Even the skin tone is close

Yes it is. maybe he played the part as her.

Maybe if you study the RAMAYANA you will understand more about this subject-matter!

Not even close

Loge sweetie, I was making a funny. I personally do not believe we ascended from apes. But wouldn't a poet you say be making up things. Usually poetry is just words brought together meaning something abstract. At least that is what kind of poetry I read. Isn't Darwins theory more relative to this subject matter anyways?

That is right we did not descend from apes rather we descended from primates.

Source Thread

okay well let me ask. Why wouldn't all primates evolve into humans then?

It bogles my mind. I have never heard of such a thing. I heard it in school but I did not believe it. I just said it isn't possible. similarities such as the posable thumb, pads on finger tips,fingwer prints, and fur that is hair like still I cannot piece it together.

OK.

No.

about human like primates


I read this and it is interesting Zandore.

I am sorry 101 I got this far:



If you read the link I provided you will read that the evidence is in:

I find it disappointing that the most vocal (fundamentalist) Christians seem to be such prideful creatures that they refuse to accept the logic that God in all liklihood used the process of evolution to create life on earth, including mankind. Even the Bible strongly suggests this if we use different interpretations of the time periods instead of 24 hour days. It is remarkable that these bronze age peoples possessed a creation story in which life begins in the sea, mentions "dragons" (dinosaurs?) appearing later, then birds, and humans last. Instead of using this most remarkable and scientific of all the world's creation epics to good effect, they throw it all away by maintaining the absurd fairy tale notion that the entire earth was created in six days. All because their own pride and ignorance prevents them from accepting the possibilty that God may have used and shaped life on earth through evolution, and that yes, mankind evolved from more primitive primates.

Do these Christians not realize that by their own ignorant pride, they are making their religion, and therfore their God look like nothing but a ridiculous fairy tale in the eyes of every modern, thinking human being?

If the Book of Revelation has any truth, then the true "anti-christ" must be CHRISTIAN FUNDAMENTALISTS, for they, more than anything else are making all Christians appear as idiots to the thinking public that might have otherwise accepted this religion. And it is not that they are simply ignorant with their fixation with a fairytale 6 day creation -- it is soley based on the vice and sin of PERSONAL PRIDE that they could not have evolved from a more primitive primate. Pride goeth before the fall.

planet of the jacksons,lol how frightening that would be eeeeeek!!! my nose has fallen off.

I find it disapointing that your use of the word 'fundamentalists' as a way of attracting opposing attention in spite of yourself, bites your nose off in spite of your face.

That is one of two creation time-lines in the Bible. The other has humans first and of that one has Adam and Eve made at the same time and the other Adam first then Eve.

Just when my morning was going good!

We must concede that the bible is constantly being tampered with, which is why there is an incongrous latin "Lucifer" inserted hundreds of years later by Christians in a much earlier Hebrew text. The Kings James Bible had over 20 references to "dragons", many "new" bibles have eliminated all references to dragons except the one in revelations alluding to Satan, so here again, we see that the bible was changed to meet a certain agenda.

Obviously, one of the two different versions of "creation" in Genesis must be incorrect, and added after the fact. People must use their common sense to pick which one.

If someone were to add a sentence of nonsence to the Declaration of Independence after it was written, it would be no grounds to dismiss the entire work as nonsense.

Yes we must use our common sense when it comes to the Bible. If one of the Genesis accounts is incorrect.....what other parts of the Bible are also incorrect?
A quote I found today:

"The tragedy of young-earth creationism is that it takes a relatively recent and extreme view of Genesis, applies to it an unjustified scientific gloss, and then asks sincere and well-meaning seekers to swallow this whole, despite the massive discordance with decades of scientific evidence from multiple disciplines. Is it any wonder that many sadly turn away from faith concluding that they cannot believe in a God who asks for an abandonment of logic and reason?
Francis S. Collins, Director National Human Genome Research Institute, writing in Faith and the Human Genome"

The biggest difference between the Declaration of Independence and the Bible is the Bible is supposed to be the word of an imaginary God that a religion is based on, and a country (United States of America) is based on the Declaration of Independence.

Concerning the 'serpent' and so-called 'forbidden fruit' in the Adam and Eve allegory: in the book "The World Before", Ruth Montgomery's Spirit Guides say, "Eve was no more a temptress than Adam. Moses (reputed author of Genesis) added that flourish to keep woman in a lowly place in the Jewish hierarchy, for the so-called Curse of Eve--menstruation and childbearing--was THE HIGHEST BLESSING THE CREATOR COULD BESTOW ON HIS BELOVED SOULS: the power of co-creating life with himself (/herself). Small enough price to pay for such a signal honor, for did not God give something of himself to create the souls of all of us? And since each of us returns to earth again and again (through reincarnation), SOMETIMES AS MAN AND OTHER TIMES AS WOMAN, the honor is not reserved for any one class of souls, but for all of us to have that achievement of coproducing life....."
The term "Garden of Eden" is merely symbolic and was not just in one part of our planet. In those very ancient times the whole Earth was covered in verdant, fertile greenery. Drought and barrenness were unknown. The entire planet was a veritable 'Garden of Eden'. The snake symbolised the KUNDALINI (the creative energy lying dormant at the base of the spine, until it is awakened). Kundalini is coiled like a serpent in the Base Chakra. The so-called 'forbidden fruit' was actually the 7 CHAKRAS opening too suddenly, with over-emphasis on the gonads (the earthly center) rather than on the pineal gland (the Christ-Self center) and the pituitary gland (the God-Self center).

Draconic chronicler, thanks for the informative, insightful comments. I agree with you. King Arthur, most Christian of Kings, used the Dragon as his symbol on shield and banner, and he was of the Pendragon lineage. I think dragons symbolise, amongst other things, (1) dinosaurs, especially the winged variety, that CO-EXISTED with humanity in Lemuria and Atlantis; (2) "Chariots of Fire", that is, UFOs in ancient times; (3) the Kundalini Fire energy at the Base of the Spine Chakra. Do you agree with me?