Skip to: Content
Skip to: Site Navigation
Skip to: Search

THURSDAY, NOVEMBER 26, 2009

RSS |

Twitter

NYC Man Jumps to His
Death—In Front of Kids

Friends say 53-year-old showed no signs he was suicidal

10 hours, 29 minutes ago
Coma Man's Words
May Not Be His

Experts doubt Houben's 'facilitated communication'

Nov 25, 09 2:28 AM CST
Banish Men From
Childbirth: Doc

He says male presence leads to more stress and more C-sections

4 hours, 20 minutes ago
Icebergs Drift Toward
New Zealand

Over 100 floating chunks headed north from Antarctica

8 hours, 27 minutes ago
White House Backs Senate On 'Cadillac' Health Tax

Advisers outline cost control measures for health plan

10 hours, 14 minutes ago
Even Preschool
Girls Worry
About Weight

A third 'almost always' anxious about their looks, study finds

11 hours, 34 minutes ago
Siberian Tigers Vanishing

Population may be down to mere hundreds

13 hours, 58 minutes ago
Your Skin Can Help You Hear, Study Finds

Subjects identify sounds better when paired with touch

Nov 25, 09 5:37 PM CST
Biggest Loser Loses Sight of Contestants' Health

Fasting, dehydration, hospitalization daily reality of reality show

Nov 25, 09 10:44 AM CST
Asperger's Boy Lived
in NY Subway 11 Days

Runaway vanished underground

Nov 25, 09 3:00 AM CST
If Sushi's Your Turkey Cure, Steer Clear of 'Ex-Lax Fish'

Anal seepage among pitfalls of escolar, aka white tuna

Nov 24, 09 10:42 PM CST
Lose Weight: Do a Puzzle

Mental puzzles can help you shed a few pounds, says brain trainer

Nov 25, 09 11:44 AM CST
SAYS POLL OF AMERICANS

Doubt Rising on Global Warming

But majority still believes in it, wants action

Nov 25, 09 9:50 AM CST

|NEXT STORY »

47M-Year-Old Fossil Evolutionary 'Aunt' to Humans

By Harry Kimball| Posted May 19, 09 4:00 PM CDT|

(Newser) – Scientists have discovered the oldest intact primate fossil on record, ABC News reports. Nicknamed “Ida,” the 47-million-year-old lemur-like creature had opposable thumbs, fingernails instead of claws, and legs that could have evolved to walk upright. Scientists don’t think Ida is a direct ancestor of humans, though. “We are not dealing with our grand, grand grandmother,” one said, “but perhaps with our grand, grand, grand aunt.”

The producer of a documentary accompanying the announcement described the find with more florid language. “In this time of economic hardship,” he said, “it is nice to turn to another time, 47 million years ago, to the story of a little girl, who possibly connects to us.” The fossil was discovered in Germany in 1983, but it wasn’t until the scientists examined it 2 years ago that its true significance became clear.

The 47-million-year-old fossilized remains of a creature about the size of a small cat. (AP Photo)

Dr. Jorn Hurum speaks to reporters as a photo of "Ida," the 47-million-year-old fossilized remains of a primate is projected. (AP Photo)

« Prev« Prev | Next »Next » Slideshow

11.24.09

Murdoch and Microsoft: The Mice Are Trying to Roar

11.23.09

Books Are Bad for You

37 comments

VIEWING:

newsrmandan
May 19, 09 4:51 PM CDT

This is truly sad, science the bastion of hope for the human race hinges its fate on a fossil of a "girl" 47million yrs old. If evolutions best claim is this outlandish then should not we all just let it die along with its founder Darwin? This universe was created. Now lets debate about how long ago it was spoken into existance. Reply

-8

IN RESPONSE:

voiceofreason
May 19, 09 5:10 PM CDT

What I can't believe is that you would consider this outlandish when there is at least something concrete that can be studied and tested (ie the fossil itself) when a huge amount of people in this world place all their faith in stories of a god that were passed on by word of mouth for hundreds of years before even being recorded on paper, and then being translated any number of times before we came to the books of today that are still interpeted so many different ways that christianity has been broken into quite a few denominations itself. Not to mention the Jews, Mormons, Scientologists, and all the eastern religions. How absurd is that. every child has played the school yard game of telling a story to one person and having it make its way across the school yard only to have a completely different story by the time it gets back to them. To top it all off the original story tellers of the bible would have thought gunpowder sorcery and an airplane a chariot for the god.

