I’m well aware. I’m not judging Christians on the basis of reef shark. I was using reef shark’s comment as an illustration of the fact that a lot of Christians fall far very short of the principles they say are the most important.
Of course. It’s just bad luck for your joke. If they were healthy or they’d died long ago, saying they or another ancestor of mine fucked a chimp would have been hilarious and a devastating retort in the face of all the scientific evidence. Next time, right?
All words are invented after a fashion, so this doesn’t matter. What matters is humans are very closely related to primates, and the evidence makes it obvious they’re both closely related and descended from the same ancestor.
There are over 3 billion nucleotides, so that means that about 1.33% is different. And most of those differences are biologically insignificant- the rest are the biological differences between humans and chimps.
If God made everything without evolution, then he sure put a lot of evidence for evolution in DNA and the world around us.
Its not a myth at all. According to copyright law, new Bible versions can only be copyrighted as derivative works. Words and whole verses must be changed. Looking at 150 different bible versions, theres going to be some difference if they are all copyrighted. No?
Closest translation into ENGLISH. It took a genius that spoke 8 languages (William Tyndale) to do it, just before getting killed. All the text can be verified by the Isaiah Scroll also.
You just keep changing the topic- the Gish Gallop. The point is that humans and chimps are about 1.3% different, genetically, on average. This is a fact- and a fact predicted by evolution.
And yet again, you are merely presenting your opinion about what you think biological evolution is without either defining it (in your own terms) or positing an alternate explanation for the current level of biodiversity on the planet. That biodiversity is not consistent with a bottleneck event (as described by the Noachian Flood in Genesis) that just a few thousand years ago.
It goes without saying that they would not obtain a copyright if it was exactly the same text as the KJV, but the idea that newer publishers are changing words for the sole purpose of getting a copyright lacks evidence, and they don’t have to change 10 percent of the words to get a special kind of copyright. I think a lot of what you are saying about the KJV and older and newer versions of the Bible is wrong and you haven’t supported a lot of these claims (like the idea that the KJV was the first English version or the closest to older versions), but I’m not an expert on the Bible.
1Qlsa(aka “The Isaiah Scroll”) only contains the Book of Isaiah…and there are numerous discrepancies between that scroll and the King James version of that book.
This is the first time that this ‘copyright issue’ has shown up in the many discussions I have had about this subject online. It seems easily debunked.
Does anyone remember an earlier thread on this subject?
Just sit back for a moment, and try to imagine that you don’t have all the answers. That some- perhaps even most- of what was taught to you (even by your parents and/or pastors/priests/mentors, or that you taught yourself) is false. That not everything is a conspiracy. That most things are what they seem. That scientists don’t just happen to be right about everything that affects your daily life (technology like cell phones, computers, internet, satellites, etc, and things like agriculture, medicine, etc), but they’re also right (or at least on the right track) about stuff that doesn’t affect your daily life too.
I doubt you’re capable of doing this- nothing you’ve said so far has surprised any of the veterans on this board (hint: it’s the same as all the other god-botherers and creationists who’ve come and gone)- but maybe you’ve got a surprise or two in you.