship with him, but God gave us a choice, and man broke fellowship by disobedience, that is where his son comes in, to restore the broken fellowship..
    • Sandra Ursula
      Some choice that is! I don't like Heaven or Hell, so give med hundreds of more choices than just two terrible ones.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Sandra Ursula, you won't have much of a choice in the lake of fire in comparison to God's Kingdom. The Bible speaks of Heaven for his or her own, Those who have come to Jesus in faith are prepared and redeemed on Earth for their place in Heaven. Revelation 7:9 tells us that there will be a great multitude in Heaven that no one could number," all standing before the throne.
    • Rick Myres
      Yet another thumbs up with words Jenny my sister in Christ.
    • ReiSan
      God, Jesus, Heaven and Hell are merely bad fiction.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, the universe contains too much order for our existence to have been created out of chaos. We are complex beyond our imaginations and when you look at such a complexity, you see God and His Creation.
    • ReiSan
      If the Universe cannot possibly exist, gods are infinitely more impossible. Using an infinitely complex god to explain what seems to be a complex Universe to tou is a logical fallacy. You violate Occam's Razor. You have no logical arguments. Quoting people, is a waste of time.
    • Texasescimo
      https://www.newsweek.com/universe-should-not-exist-cern-scientists-discover-692500
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, quote: "If the Universe cannot possibly exist," The Bible teaches God like the universe never had a beginning. Humans can only grasp the concept of God's timeless existence in part. And in so doing, we describe Him as a God without a beginning or end, infinite and everlasting. Psalm 90:2 declares, "From everlasting to Everlasting You are God" We live in a physical world with its four known space-time dimensions of length, width, height or depth and time. God dwells in a different dimension, the spirit realm beyond the perception of our physical senses.
    • ReiSan
      It is hilarious that Jenny reads swo much into a collectgtion of na?ve primitive fiction that displays pathetic ignorance. What Bible does she use? She cherry picks verses and thus ignores most of the Bible, God dwells in the imaginations of gullible slaves.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, you cannot disprove the accuracy of the Bible. Archaeologists have consistently discovered the names of government officials, kings, cities, festivals and etc mentioned in the Bible; sometimes when historians didn't think such people or places existed.
  • It was God through Jesus.
    • ReiSan
      God and Jesus are only imaginary.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, there is no legitimate scholar today that denies that Jesus is a historic figure that walked on this earth about 2000 years ago. Where do you get the idea that Jesus never existed?
  • God created man from the dust of the ground called his name Adam. Then after Adam found no suitable partner among the animals and creatures, He put Adam into a deep sleep and removed one of his ribs and formed woman from that rib and called her name Eve.
    • ReiSan
      Many religions have creation myths, and there is no genuine evidence that any are true..
    • Rick Myres
      You need Jesus :)
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Rick, ReiSan needs an exorcist so she can see the light of day.
    • ReiSan
      71% of the world's population do not need Jesus who is only imaginary. . Jenny is the blind person. She often quotes aa Bible verse out of context and ignores other verses that contradict it. She has some weird ideas as result of her mental laziness. Christians deny her absurd ideas. She belong to the SDA that is a weird cult hated by Christians.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, quote: "71% of the world's population do not need Jesus who is only imaginary. ." The major world religions and their beliefs about Jesus include: Islam, Buddhists. Hinduism and New Age Spirituality and Atheists. For most people in the world, the answer seems obvious: it self-evident that Jesus existed. *Facepalm*
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, quote: "She belong to the SCDA that is a weird cult hated by Christians." I have never heard of the SCDA.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, "Several Cruddy Dumb ***holes" does not rhyme with Seventh-Day Adventists.
    • ReiSan
      Why not Marduk, Brahma, Pan Gu, etc.? There are many creation myths, and none have any evidence in their favor.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, only mature people accept the top deities in the world.
  • arcticpup22
  • Jehovah God through Jesus Christ
    • ReiSan
      Jehovah is a poor rendering of YHWH. Yahweh is better. Gods do not exist.
    • Texasescimo
      Sorry, I speak English. I use Jehovah, Jesus, Jehoshaphat, Jehoram, etc but if you speak Hebrew or think you are special in refusing English translations then use Yehowah, Yahweh, Yeshua, Yehoshaphat, Yehoram , etc. I only have one answerbag account so I obviously am not as smart as all of your accounts.
    • ReiSan
      Jehovah is not English. It is bad German. Trolls often say people who disagree with them have several accounts. That is absurd and immature ego stroking. You cannot accept the fact that many people disagree with you.
    • Texasescimo
      Yeah, okay, right. How big is your avatar? Is one of your big Japanese karate avatars gonna beat me up for calling you out again? Are Jesus, Jehoshaphat and Jehoram German as well? German is Jehova. https://m.interglot.com/en/de/Jehovah
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Hello Texasescimo, ReiSan does not what he or she is saying. It is not a fact that many people disagree with you. I agree with many of the Jehovah's Witness teachings. Keep spreading the Good News.
