sadly it-was intended wn
[the tree of life project...long put foward
as some sort of proof for bunnies..[sheep]...athistic disbelief's
has only revealed itself to be another lie..

wn...kids are told it wasnt got it was evolution
[when we dont know]...they thus presume a lie to be true

children wil be taught today..that evolution is fact
when its only fact at the species level..NOT THE GENUS level
[many will say genus/species...is no difference..yet sustaining the lie

i see by your words
you too have studied the topic much
why arnt you more angry about being lied to

saying evolution may be proved in time..
is replying the wrong question..as much a lost cause
as naming this first living thing...that is claimed to have 'evolved'

thing is if those...who claim not god
and those who say..they got 'higher wisdom/science fact'
are lying...right at this present time..

they barefaced are LYING
in the faces of innocents
telling children there is no santa..no easter rabbit
saying there is no jesus...and most certainly no good/god what done it

yet in lying to them
do those who claim to have 'faith'
have any proof underpinning their 'faith'
neither*

why remove a good living loving god
from the picture..except to bred
a lot of..deluded..lied to kids

[who maintain blind FAITH there is no god..because they
lol.. got science proof....lol]

when any really intelli-gent per/son...
would know the SO CALLED evidence...
is only proof for the dense

its when the good/true remain silent
that evil people do their consistant vile

is it so hard
to clearly say
science has no proof of fish evolving into apes
nor of apes becomming man...

why cant the lierate like pericules and you
be explaining it more clearly

silence on this specific topic
only perpetuates lies*..*as true..when patently
they are untruths..or not relitive to the diss-cuss-ion
nor validate a theory as being anywhere near based on fact

i guess im more upset..at those
who studied the topic..and stay silent
cow-ards they be...

[thanks to you two
for at least admiting no evidence shall be forthcomming]

now the lie is exposed
how many need to know the other lies?

or *worst..is that god judges anyone...
or wants any to die*
or that jesus died..for us to sin..

so manmy lies
we must stop teaching children lies

tell them we dont know
when simply speaking..*we really dont 'KNOW'!

OUG,

Is there anything inherently wrong with embracing humility in this matter? Is there not something to be gained by the notion that some things can't be known to us - that we don't need to have an explanation for everything - that the mystery of life may be unfathomable and that there is value in the "not knowing"?

When all is said and done....

Poirot

I can never get my head around the fact of those who proselytise the humility of their chosen religion, yet never practice it themselves. And claim that they have ALL the answers, when their own religion states very clearly that only their god has all the answers. Finishing up with a major tanty when accused of hypocrisy.

I suspect we may be going round in circles here, one under god.

>>im presuming..*you'r honest enough with yourself
to definitivly state that you [and i]..dont know<<

As I said, I don't know [the name of the first 'life']. I doubt that it even has a name, yet. When it does eventually get one, it will be the result of long and painstaking scientific research by people far more clever than me.

What continues to surprise me is that you consider it to be important.

When it comes to the things we don't understand, my own list is extraordinarily long. For scientists it is substantially shorter. For cosmologists... well, quite frankly, I don't know how they stay sane, with the distances, timeframes and sheer immensity of the universe that their brains must have to cope with.

And that's just the part we call "the known universe". Wow.

But I have to get in ahead of Trav on this one, I'm afraid.

>>and regarding..the word..
seen of...[as in seen by...]
""..Paul uses the phrase "seen of",
as in "he was seen...of [by]Cephas,
then SEEN-BY/..of the twelve" 1 Cor 15:5<<

Paul wrote in Greek. The Greek word that he used was "ophthe".

Paul uses "ophthe" to describe his own experience of Jesus, in the same terms as the manner in which he appeared to Cephas. But Paul never met Jesus in the flesh. In his own words it was a visionary, not a physical meeting. In the same way, with the same word, "the twelve" and "the five hundred" had a similarly visionary encounter.

Even more puzzling, of course, is who actually were "the twelve...?" I did ask Trav, but haven't heard back.

These are the sort of inconsistencies that historians cannot get around.

Unless of course they are predisposed to believe the resurrection story as a result of their faith.

a quote...""that there is value in the "not knowing"?""

i refuse to attribute that as not of any relivance here

we have debates about the words and meanings
saul couldnt have seen jesus in a material body
thus must have seen him in his spirit

regardless look at the other things he says
clearly he SOMEHOW..got love god by loving neighbour
saw jesus was the master...within his own mind..

wether it was by physical 'eyes'..
or by dream dont change that love works

who are you to deney god is love
who are they who say god is a judge
in my OPINION your both wrong..and

its my own inner voice im listening to..
not clever trickery words

when people have facts they present them
that no facts are presented speaks for itself

sure talk about other thingfs
but if you know...present your proof
[or else realise its only faith in your ownm OPINIONS]

not faulsifyable via proper science method and rule
thus NOT PROPER SCIENCE..

thus those who hold them..*lies..as proofs
are decieved

if you got proof jesus didnt
present it

if you got PROOF
god didnt..present it

cosmoglogists are dreamers
they only know what they see
even them miss the bigger picture

cosmology is about as honerable as astrology
and makes no claims at all re spiritual things

[except one..for the sure thinking he is knowing
god hates them..by making that/one..a cripple]

and even in this he is wrong
those who are decieved..want to be decieved
only their side is relivant..only*..their own spin..is believed

spin
take out the 'p'
then what you got?

dont say you wernt told