[_ Old Earth _] Evolution

[cupid dave]

I think it is power driven priest fighting peer strokedscientist that have the real problem.
Remember, science doesn't say a thing. It is a process of data collection andprediction. rRligion doesn't do anything but offer everyone a connection to their higher power.
For the average guy, science and religion go together like peanutbutter and jelly on fresh white bread. It may not be a perfect meal ... but it's the real deal.

You are right.

The Book of Genesis means very little in comparison with the point made by Christ, except that it does imply that the Force of this First Cause which unfolds the ever changing next frame of existence is the Father to the Truth that appears in its wake.
This idea that the Force behind the unceasing creator of each next step into the future helps us understand why Christ said he represented the Ideal of Truth, the savior for thinking men.

But all that is fluff for those willing and desirous of accepting the Truth as lord into the way of the life they are headed into.

 

[cupid dave]

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "[The] Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God.

.

The prophecy of the angel came true,... right.

But, it was some time after this son-of-man had come eating and drinking, a wine bibber and glutton.

 

[Sparkey]

The prophecy of the angel came true,... right.

But, it was some time after this son-of-man had come eating and drinking, a wine bibber and glutton.

cupid dave?
People who didn't know you better might think you were name-calling at Jesus. You do know that it was the Pharisees that called him that, not his friends, right?

~Sparrow (help me tone down the rhetoric (noise levels) so we can hear each other better)

 

[Barbarian]

My "doctrine of creationism" ? Anyway, if you wish to call so, it is plainly written in the book of Genesis.

No, it's written in the doctrines of the Seventh-Day Adventists, about 1940.

How can you call people who don't believe in the creation account of Genesis and yet call themselves Bible believing?

I don't. YE creationists don't accept all of Genesis, and their addition is not "Bible-believing."

Don't "add" anything to what scripture says.

But you do.

Exod 20:11 For [in] six days the LORD made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that [is] in them, and rested the seventh day....

Show us that if the Bible mentions an allegory from an earlier book, that transforms it to a literal history.

Above is a part of 10 commandments spoken by God Himself. How can anyone "reject" and/or "don't believe" the word of the Father, and yet call themselves "Christians"?

As you know, "Yom" doesn't necessarily mean "day." It can mean era, unspecified length of time, a person's lifetime, and so on.

Gen 1:26 Then God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness; let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth."

God did not say: Let us make apes become humans and blah blah ..

Same thing. BTW, the 'image' is not in our appearance. God doesn't have a nose, and toenails, and all that. The image is in our minds and souls. The fact that we are capable of knowing good and evil is how we became like God.

Gen 2:7 And the LORD God formed man [of] the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being.

God did not take an "Ape" nor any animal, but "dust of the ground" to make him a human.

Gen 3:19 ... For dust you [are,] And to dust you shall return."

Should God had to say: Ape you are, ape shall you return?

Apes and all other living things come from the dust of the ground (yes, I know YE creationists don't believe that part of Gensis) You just object to the way He did it.

Gen 3:16 To the woman He said: "I will greatly multiply your sorrow and your conception; In pain you shall bring forth children; Your desire [shall be] for your husband, And he shall rule over you."

Coming to Birth pain, do you know that only humans have the "worst" birth pain and all animals including ape have very little pain?

Size of the head, compared to birth canal. If we had chimp-sized brains, we wouldn't be able to have fellowship with God.

As I said, people who call themselves "Bible believing" are not truly Bible believing.

Young-Earth creationists, for example. But of course, genuine Bible-believing men like Francis Collins realize that the Bible is not in any way opposed to evolution.

 

[felix]

No, it's written in the doctrines of the Seventh-Day Adventists, about 1940.

What? I was plainly speaking from Genesis account.

I don't. YE creationists don't accept all of Genesis, and their addition is not "Bible-believing."

Never mind. I am not a YE creationist per say because as I already mentioned, Sun did not exist for the 1st 4 days (for a day to be equal with 24 hrs) and as I mentioned, I believe what the Bible plainly says: 7 literal days.

But you do.

Then show me where I have.

Show us that if the Bible mentions an allegory from an earlier book, that transforms it to a literal history.

When God speaks that, He wasn't mentioning an allegory. As I already mentioned, if six days of creation and rest on 7th day is allegory, then the Sabbath law, one of the 10 commandments is not real because it is based on a allegory. So does the validity of the law and the punishments which God instituted are fake. Did Christ came to fulfill a law based on allegory? Shame on you to call yourself a Christian.

As you know, "Yom" doesn't necessarily mean "day." It can mean era, unspecified length of time, a person's lifetime, and so on.

Yom doesn't mean era. It means the heat, referring to heat of the day.

Same thing. BTW, the 'image' is not in our appearance. God doesn't have a nose, and toenails, and all that. The image is in our minds and souls. The fact that we are capable of knowing good and evil is how we became like God.