IN RESPONSE:

woody66
May 19, 09 7:14 PM CDT

Evolution and faith are not at odds newsrmandan. As far as I know evolutionists are still debating how it all started. We may never know. Nevertheless millions of pieces of data in the fields of biology, geology, paleontology, genetics and a host of other natural sciences all lead to the same conclusion.. the world evolved and continues to evolve. It does not hinge on the fate of a 47 million year old fossil. There s no contravening evidence. Only Creationist or Intelloigent Design theory which from what I've read to date are based on extremely flimsy arguments with no supporting data. You can choose whether to believe that a "God" is evolving the world or not ...........but evolution is beyond reasonable and reasoned debate.

IN RESPONSE:

lo9an
May 19, 09 9:54 PM CDT

Unfortunately you have no evidence to support your outlandish comment! Perhaps one day you will realize that science (and technology) are far superior to your antiquated worldview!

-1

IN RESPONSE:

digz
Oct 26, 09 11:03 PM CDT

I'm sorry, but I hope you're not serious. Do you realize that evolution is only called a 'theory' to be politically correct? It is in no ways a theory; evolution is basically a proven trend with AMPLE evidence. To deny evolution's existence is ridiculous, blind, ignorance. The belief in creationism is the height of all ignorance in a modern world.

| 0 minutes ago

vendetta
May 19, 09 6:01 PM CDT

Of course he considers it outlandish. Creationists are scared, scared about the unknown so they play make believe with an invisible man in the sky. The more fossils we un earth the more they will claim evoloution is false. Where is youre god now. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

ClearSight
May 19, 09 7:43 PM CDT

Vendetta you are beyond pathetic.

| 0 minutes ago

jwmcw
May 19, 09 6:09 PM CDT

oh my goodness, just stop!! Not only are the ideas and refutations archaic, but the whole freaking argument between God and evolution is archaic. Can I tell you both one thing? newsrmandan: Interpreting Genesis this literally is not the 'godly' thing to do. In fact, it has nothing to do with your morality or your salvation WHATSOEVER. The Bible is not a science book, and the genealogies were NEVER intended to be a dating method for determining how old the earth is. Please stop perpetuating faulty reasoning and argumentation. voiceofreason: Your frustration is understandable. I must tell you though that science, as it stands, is not in the business of satisfying the question 'why?'. If you are not already set in your beliefs about the Bible then I would recommend you check out Rob Bell's dvd called 'The Gods Aren't Angry'. To be honest, I watched it last night, haha, and it's really quite good at explaining the cultures in which the writings of the Bible came up out of. If you are already set in your beliefs, then I can't change your mind, nor do I want to. I once did believe that the earth was created only 6,000-10,000 years ago. But through honest study and prayer, I now have no problem or quarrels with evolution/a common ancestor. Quite frankly I think that God is more glorified through it than otherwise. -Joe Reply

| 0 minutes ago

jwmcw
May 19, 09 6:15 PM CDT

Sorry for the double post. -Joe Reply

| 0 minutes ago

Snowleopard
May 19, 09 6:50 PM CDT

God created the earth's species via the process of evolution. By rejecting the findings of science, you are rejecting God's true word - the pure logic that's been written directly into the fabric of the universe. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

newsrmandan
May 19, 09 7:06 PM CDT

Voice: The fact that the Gods word is misunderstood by all sorts of denominations only proves that man is fallibly not that the God didn't speak this world into existance. the theory of evolution has only been around for some odd 200 yrs and mankind has grasped it with all its hope of doing away with God. Is it possible that evolution can is wrong and the bible is right? I only bring up the word Outlandish because given googles and googles of ions and ions of time is a tad outlandish. You really have to be a true believer in the religion of Darwinism Vendetta: huh? finding fossils proves God didn't create wonderful creatures. How does that make us scared? Scared of what becoming nothing? going to nothing? and serving no purpose on earth? You and I are on this earth for the simple reason that God put us here. As far as "where is your God now" goes thats a bit out of the scope here. But if you asked my five yr old she would answer with - everywhere. Reader: Archaic as in ancient/primitive/original, from the very beginning. Yes thats true. I did not interpret Genesis in any way and what did I say about morality and salvation? To be honest Joe I Believe we have a common Ancestor the Bible is clear on that and further I don't have an issue with evolving. Evolving even in humans and adapting to our physical locations doesn't prove evolutions theory it proves a great God. Put my on the mountains of the Himalayas for a while and I might start to develop some traits that would lend to my living well there. I don't know Rob Bell but if I could change your beliefs I would want to. But the biggest question is this, if God does not and never did exist then why did Jesus claim to be God and to have come from God? Did Jesus exist? Was he not a historical person? Or am I just believing in some invisible man in the sky? Reply

