Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Fair enough.Sure it did. The boys were raised to be productive and responsible members of society and instead they shot a bunch of people. Their upbringing did not accomplish the desired result. Something went wrong.
I'm not understanding your point. My "something went wrong" comment wasn't intended as a justification for what happened. It was a negation to your claim that "nothing went wrong."I'll go get me a pit bull and raise it to love children.
If he ever happens to bite one, I'll just claim "something went wrong" in court.
You evidentially don't realize that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man, do you?Difficult to see why this is so ... difficult. You ask if Jesus is a monkey. I reply that it depends on whether he is alive or dead.
If he is dead, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Resurrection did not happen and he is not divine, that he is a dead human, and in the terms of this thread a dead monkey.
If he is alive, it is not unreasonable to assume that the Resurrection did happen and he is divine, and therefore is not a monkey.
(I am assuming that, like me, you have no truck with divine monkeys. Theology may hold divinity and immortality to be characteristics of a god; science does not, I think, hold them to be characteristics of a monkey.)
Are we animals, or aren't we?I'm not understanding your point. My "something went wrong" comment wasn't intended as a justification for what happened. It was a negation to your claim that "nothing went wrong."
Well, I don't "realise" it, of course, but I do know that he is defined thus by the Church. That of course is a paradox, and not susceptible to logical analysis; and a mystery, and not susceptible to scientific analysis. Surprising, then, really, that you asked the question (unless, perhaps, it was designed to be a puzzlement?).You evidentially don't realize that Jesus is both 100% God and 100% man, do you?
Not susceptible to scientific analysis?That of course is a paradox, and not susceptible to logical analysis; and a mystery, and not susceptible to scientific analysis.
Not susceptible to scientific analysis?
That doesn't stop scientific methodists around here when it comes to the creation week.
Maybe they haven't gotten the memo yet?
Actually I do disagree with that.Whereas mortal earthly biology obviously is susceptible of scientific inquiry – surely you don't disagree with that, even if you disagree with what science comes up with?
Most human behavior has to do with learning, not instinct. The boys chose their behavior, they learned their attitudes. Maybe there was natural psychopathy there that contributed, but the "something" that people are asking about is primarily culture and education.Are we animals, or aren't we?
If so, do we have animal instincts?
If so, are they naturally benign or malignant?
If they are naturally benign, can't some have recessive traits?
Do all blonde parents ALWAYS give birth to blondes?
Or does a redhead show up every now and then?
Wondering why Klebold & Harris went ape is like wondering how a blonde sired a redhead.
Whatever was the situation on Day One of the creation week, and however biology came into existence, it exists today, in year 6020 or whatever it is of Ussher's universe, as part of the physical world, the sphere where science operates. Doesn't it?Actually I do disagree with that.
What does the earth have to do with biology on Day One of the creation week, when it first came into existence ex nihilo?
Is this conversation going anywhere?Whatever was the situation on Day One of the creation week, and however biology came into existence, it exists today, in year 6020 or whatever it is of Ussher's universe, as part of the physical world, the sphere where science operates. Doesn't it?
Mammal and ape are both Monophyletic clades.
"Monkey" just means non-ape simian, and "reptile" just means non-bird sauropsids.
Yup.Game over?
Ape includes human.
Tarsiers I believe.Then what would we call the species that branched off from the closest relatives to the monkeys?
Basal amniotes.What would we call the species that form the root of the mammal-reptile clade?
Tarsiers I believe.
Basal amniotes.
... hence the confusion between common terms and scientific terms.
It's certainly confusing to me.This is what causes the confusion.
What would we call the common ancestor of tarsiers and monkeys? If that species were alive today, would we call it a monkey?
I have a feeling that if those speices were alive today, we would most likely call them reptiles. This is what causes the confusion.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?