| This thread has been locked, it will not receive new replies. |
Posted on 07/01/2002 5:27:45 PM PDT by FreedominJesusChrist
Larry can do know wrong in the eyes of the Koolaid Watch crew.
Believe me - I'd have loved for Laura Bush to NOT have made a fool of herself. THAT would have furthered my "agenda."
As for Klayman - yuo may be right, but I'm taking a third look at him now, and beginning to think I finally undersatnd what the heck he's doing. Time will tell, as in all things.
?
"Becky, do not atttempt to argue science, please. This is a scientific classifiction, and if you will READ the definition it speaks of certain characteristics which define a primate, including highly developed brains and forward looking eyes. As far as I know the Bible doesn't require me to check basic scientific knowledge at the door."
You must be one of those Christians who believes in micro-evolution, which is pure junk science. This same organization most likely also defines the beginning of actual human life differently than we do too and also appears to espouse evolutionary theories. What's your point? They are human and thus, not all of their really, unproven assumptions can be correct.
Of course some animals are more intelligent than others, that fact is obvious. Monkeys and dogs are more intelligent than deer and sheep, but that doesn't put them in the same category as human beings. Your reference to chucking basic science out of the door also reminds me of those Christians who do not take the Bible as a literal and verbally inspired document either. That scientific definition you posted was already in err, because those who wrote it believed in both Macro and Micro evolution, despite the fact that there are still millions of missing links that they have yet to find in order to truly prove their theory. Hence, since they assumed that because human beings are "animals" and similiar to apes, they thus classified them in the same category in the animal kingdom. This definition is wrong simply because its basic definition of human being and animal is erroneous.
"This definition says nothing about the soul, salvation, or the actions of God in the affairs of men. It simply describes the characteristics of a certain group of animals, men being members of that group."
Of course it doesn't, because the people who wrote this were evolutionists, concerned with only the empirical.
"That God created men to be custodians of the rest in not discussed here. Discounting the definition as something that "most Bible believing Christians" wouldn't accept is spacious and irrelevant."
Yes it is relevant, especially when these scientists make claims that directly contradict what the Bible says. Despite what they espouse as the absolute truth, their theory is still just a theory.
I recommend the book, Intelligent Design to you.
Then they must be a vegetable or a mineral.
You are referring to multi-cellular organisms right?
At the very least, he is the wrong target for so much anger.
I am a born again Christian and hold a degree in geology. Science and the Bible reinforce each other, they are not contradictive. God does not require us to be ignorant.
If you guys would stop your personal attacks on Larry Klayman and JW, we wouldn't have so much of a problem with you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.