-2

IN RESPONSE:

voiceofreason
May 19, 09 8:55 PM CDT

I cannot say whether or not the MAN Jesus Christ truly existed or not, but I can tell you that he is no an historical figure. If you DARE to explore any and all known historical documentation other than the bible itself and unfortunately you will find no evidence that the man ever existed. Sorry. As far as darwinism as a religion is kind of ridiculous, Darwin's goal was never to prove or disprove the existence of God, He was merely trying to better understand the Universe. And if you ask my opinion I do believe that a large amount of religious people fear their own mortality and the fact that when they loose a loved one their gone for good. As far as Jesus claiming to be god and to have come from god, I ask you if I claim to be God is that proof that God exists???

IN RESPONSE:

freethemall
May 20, 09 2:01 PM CDT

Nesmandan, for the sake of argument, lets just concede there is a God. You assert that "Gods word" is misunderstood. Can you explain to me how you know what "Gods word" is? I assume you believe the Bible is God's word, but not the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, or any other writings some other people might consider scripture. How do you know this? Another question for you: If you discovered that, beyond a doubt, that none these were actually the word of God, would that cause you to not believe in God any more?

-1

| 0 minutes ago

sysco9
May 19, 09 7:13 PM CDT

dam I'd hate to have my cheeks squeezed by that aunt Reply

| 0 minutes ago

justme
May 19, 09 7:25 PM CDT

The definition of faith: Belief in the unprovable. I believe because my life is better for it. That, I'm sure makes me a fool in many peoples' eyes. That's ok. I think that anyone who puts their faith in humanity and the infallibility of science is a bigger fool than I, but they have that right. . Reply

IN RESPONSE:

AnnieChrist
May 19, 09 7:56 PM CDT

I don't agree with you, but thank you for a heartfelt, eloquent staement of your beliefs. Kudos too for stating it in one short paragraph, with no insults or name calling, a rarity when religion is discussed in these forums.

IN RESPONSE:

shonangreg
May 20, 09 3:46 AM CDT

I agree with you, justme, for perhaps the first time, except for the part about putting faith in humanity. If you give up on 'us', then there is no point even trying to have a discussion. We have to have faith in each other, or we'll become deceitful, duplicitous, greedy, etc. Have faith in humanity, and life will improve on the earth, not in the afterlife.

| 0 minutes ago

newsrmandan
May 19, 09 11:35 PM CDT

Voice: "I cannot say whether or not the MAN Jesus Christ truly existed or not, but I can tell you that he is no an historical figure." He either existed or he didn't regardless of the extrabiblical writing which is really hard to get into here. Regardless according to your statement he was not a historical figure so he must not have existed. But you also say that you don't know. Polycarp was a pupil of John the apostle. John was directly connected to Christ. So unless Polycarp was a fool and John the greatest huckster ever Jesus was a historical figure and as such he made claims to be the Son of God. I will admit if you or I claimed anything near what Christ Historically claimed we would be taken away in white suites. To get to the point Jesus claimed to be God, if he's a historical figure than God exists at least as the man Jesus. No? Reply

IN RESPONSE:

voiceofreason
May 20, 09 12:44 PM CDT

Sorry to say that if Jesus Christ did truly exist his existance alone makes him no more a proof of god than Joesph Smith, L Ron Hubbard, Or Ghandi for that matter. All it means is he was here, he made Proclamations and he died. Even the Jews believe he existed but not that he was the messiah. There is just no evidence other than the new testament that can say whether the Jews or the Christians are right. trying to use the new testament as proof has no more justification than using Joseph Smith's writings. Using that frame of thought you either have to admit to the book of Morman being the third book, or find some other evidence than the new testament itself. People talk often of Pascal's wager (ie its better to give your life to Jesus and be wrong rather than vice versa) but I think that if you give yourself to any one belief you are taking just as big a gamble.

