You really take that serious??? Buahahahahahahahahahaaaa....

No wonder Jafo has thrown you out. All hope is lost with you. Go study mathematics and then read that stuff again.

And be careful to use sites as proof that quote Göbbels. Nazis had some other ideas you might take comfort in but are utterly horrible to the rest of us.

If you read the part of the Humani Generis which she posted earlier you will see that the pope, and the Teaching Authority of the Church forbids Catholics to admit anything that may contradict the idea of monogenism. That point is extremely important. Some Catholics don't believe in evolution. Others do and simply do and say what they will depending on whether they think their current understanding of evolution theory does or doesn't contradict monogenism. Most Catholics that I know do not deny evolution theory, mostly because they believe that there is nothing in the current science of evolution that proves or disproves monogenism.

Well, it can apply to Christian lies too... take a look at http://www.biblicalnonsense.com/chapter4.html for a list of some method used for support Christian lies...

Human are not ape... it is say human and ape have a common ape-like origin...

The evidence for human evolution is overwhelming. This includes thousands of fossils, which show the progressive straightening of the spine, the increase in brain volume, and change in facial features. Humans inherited their tail bone, a remnant of what was once a human tail, from primate ancestors. All animals have a tail at one point in their development; in humans, it is present for a period of 4 weeks, during stages 14 to 22 of human embryogenesis. Humans have a non-functional third eyelid, the plica semilunaris. Humans also have external ear muscles, which animals use to swivel and manipulate their ears (independently of their head) to focus their hearing on particular sounds. Humans still have remnants of such muscles, but they are now feeble and now are capable only of slightly wiggling the ear. DNA comparisons also show that humans share approximately 96% of their DNA with their closest cousin, the chimpanzee. However, there are very distinct differences between Homo sapiens and Pan DNA. Chimps have 24 chromosomes while humans have 23. About 18 of these chromosomes are nearly identical while there are significant differences in chromosomes 4, 9, 12, 21, and Y. The Y chromosome in Pan is smaller and only about 60% of that of humans.

Well, it is not a god who "knit" a human in his mother's womb... all start with a sexual relation where a spermatozoid meet a ovule... from the single cell created from sex, a full human is created following the DNA code... raw material used is from the mother body...

As for the Psalm book, it is filled with non realistic thing ( like all the bible )... by example, at 147:4, it is wrote that "God tells the number of stars and calls them all by their names" ... let say that God was taking 1 single second for call the name of one single star... and with around 10000000000000000000000 stars in the universe... it will have taken God 317097919 million years for call all the star name to his follower... it is about 10 x more that the actual age of the universe !!! The real one, not the 8000 yo thing... seem that God don't really know how much star and have not calls them by their names... that in the bible, the level of knowledge of God is somehow equal to these of people living at these time, in these area... somehow a pretty stupid God when compare to a actual 6yo kid...

If God truly is the inspiration behind this purportedly divine declaration to the world ( bible, he shows absolutely no interest in its understandability or accuracy in astronomy, cosmology, zoology, botany, anthropology, geology, ecology, geography, physiology, and several other disciplines

I don't say that God don't exist... everything is possible... but any real God who is the creator of our know universe will not be stupid like any God depicted in any religious book...

I think that your main mistake is too read the "sacred text" like some scientific text... for me, these "sacred text" are more like the writing from Jean de La Fontaine ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_de_la_Fontaine )... you need to find the education in morals hidden in these text... if you look at "The tortoise and the Hare", it is about overconfidence ... read the "holy text" in the same way and never try to use them as scientific truth...