What kind of nonsense is this? I quoted that verse to show that He created man "directly" from "ground" not mutating "apes".

Apes and all other living things come from the dust of the ground (yes, I know YE creationists don't believe that part of Gensis) You just object to the way He did it.

As I told already, I am not YE creationists by definition. I do believe that all living including plants are created from the dust of the ground.

Size of the head, compared to birth canal. If we had chimp-sized brains, we wouldn't be able to have fellowship with God.

What is this nonsense logic? So a whale and a elephant can have fellowship because they have a larger head?

Btw, a donkey can see, remember, think and speak like a human as in case Balaam.
Ahh.. anyway do you want to reject this as an allegory?

Young-Earth creationists, for example. But of course, genuine Bible-believing men like Francis Collins realize that the Bible is not in any way opposed to evolution.

So, people who don't believe as the Bible speaks - Eve was taken from Adam's ribs and accept that Adam was created 50000 years after Eve are Bible believing? What kind of deceiver is that?

 

[lordkalvan]

How is that a person who does not even know Christ nor believe in Him defining what it means to truly follow Christ? If you don't want to experience "first hand" yourself (as I mentioned earlier to speak to Him and ask Him which is what He expects), then don't comment on what it means to hearsay reporting of second- or third-hand.

If you wish to offer in a public forum your claims as to what it amounts to be a 'true' follower of Christ in order to validate your views on evolution and evolutionary theory, then I will comment on those claims and point out that they are entirely subjective and differ from the understanding of many other Christians.

 

[felix]

If you wish to offer in a public forum your claims as to what it amounts to be a 'true' follower of Christ in order to validate your views on evolution and evolutionary theory, then I will comment on those claims and point out that they are entirely subjective and differ from the understanding of many other Christians.

Christianity is not based on opinions but based on Christ's teachings.

Sent from Mobile.

 

[lordkalvan]

Christianity is not based on opinions but based on Christ's teachings.

Sent from Mobile.

And your interpretation of what that amounts to appears to be subjective and different from others', an interpretation that you then try to use to validate claims about evolution and evolutionary theory that are demonstrably mistaken.

 

[felix]

And your interpretation of what that amounts to appears to be subjective and different from others', an interpretation that you then try to use to validate claims about evolution and evolutionary theory that are demonstrably mistaken.

Christ's teachings does not require an interpreter nor a scholar. He spoke to fishermen and much illiterate like Peter. Christ nowhere asked anyone to interpret His teachings. He only asked His disciples to "teach" not "interpret". People who rely on other's interpretations and not Christ's teachings directly, simply means, either they are so lazy to look up the Bible themselves and ask the guidance of Holy Spirit or they deliberately want to believe in something because they are comfortable with it.

Neither the Father, nor the Son asked anyone to "interpret" anything. God only asked to "teach". I understand you are not a Christian, so at-least now you know. People who want to interpret any plain teachings of Christ or quotes of God try to twist the Truth.

Btw, I never interpreted anything but only posted His teachings.

 

[lordkalvan]

Christ's teachings does not require an interpreter nor a scholar. He spoke to fishermen and much illiterate like Peter. Christ nowhere asked anyone to interpret His teachings. He only asked His disciples to "teach" not "interpret". People who rely on other's interpretations and not Christ's teachings directly, simply means, either they are so lazy to look up the Bible themselves and ask the guidance of Holy Spirit or they deliberately want to believe in something because they are comfortable with it.

Neither the Father, nor the Son asked anyone to "interpret" anything. God only asked to "teach". I understand you are not a Christian, so at-least now you know. People who want to interpret any plain teachings of Christ or quotes of God try to twist the Truth.

Btw, I never interpreted anything but only posted His teachings.

So where do these teachings deny evolution and evolutionary theory and support the claims you make about them?

 

[felix]

So where do these teachings deny evolution and evolutionary theory and support the claims you make about them?

(Mark 10:6) But from the beginning of the creation, God [ 'made them male and female.']
(Mark 10:7) [ 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,]
(Mark 10:8) [ and the two shall become one flesh']; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
(Mark 10:9) Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

So, when exactly did this Adam born 50000 years later to Eve? Is Eve was having sex with Ape? It is not only adultery but even suggesting bestiality.

(Exodus 22:19) "Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death.
(Deuteronomy 27:21) 'Cursed [is] the one who lies with any kind of animal.' "And all the people shall say, 'Amen!'

People who believe in evolution (so called fake Christians) not only worship a false god who allowed bestiality but even suggest as if it is the God of the Bible.

The God of the Bible is very clear:
(Exodus 22:19) "Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death.

Are you telling me that God allowed bestiality for Eve (using a grave sin for Creation) and yet forbid it as a grave sin?