| 0 minutes ago

shonangreg
May 20, 09 9:11 AM CDT

The news stories keep mis-characterizing this, though this one is not so bad. Ida is a fossil of a lifeform that was a link between the higher primates (humans, apes, monkeys) and the lemurs. This was an old split that was certainly theorized, but we had never found fossil evidence of that specific creature, until now. .................... And there is no THE missing link as many creationists like to think. There are many links; some have more and better fossils than other. Some are still unfound. THE missing link is supposed to be about THE link between humans and apes. It is an old misunderstanding. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

TerrifiedCitizen
May 20, 09 2:36 PM CDT

If evolution were a fact (but of course it remains a theory), the fossil evidence would surely reveal a gradual changing from one kind of life into another. And that would have to be the case regardless of which variation of evolutionary theory is accepted. Even scientists who believe in the more rapid changes associated with the 'punctuated equilibrium' theory acknowledge that there would still have been many thousands of years during which these changes supposedly took place. So it is not reasonable to believe that there would be no need at all for linking fossils. Also, if evolution were founded in fact, the fossil record would be expected to reveal beginnings of new structures in living things. There should be at least some fossils with developing arms, legs, wings, eyes, and other bones and organs. For instance, there should be fish fins changing into amphibian legs with feet and toes, and gills changing into lungs. There should be reptiles with front limbs changing into bird wings, back limbs changing into legs with claws, scales changing into feathers, and mouths changing into horny beaks. But where are these logical examples of evolving, mutating life? If indeed any are found, scientists admit that they appear to merely be injured or incomplete finds. In this regard the British journal New Scientist says of the theory: “It predicts that a complete fossil record would consist of lineages of organisms showing gradual change continuously over long periods of time.” As Darwin himself asserted: “The number of intermediate varieties, which have formerly existed, [must] be truly enormous.” Is the current archeological inventory indicative of this? Does it support the theory accepted as factual in classes of 'higher learning' in developed countries? Not in the least. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

shonangreg
May 20, 09 4:48 PM CDT

I don't have time to address your other points now, but one basic one now I do, Terrified. Theory. What is the idea of the earth going around the sun? Is it not a theory? I've asked you once or twice already, and you've refused to address this point.

| 0 minutes ago

JLdude
May 20, 09 3:34 PM CDT

Sure.. the Beasts OF the Field (as per scripture) were here beore Adam and Eve and they came from Creation's Evolution. This proves that Eve was impregnated with Cain 1st from a Beast of the Field and Able second from Adam.. Then Seth was born to replace Adam after his brother killed him. There's a story today about some woman who had the same two fathers and two babies (twins from diff fathers)... Simple to comprehend. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

shonangreg
May 20, 09 4:52 PM CDT

WTF?

| 0 minutes ago

newsrmandan
May 20, 09 5:00 PM CDT

Voice. The bible is clear in its predictions of A Messiah, cf. Isiah and Jeremiah and Psalms. From the town he would be born into and from what tribe down to his name. That this predicted person would be God with us. Emmanuel. But you keep pressing me to show you outside of the bible where these things accure. My first thought is this, take yourself back to the first century before the "bible" was codified. What were the Jewish people looking for? A messiah no? How did they conceive of such a thing if it was written in the past,? Where they failed to see was that this messiah that was predicted in there pre-bible books was Jesus himself. Not all did but most did just as was predicted. While I respect Pascal intellect his wager is lacking of some certitude to me. As far as J. Smith goes. His history is pretty clear. He was a loon. Thats a historical fact. Also one thing is true about Jesus that is not true about Ghandi or J. Smith or L. Ron Hubbard or Bhudda or anyother dead person and that is of course that He was raised from the dead. But of course you will want outside of the bible sources for that fact. I mentioned Polycarp as a source on another post but I don't know if that counts as good enough. Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

freethemall
May 20, 09 8:38 PM CDT

The Bible is clear? I ask you again, and everyone else who accepts the Bible as authority, why do you think the Bible is in fact the word of God. I'll tell you why you think so; it's because you've been indoctrinated into thinking so, just as everyone who accepts (for instance), the Koran as authority, has been similarly indoctrinated. I am well aware that this is going to make most of you very angry, but why don't you just THINK FOR A CHANGE, instead of just accepting what you've been indoctrinated to believe, without questioning it?