    • Texasescimo
      Watch out or he will open up Sandra Ursula, Venus1485, Venus, Miyuki or one of his other accounts against you. They are all very muscular, very good looking, and very skilled in martial arts. Your avatar does not have a chance against his avatars. Closed a couple of his accounts on answermug: https://answermug.com/forums/topic/34329/who-do-you-think-usually-wins-when-i-spar-with-my-best-friend
    • Texasescimo
      He created another username. josephdfox
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Texasescimo, it is no surprise why ReiSan is known as the puppet-master. Thanks for letting me know about josephdfox.
    • Texasescimo
      When he deletes his accounts on answermug, they show up as benedict arnold. He is still recognizable by his antics: https://answermug.com/forums/topic/32579/what-are-your-plans-for-the-4th-whatever-they-are-be-safe/view/post_id/297195 : I will attend a party of international girls. The hostess is Japanese and is a cousin of my best friend. There will be several Japanese girls, three Chinese, one Italian, one German, several from the USA and I will be the only Ukrainian. I will be the tallest and heaviest girl present. I am 5'-10" tall, and I weigh 140-145 lbs. smallest present will be my best friend Miyuki from Japan, who is 5'-0" and weighs 94.6 lbs.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Texasescimo, in case you didn't know, Linda Joy is not a member to get an attitude with. I have been in the penalty box the last few times we had an argument. Just today, she left ReiSan a comment with zero tolerance: https://www.answerbag.com/q_view/1087851#a8837387 Some of ReiSan's other sock-puppet accounts have been nuked. Answerbag accounts can always be created, so it's just a matter of time how josephdfox reacts.
    • Texasescimo
      I kinda found that out. lol. I think that she has lightened up on me, she even liked one of my answers. In the link you provided, I think she was telling bostjan64 that she has been warned about the puppet master rather than warning the puppet master?
    • ReiSan
      SDAs and JWs are weird cults that Christians hate.
    • Texasescimo
      So you claiming to be a Christian now? This is your ReiSan account, in case you forgot?
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, with so many Christian denominations teaching prosperity, rather than teaching God's Word, you can't be "certain" to say if mainstream churches represent true Christians.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Texasescimo, beware of the puppet-master. ReiSan does not know what Christians are about. Christians are not instructed to hate. Luke 6:27-28 "But I say to you who hear, Love your enemies, do good to those who hate you, 28 bless those who curse you, pray for those who abuse you."
  • We were not created. We evolved.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      It takes a perfect Creator to create a perfect Creation. God as the Creator was first revealed to us through our surroundings: the plants, water, sun and mountains. But it does not end there. Psalm chapter 139 and Psalm 51:10 shows us that God not only created, but He is constantly creating.
    • ReiSan
      Who created God? If God needs no creator, the universe certainly doesw not need one. You are using Special Pleading that is a logical fallacy. All you have are lies, insults, logical fallacies and poor fiction in the Bible.. That totally discredits you.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      Just like the universe, God cannot be created. When we look at the natural world around us, we see design everywhere. The ability to design is not just a godly trait passed on to us but a proof of the very existence of God.
    • Texasescimo
      https://wol.jw.org/en/wol/d/r1/lp-e/2018029?q=%22Outdated+or+Ahead+of+Its+Time%22&p=par Outdated or Ahead of Its Time? SCIENCE THE BIBLE IS NOT A SCIENCE TEXTBOOK, YET IT CONTAINS STATEMENTS THAT WERE WAY AHEAD OF THEIR TIME. CONSIDER A FEW EXAMPLES.
    • ReiSan
      The Universe proves Amaterasu, Zeus, Odin, etc. more than God. The Bible has statements that display pathetic ignorance of Science.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, science does not take Amaterasu, Zeus, Odin and other gods into consideration as they do the God from the Bible.
  • I had already answered this question, but I lost track of of it in my feedback. I figured I would answer it again to keep track of it. :D
    • ReiSan
      Just give no answers, since they are all dumb lies, vicious insults, logical fallacies and quoting people and poor fiction in the Bible
    • Jenny Rizzo
      I can answer when I want. Later on today, I will answer more religious questions and there's nothing you can do about it.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, knowing my background, that would be your worst mistake. You would get arrested immediately for stalking. Blindly making statements proves how immature you are.
  • Humans evolved. They were not created.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      If humans evolved, I'm sure you would have a rational answer to let everyone know where humans evolved from. *Facepalm*
    • ReiSan
      They evolved from earlier primates as the fossil record shows. Science proves evolution and refutes gods.
    • Jenny Rizzo
      ReiSan, quote: "Science proves evolution and refutes gods." Science does not prove "theories," they study them.
  • God. Genesis 1:27
  • The Māori people believe that Tāne Mahuta, god of the forest, created the first woman out of clay and breathed life into her. According to Inca mythology the creator god Viracocha formed humans from clay on his second attempt at creating living creatures.
    • Texasescimo
      Hello ReiSan.
    • mushroom
      @josephdfox Given the number of people who inhabit/have inhabited the Earth, it is no surprise that multiple authors have come to the same conclusions.
  • I haven't been able to slam two rocks together yet and poof forth anything but dust, so there has to be a "life force", the breath of life.
    • mushroom
      Physics, chemistry and biology are intrinsically linked, so "life force" is not an exclusively philosophic concept.
    • Wakko
      I'm not buying it.
  • god was

Copyright 2018, Wired Ivy, LLC

Answerbag | Terms of Service | Privacy Policy