Now, as for the opening post about atheist, i will make a single comment... everybody is born atheist, it is the influence of parents, friends, church, educational system, tradition who transform the atheist baby in a grow up who believe in some God... At personal level, i think that i am agnostic :

"an agnostic is someone who neither believes nor disbelieves in the existence of a deity or deities"

"agnosticism is the view that human reason is incapable of providing sufficient rational grounds to justify the belief that deities either do or do not exist"

Amen

(I'm atheist, by birthright, never baptized)

Not only that but it also boils down to the matter of the immortal soul. Right reason, Scripture, and CC teachings rule against matter giving birth to the soul. Gen. 1:27 states that God made man in His own image, male and female. Mankind therefore being composed of body and soul has a material (physical) and spiritual nature. So each and every human body being produced from pre-existing matter by human generation, is therefore subject to the laws of growth and decay. But according to Gen. 2:7, man has a soul, "The Lord formed man of the slime of the earth, and breathed into his face the breath of life, and man became a living soul."

The human soul being a spiritual substance is therefore indestructible destined for immortality. According to the Catholic Encyclopedia, the soul may be defined as the ultimate principle by which we think, feel and will, and by which our bodies are animated. The term "mind" usually denotes this principle as the subject of our conscious states, while soul denotes the source of our vegative activities as well.

So, the likeness of man to God lies in the conscious principle which animates the body with understanding and free will.

So as far as evolution is concerned, the chief distinction which separates mankind from all other creatures is his immortal soul..the life principle...the animal soul is generated with the body and perishes when the body dies. It's impossible to imagine that a perfect spiritual entity, a soul made directly by God when He made man, could ever have come from a body of an animal, like an ape.

Why on earth would God fall back on an animal species in order to borrow a body for a human person? God made the whole man all at once, self contained, cpmplete and independent of all antecedents.

Science is not out to disprove anything and has no problem changing its mind as the data promotes and it has no real direction but forwards … wherever the data takes us. I am still hoping for little green men myself. All you and your ilk are want to do is try to discredit everything and anyone not of the church or the religion. Even though evolution has nothing at all to do with religion or the bible … you perceive it other than it really is and you try to PROVE NOTHING … all you do is try to disapprove shit … everyone’s shit … and that is not science any way you (others) look at it … that is how religions work.

It is you who translate "globe" in place of "circle" for demonstrate that Isaias was knowing that the earth is a sphere and not a flat circle surface...

Isaiah describes how God will “maketh the earth empty, turneth it upside down, and scattereth abroad the inhabitants thereof” (Isaiah 24:1). No matter how the spherical earth is situated, however, part of it will always be “upside-down” relative to another. As you should also realize that there’s no true “upside-down” to the earth, it’s impossible to orient our planet in such a fashion and erroneous for Isaiah to use this absurd brand of diction. The concept of gravity and its effect among massive spherical bodies would have certainly been a foreign notion to a fallible man, such as Isaiah, when this piece was written over 2000 years ago. However, if the earth were as flat as a casual observation would indicate, and we toss all modern understanding of gravity to the side, it would be very conceivable for us to think that God could invert the earth so that its inhabitants would fall into some unknown void. As the situation stands in the natural world, Isaiah plainly made the flat earth mistake because he had no scientific knowledge beyond that of his peers.

On the other side of the coin, there’s a singular instance found in Isaiah that Christians often flaunt to promote an imagined harmony between the Bible and the true configuration of the earth. All the while, previously mentioned scriptures authored by Isaiah and his colleagues go completely ignored. Isaiah 40:22 says, “It is he that sitteth upon the circle of the earth.” The word in question here is “circle.” A circle is a flat two-dimensional object, while a sphere, the approximate shape of the earth, is a three-dimensional object. The original Hebrew term used in this verse is chug, meaning circle. The same word is used twice in the book of Job to describe Heaven and the sea, two areas that we have no reason to believe anyone ever considered spherical. Furthermore, Isaiah does not use the actual Hebrew word for sphere, kadur, in 40:22 even though this utilization would have been much more appropriate if Isaiah intended to convey a spherical planet. In addition to this logical analysis of the verse, historians have long determined that a disc-shaped earth was a popular belief not only in the Middle East, but also in Greece before the time of Aristotle. We even have ancient maps of Babylon and Egypt containing illustrations of a circular sea surrounding circular land. When you combine this tangible evidence with other biblical comments regarding the shape of the earth, the likelihood of Isaiah 40:22 referring to a sphere is extremely remote.