| 0 minutes ago

Jes
May 20, 09 9:26 PM CDT

The only time religion and science are in disagreement is when you subscribe to a literal fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible that says it was all finished in 7 days flat. If that is your view, well, you better go burn all your underwear in accordance to Leviticus 19:19 because there's no point picking and choosing. Reply

IN RESPONSE:

freethemall
May 20, 09 9:58 PM CDT

Sorry to say, Jes, I'm going to have to also get into your case, even though you are not so brain washed as to believe the Bible should be literally interpreted. I could assert that Alice's Adventures in Wonderland is divinely inspired, though not to be interpreted literally.

| 0 minutes ago

newsrmandan
May 20, 09 9:44 PM CDT

People believe things because they are reasonably compelled to do so. You must have some compelling reason for believing that people of faith are indoctrinated but that only applies to you. I for one came willingly to the table of grace offered to me. So your broadly used indoctrination idea has fallen short. At least on me. I am sure it applies as well to all my friends. Also indoctrination runs two ways its not only reserved for those of "faith". No amount of hatred for the word of God can make it any less true. Jes: whats up with that. Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

freethemall
May 20, 09 10:18 PM CDT

I would never hate the word of God. I ask you again why you think you know what the word of God is? Muslims believe that the word of God is the Koran. And they would be just as angry at you for denying it, as you are at me for questioning whether the Bible is the word of God. This is because of their indoctrination. By that I mean that is what they have been taught since birth, By the way, I was indoctrinated to believe in the Bible, but I broke free of this indoctrination. I sincerely wish that you could break free as well.

| 0 minutes ago

voiceofreason
May 20, 09 9:47 PM CDT

freethemall, while I seem to agree with you on most points, it seems you may have let your frustrations influence your words a bit in your last comment. Aside from that I have often wondered why people fall under the denominations they do. I haven't seen any actual studies, but I would be willing to bet that people who have been raised to believe in God, and haven't faltered in that belief, simply follow what ever they were raised to believe. For instance, I recently asked a Baptist fellow I work with why he chose to be a baptist rather than a catholic or a protestant--- if it was because he was told he was a baptist when he was a child or what, and the only response I got was an angry face, and some mumbling about not being sure what the actual differences were, due to the fact that he hadn't really studied the others. This response, of course, side- skirted the original question. I also have heard different people Quote different parts of the Bible, such as deuteronomy, only when its positive. I later found out this same gentleman is married to a mormon, and I asked him why he hadn't stoned her to death, as the God of the Old Testament demanded. He replied that all these things can't be taken literally. So basically it'spick and choose what you like. I mentioned a couple of comments back that the bible was passed on by word, and so forth (ie see above comments) because of this, even if the original words had holy meanings, the Bible we have today is completely unreliable. To believe in an after-life, or a higher power is one thing, but to give your heart to the words of the Bible is ludicrous. I hope I haven't offended too many feeble minded sheep ( Jesus calls his followers sheep in the Bible ) with these comments. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

newsrmandan
May 21, 09 1:16 AM CDT

Free... to what would I break free from, and to live for what? The bible has given me freedom from sin and death. ( by that I mean eternal death and punishment...but of course those things don't exist if you don't believe right?) You say you never hate the word of God but at the same time say you have found freedom by breaking it's hold on you, how is that.... not.... hatred. Like when a girl says I like you i just don't want to be around you. That's hate. Voice..regarding your baptist worker... did you ask him because you really cared to know your was it your intent to prove your theory? I mean we all have our reasons for asking and phrasing questions the way we do. Maybe you had yours. As far as the bible being the word of God or not, the simple answer is in part that it is trustworthy. By that I mean this. When you ask an honest question to an honest man you generally expect his answer to be honest and you can bank or trust his word. The prophets said the messiah would come he did exactly as they said he would. That makes it trustworthy at least in itself. Second look at the archeological data I have been on a dig in Israel the archeologist ( not a believer) used as his guide the old testimant to help him understand what cities he was finding. Archeologist trust it at least as rough map. It gives us at least a plausible "theory" of how we got here and why we are still here. The new Testament is full of historical facts read the account of what happened AD 70 that shortly after the death and ressurection of Christ. Jesus predicted that the temple would be torn down not one stone left on top of each other. That happened. I could go on but why should I. Maybe you could give me some thoughtful without resorting to some backwoods bible thumping "god hates gays" slogan slinging pastor you don't like and his stash of nazi memorabilia to back up your claim that the bible is not the word of God. You ask me to do the impossible but you must have at least some good sound reason why God is not who he claimes to be in the Bible. The argument that you don't believe in God because most people that do are hypocits is asking a bit to much of christians. We are hypocrites and hateful and evil and nasty and knarly and twisted just like everyone except we know that and have asked to be forgiven and God this unknowable God you want me to bring you his shoes or something. Ask your self this question. Can I prove that God does not exist? Hint start in Genesis. Excuse spelling I am awful speller. Reply

-1

IN RESPONSE:

voiceofreason
May 21, 09 2:33 PM CDT

"The bible has given me freedom from sin and death. ( by that I mean eternal death and punishment...but of course those things don't exist if you don't believe right?)" Are you trying to tell me your reason for acting moral is a fear of going to hell??? I act morally because its the right thing to do. I didn't need a book to tell me rape and killing was wrong Of course the Bible has justified rape just as much as it has abolished it. I am of two minds about Religion, on one point it has caused more killing than any other source. but when I see so many people talking about being saved from hell I start to wonder. if god ever was irrefutably proven not to exist, how many religious fanatics would turn to crime ( rape, torture, killing, so forth ) because they no longer have a fear of hell. " You say you never hate the word of God but at the same time say you have found freedom by breaking it's hold on you, how is that.... not.... hatred." You made this comment in reply to freethemall, Even I can see that he has never hated one proven word of God, only claimed words of God written by men. Completely different, and even then I don't believe he said hate. As for your remarks to myself if anyone has a theory, exploring the theory through study, and questioning, is either to prove or disprove, in that sense my questioning to the Baptist gentleman was for that purpose, but still doesn't change the outcome. "The prophets said the messiah would come he did exactly as they said he would. That makes it trustworthy at least in itself. " There once again is no proof of the messiah other than the bible itself. Sorry need an outside source. "Second look at the archeological data I have been on a dig in Israel the archeologist ( not a believer) used as his guide the old testimant to help him understand what cities he was finding. Archeologist trust it at least as rough map. " If I write my own Bible and in it I claim the earth is round and revolves around the sun, which is true, does this make any other outlandish claims true as well. Of course not. "Jesus predicted that the temple would be torn down not one stone left on top of each other. That happened. I could go on but why should I. " The bible also says that when the great city of babylon fell then Armageddon would begin and the world as we Know it would end. Babylon fell (fact), the world didn't end (fact). The story of the tooth fairy has never actually been disproved, yet people are not inclined to believe, (other than feeble minded children that is). The same goes for Santa Clause, Wizards, the Easter bunny and so forth. The reason why is we have no reason to believe. Is it possible. I guess it is, but there is just no evidence to lead us to choose to believe. The same goes for your god in the bible. I don't believe, because there is just no evidence that gives a REASON to believe. It's not odd to believe in something greater out there. Its human nature. All...

IN RESPONSE:

voiceofreason
May 21, 09 2:52 PM CDT

Part of my comment didn't make it guess I wrote too much. Any way it should have ended with my making the point that all cultures, no matter how advanced, or how primitive, believe in something greater. It is completely normal, but to believe with all your faith in a book written by man (the Bible) is as gullible as believing Harry Potter is a wizard because somebody wrote it.