We’ll begin with the verse that I believe Christians most commonly cite as a prophecy fulfillment. Isaiah 7:14 reads, “A virgin shall conceive, and bear a son, and shall call his name Immanuel.” Even so, the claim of a prophecy fulfillment fails miserably due to both context and content of the message.

Let us consider the content of Isaiah 7:14 first. In this passage, the English word virgin was translated from the Hebrew word almah. However, the most accurate term in the Hebrew language for conveying a sexually untouched woman is betula. Almah is a general term for a young woman, not necessarily a virgin. If Isaiah wanted his audience to believe that a virgin was going to give birth to a child, he had a much better word at his disposal. One would do well to think that he should utilize this more specific term for such a unique event so that his contemporaries wouldn’t first have to know that he was invoking the much less anticipated, potentially vague meaning of almah. Furthermore, Proverbs 30:19 is extremely detrimental to the virgin translation of almah: “The way of an eagle in the air; the way of a serpent upon a rock; the way of a ship in the midst of the sea; and the way of a man with [an almah].” Since the term doesn’t necessarily mean virgin, one must look for the obvious connotation of the original Hebrew word. With this responsibility in mind, virgins don’t have children. In all reasonable likelihood, almah refers to a young woman in this passage. Even so, Matthew 1:23 may have tried to relate the Immanuel birth to Jesus by altering the obvious content of the Old Testament prophecy. Ironically, even the Greek word parthenos used in Matthew doesn’t necessarily mean virgin, as repeatedly demonstrated in Homer’s Iliad.

A second and seemingly more overlooked clue in the passage’s content is the name of the child, Immanuel. To put it in the simplest of terms, Jesus’ name wasn’t Immanuel. The fact that Immanuel means “God with us” doesn’t make one iota of difference because hundreds of Hebrew names have references to God. For example, Abiah means “God is my father,” which, in my opinion, would have been slightly more impressive. The verse plainly declares that she “shall call his name Immanuel,” but the so-called Messiah’s mother called him Jesus.

When it is in italic, text is not from me

As for language, i have learn ancien greek and latin ( forget it ), modern greek ( forget it but have help me to learn some basic russian )... french, dutch, english... along with assembler, pascal, basic, fortran, etc

As for religious text, it have always interest me... by education, i was catholic... by marriage, i have become orthodox... by using my brain in place of believe everything, i have become agnostic... i don't know if a god exist or not, what i know is that religion have nothing to make with any god... religion are a instrument for control people, at the origin or implicated in numerous war... if religion was removed from the surface of the earth, we will almost have paradise on earth...

Me, I learned english, latin, old greek, AppleTalk (not the network protocol), Hypertalk, AppleScript, Pascal, q- and QuickBasic, Perl, php, Java, JavaScript, C++, FileMaker Scripting Language, Objective-C and many a structural language 

But it is easier to forget than to learn...

This is absolutely true of true empirical science. Wha tyou seem to refuse to recognize is that true empirical science has refuted and disproved Darwinian Evolution science and it's true blue adherants still refuse to accept this and continue to masquerade Darwinian Evolution, now proven pseudo science, as fact.  

I have read about the legend :

The Septuagint derives its name from Latin versio septuaginta interpretum,"translation of the seventy interpreters," (Greek: ἡ μετάφρασις τῶν ἑβδομήκοντα, hē metáphrasis tōn hebdomēkonta), "translation of the seventy ".The title refers to a legendary account in the pseudepigraphic Letter of Aristeas to his brother Philocrates, of how seventy or seventy-two Jewish scholars were asked by the Greek King of Egypt Ptolemy II Philadelphus in the 3rd century BCE to translate the Torah (or Pentateuch) from Biblical Hebrew into Greek for inclusion in the Library of Alexandria.