| 0 minutes ago

freethemall
May 21, 09 11:22 AM CDT

Newsmandan, You and I will just have to agree to disagree. I have a church going sister who believes much as you do. I gave up trying to change her long ago. She still has hope that she can change me, since I suppose she considers me bond for internal damnation. As for me, I don't understand how a omnipotent and loving God would ever condemn anyone to such a fate. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

newsrmandan
May 22, 09 10:05 AM CDT

voice_ your reason for acting moral is a fear of going to hell??? I act morally because its the right thing to do. The right thing to do based on what set of principles? Who and what informed you as to what is moral? Isn't it just relative one mans evil is another mans morality? But christianity's "morality" or that which seems to be moral is based more on living a life thankful for what has been done on for that christian. Morality for its being right sake alone is great for s civil society but outside of christ will do nothing for you. Hell is filled with moral rejectors of God. Unitarians are the nicest people I know. __I am of two minds about Religion, on one point it has caused more killing than any other source. Religion. Thats true. Blind faith in a god of some mans making is going to lead to much evil, because the source of that religion is evil. Christianity is not per say a religion with Priests and rituals and beads and bowing five times a day or wearing secrets white garments or shaving your head or smoking drugs or dancing your self into some spiritual uephoria. Christianity is only about Jesus Christ and the bible is one big news report of events that happened. All it asks is for people of the world to read it accept it or reject it , accept it and give God the glory reject it to your own demise. ___ Even I can see that he has never hated one proven word of God. Hate may have been to much maybe happles disregard but even that is still rejection and to not hate but reject something is really splitting hairs. ___ Sorry need an outside source. The bible is the only rule of faith and practice for true believers there is no greater authority when you want to know something about a man you do what you can to get to his words that he expressed no? (Thinking of all the biographies of the world) If god proclaimed anything about himself its his words that we go to. God isn't "proven" b/c there are substansial outside sources. Authors of outside sources exist because of God if there is no God there would be no outside sources.____I don't believe, because there is just no evidence that gives a REASON to believe. You don't believe because mans heart is sinful and you are sinful. I can make that statement not because I know you but because thats what the bible says. If I may, for the first time direct you to a passage that might help explain almost everything. John 1:1-14 In the beginning---this show He (jesus) was there and that all things were made by him. This makes evolution wrong When God created he did so through his son who is the "Word" this word we see was the "light" of the world the word was in the world and the world did not receive him why ? because it goes on to say their hearts were darkened. its very clear what God has said men reject because hearts are closed off to the words of God. Before you toss it off as silly kid stuff. Read the book of John and see if its not more than that. And after you have... Reply

| 0 minutes ago

newsrmandan
May 22, 09 11:52 AM CDT

Free... your sister loves you. But I think you said it best through your own quote [ As for me, I don't understand how a omnipotent and loving God would ever condemn anyone to such a fate. ] the Gospel of Christ is a free offer to those who accept its claims. It is the "Good News" but I am sure you heard all of it already. Yet you still reject it. Did God make you reject it (without getting into a theological diatribe over election vs freewill) no he lays out the events and lets you know what has happened. And leaves it to the heart of man to reject or accept its claims. The punishment of damnation isn't why you should accept Christ claims in the Gospel. You should accept Christ (for short) because you have looked into your life and found yourself lacking of ability to approach this Loving God. What do we bring that is good enough for him. Is the omnipotent God going to see all your morality and say " wow I am impressed. You rejected my son, my free offer of grace/salvation, but look at you, you impressive son of a gun, you by your own power rose above the demands of the law I set out for the world something no man can do. Come, enjoy all the good things I have for you."... Could you see that happening? God is not inclined to bow down to our goodness. Interestingly enough He is inclined to accept his sons life for ours. Jesus did no wrong yet by our sin we (as in Me and You) made it so he died. Now I understand thats a hard concept to grasp. Why would the death of an innocent man some 2000 yrs ago have any effect of me now on modern man. Without trying to sound glib. Christ death has importance to us because God in his infinate wisdom designed to redeem his creation through the death of his own son. God has made his Son King. We either accept Christ as King in our lives or we accept the punishment that a King decrees. What has caused you to reject Christ? If its the hypocritical life of "christian" then doubt there salvation and don't be like them but don't reject Christs offer of forgiveness. Reply

| 0 minutes ago

View all 37 comments »

evolution • paleontology • fossil • scientific discoveries • primates • opposable thumbs

from our news partners

The Easiest Gigs in Showbiz
(10 hours, 2 minutes ago)
Why Don't Stars Wear Pants Anymore?
(11 hours, 2 minutes ago)
Adam Lambert On His Best Behavior for David Letterman: Video
(11 hours, 32 minutes ago)
Dancing With the Stars' Maksim: ''The Bad Boy Image Is...
(11 hours, 43 minutes ago)

Long lost ghost trap keeps catching crabs. But enough about...
(24 minutes ago)
These pictures will give you another reason to be thankful...
(45 minutes ago)
Nobody can eat 50 eggs: The 5 best overeating scenes...
(1 hour, 8 minutes ago)
54 years after somebody stole a radio from a college's...
(2 hours, 48 minutes ago)

Fantasy Thanksgiving: Guess What Wolverine's Bringing To Dinner?
(Nov 25, 09 8:38 PM CST)
First Hobbit Script Completed, Making the Rounds
(Nov 25, 09 5:55 PM CST)
Not Amazing Norwegian Avatar Poster
(Nov 25, 09 5:50 PM CST)
Invictus Writer Will Dive Into Deep Sea Cowboys
(Nov 25, 09 5:28 PM CST)

Associated Press

Crocodile fossils found with boar-like tusks, pancake heads, other odd features
(Nov 19, 09 2:25 PM CST)
Auctioneer: T. rex fossil that failed to sell at Las Vegas auction headed for...
(Nov 12, 09 7:41 AM CST)
Auctioneer: T. rex fossil that failed to sell at Las Vegas auction headed for...
(Nov 11, 09 7:12 PM CST)
Fossil 3rd-qtr net income declines but sales improve at company-owned stores;...
(Nov 10, 09 1:19 PM CST)

What is Newser?

Face it: there's too much news. At Newser, we choose the most important stories from hundreds of US and international sources and reduce them to a headline, picture, and two paragraphs. And we do it 24/7—you can come back morning, noon, night (and in between) for something new that matters. Read less, know more.

Learn more »

47M-Year-Old Fossil Evolutionary 'Aunt' to Humans

Fossil Hunter
Finds Giant
Sea Monster

Colossal pliosaur was big enough to snack on T. Rex

MORE ABOUT:
paleontology • fossil • dinosaur • Tyrannosaurus rex • sea creatures

Scientists Unearth Fossils of 'Missing Link' Flying Reptiles

Researchers believe Darwinopterus is proof of modular evolution

MORE ABOUT:
evolution • fossil • Charles Darwin • pterodactyl • reptiles

'Ballerina-Like' T. Rex
Cousin Discovered

Size, light skeleton and delicate teeth suggest different prey from larger relative

MORE ABOUT:
paleontology • fossil • Gobi desert • dinosaur • Mongolia • predators • Tyrannosaurus rex • Alioramus altai

evolution • paleontology • fossil • scientific discoveries • primates • opposable thumbs

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

Associated Press

About

Help

Tools

Site Maps

What is Newser?

47M-Year-Old Fossil Evolutionary 'Aunt' to Humans

Related Newser Stories

Fossil Hunter Finds Giant Sea Monster

Colossal pliosaur was big enough to snack on T. Rex

MORE ABOUT: paleontology • fossil • dinosaur • Tyrannosaurus rex • sea creatures

Scientists Unearth Fossils of 'Missing Link' Flying Reptiles

Researchers believe Darwinopterus is proof of modular evolution

MORE ABOUT: evolution • fossil • Charles Darwin • pterodactyl • reptiles

'Ballerina-Like' T. Rex Cousin Discovered

Size, light skeleton and delicate teeth suggest different prey from larger relative

MORE ABOUT: paleontology • fossil • Gobi desert • dinosaur • Mongolia • predators • Tyrannosaurus rex • Alioramus altai

evolution • paleontology • fossil • scientific discoveries • primates • opposable thumbs

MOST POPULAR STORIES

[ By Views ]

[ By Comments ]

from our news partners

Associated Press

About

Help

Tools

Site Maps

What is Newser?

Fossil Hunter
Finds Giant
Sea Monster

MORE ABOUT:
paleontology • fossil • dinosaur • Tyrannosaurus rex • sea creatures

MORE ABOUT:
evolution • fossil • Charles Darwin • pterodactyl • reptiles

'Ballerina-Like' T. Rex
Cousin Discovered

MORE ABOUT:
paleontology • fossil • Gobi desert • dinosaur • Mongolia • predators • Tyrannosaurus rex • Alioramus altai