As narrated by Philo of Alexandria, 72 Jewish translators were enlisted to complete the translation while kept in separate chambers. According to legend, Aristeas arrived at the figure of 72 scholars by calculating the participation of six elders from each of the 12 tribes of Israel. Adding to the legend and coincidental alignment with the number of scholars being 72 was the implication that these scholars all produced identical versions of the text in exactly seventy-two days. This story underlines the fact that some Jews in antiquity wished to present the translation as authoritative. A version of this legend is found in the Tractate Megillah of the Babylonian Talmud (pages 9a-9b), which identifies fifteen specific unusual translations made by the scholars. Only two of these translations are found in the extant LXX.

Being a legend don't make it true... try it today, put 72 priest in 72 room and ask them to wrote the Septuagin like it is in their christian bible ( don't ask for a translation who will make thing more complex )... Pretty sure that you will not have 72 identical copy...

Well, there is no way to prove who is right since we don't have the original text but copy of copy of copy of copy... same the DSS scrolls are not original text... if i good remember, in the first cave, there was two copy of the Isaias scroll, both being almost identical with only some minor variation... yet, these minor variation show that they are not exact copy from the original...

According to The Oxford Companion to Archaeology:

The biblical manuscripts from Qumran, which include at least fragments from every book of the Old Testament, except perhaps for the Book of Esther, provide a far older cross section of scriptural tradition than that available to scholars before. While some of the Qumran biblical manuscripts are nearly identical to the Masoretic, or traditional, Hebrew text of the Old Testament, some manuscripts of the books of Exodus and Samuel found in Cave Four exhibit dramatic differences in both language and content. In their astonishing range of textual variants, the Qumran biblical discoveries have prompted scholars to reconsider the once-accepted theories of the development of the modern biblical text from only three manuscript families: of the Masoretic text, of the Hebrew original of the Septuagint, and of the Samaritan Pentateuch. It is now becoming increasingly clear that the Old Testament scripture was extremely fluid until its canonization around A.D. 100.

My point is that there is nothing wrong with your "belief"... you can believe what you wish... there is problem when you use these "belief" like fact or evidence... 

At personal level, i think that there is some truth in the bible story... these stories was first transmit by voice before being recorded... these record have be copied numerous time including some error or volontary add-on... human are not xerox machine able/wishing to make exact copy... by the way, when i speak about truth, i mean when you compare actual version to the original one, not about the content itself... in fact, plenty of the story in the bible can be found in text from other older culture who believe in other god or gods, long before the abrahamic religion appear on these planet...

A single example :

A little known but important piece of information about the Genesis flood is that the extremely similar Epic of Gilgamesh in the Sumerian legend predates Noah’s story by at least one thousand years in the written form and at least five hundred years for the setting. The similarities between the two tales are so remarkable that we cannot write them off in good conscience as mere coincidences. In the earlier flood legend, Utnapishtim receives instructions and exact dimensions on how to construct a large ship to avoid an imminent flood (as does Noah in Genesis 6:14-16), takes animals and his family aboard to preserve life on earth (as does Noah in Genesis 6:19-7:1), lands the ship on a mountain after the flood has stopped (as does Noah in Genesis 8:4), releases a dove and a raven from the ship in order to aid his search for dry land (as does Noah in Genesis 8:6-11), and burns a sacrifice after the flood for the gods who find its odor pleasing (as does Noah in Genesis 8:20-21). Because several additional minor parallels exist, I would encourage everyone to read Tablet XI of the short epic in its entirety in order to appreciate fully the similarities between the two legends. Since the Gilgamesh tale is the earlier version of the two, we can only surmise that the authors of Genesis copied the Epic of Gilgamesh or inadvertently patterned the story of Noah’s ark on an even more ancient flood legend that we have yet to discover.

I personally believe that the bible is not the "words" from God but simply a compendium of tales, not all related to the children of these unique gods but some stolen to other older culture... well, at the time of the bible, copyright laws was not yet existing...