These so called christian evolutionists worship a god who used bestiality for creation who is NOT the same God of the Bible.

 

[lordkalvan]

(Mark 10:6) But from the beginning of the creation, God [ 'made them male and female.']
(Mark 10:7) [ 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife,]
(Mark 10:8) [ and the two shall become one flesh']; so then they are no longer two, but one flesh.
(Mark 10:9) Therefore what God has joined together, let not man separate."

So, when exactly did this Adam born 50000 years later to Eve? Is Eve was having sex with Ape? It is not only adultery but even suggesting bestiality.

You seem to be deeply confused as to the meaning of mtDNA Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. Neithervf these evidenced hypotheses even remotely propose that anybofchese conditions apply:

1. That mtDNA Eve was the only female human being alive at the time.

2. That Y-chromosome Adam was the only male human being alive at the time.

3. That there were no human males alive at the same time as mtDNA Eve.

4. That there were no human females alive at the same time as Y-chromosome Adam.

5. MtDNA Eve is simply the most recent female ancestor that all humans alive today can trace their descent from..

6. Y-chromosome is simply the most recent male ancestor that all humans alive today can trace their descent from.

(Exodus 22:19) "Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death.
(Deuteronomy 27:21) 'Cursed [is] the one who lies with any kind of animal.' "And all the people shall say, 'Amen!'

As this is not the case, your references are irrelevant.

People who believe in evolution (so called fake Christians) not only worship a false god who allowed bestiality but even suggest as if it is the God of the Bible.

This is blatant nonsense, as shown above.

The God of the Bible is very clear:
(Exodus 22:19) "Whoever lies with an animal shall surely be put to death.

Are you telling me that God allowed bestiality for Eve (using a grave sin for Creation) and yet forbid it as a grave sin?

See above.

These so called christian evolutionists worship a god who used bestiality for creation who is NOT the same God of the Bible.

I see that, despite protestations to the contrary, you maintain your 'No troo Scotsman' fallacy.

 

[felix]

You seem to be deeply confused as to the meaning of mtDNA Eve and Y-chromosome Adam. Neithervf these evidenced hypotheses even remotely propose that anybofchese conditions apply:

1. That mtDNA Eve was the only female human being alive at the time.

2. That Y-chromosome Adam was the only male human being alive at the time.

3. That there were no human males alive at the same time as mtDNA Eve.

4. That there were no human females alive at the same time as Y-chromosome Adam.

5. MtDNA Eve is simply the most recent female ancestor that all humans alive today can trace their descent from..

6. Y-chromosome is simply the most recent male ancestor that all humans alive today can trace their descent from.

As this is not the case, your references are irrelevant.


This is blatant nonsense, as shown above.

See above.

I see that, despite protestations to the contrary, you maintain your 'No troo Scotsman' fallacy.

Was the first mtDNA Eve having sex with Y-chromosome Adam? If not, who was mtDNA Eve having sex with? Ape? That is called "bestiality".

In summary, evolution requires bestiality for the Adam to be a mutated product, that is not compatible with Bible.

 

[lordkalvan]

Was the first mtDNA Eve having sex with Y-chromosome Adam? If not, who was mtDNA Eve having sex with? Ape? That is called "bestiality".

Go back and read point 3 again. By the way, taxonomically Homo sapiens sapiens is an ape, so mtDNA ape Eve had sex with whatever male Homo sapiens sapiens'ape she was in a relationship with at the time.

In summary, evolution requires bestiality for the Adam to be a mutated product, that is not compatible with Bible.

Don't be silly. Evolution does not require 'bestiality'. You seem to be obsessed about this.

 

[felix]

Go back and read point 3 again. By the way, taxonomically Homo sapiens sapiens is an ape, so mtDNA ape Eve had sex with whatever male Homo sapiens sapiens'ape she was in a relationship with at the time.

Don't be silly. Evolution does not require 'bestiality'. You seem to be obsessed about this.

You want to call a human as ape to justify human sex with ape not as bestiality? Sorry, bestiality is not compatible with Christianity.

 

[lordkalvan]

You want to call a human as ape to justify human sex with ape not as bestiality?

This is absurd. Do you understand the science of taxonomy at all?

Sorry, bestiality is not compatible with Christianity.

Try and grasp the idea that mtDNA Eve did not have to have 'human sex' with anyone other than a human male (who, taxonomically and just like mtDNA Eve, was a great ape):

'The Hominidae (pron.: /hɒˈmɪnɨdiː/; also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family of primates, including four extant genera: chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan),[notes 2] gorillas (Gorilla), humans (Homo), and orangutans (Pongo).[1]'

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

 

[Arch Angle]

If you wish to offer in a public forum your claims as to what it amounts to be a 'true' follower of Christ in order to validate your views on evolution and evolutionary theory, then I will comment on those claims and point out that they are entirely subjective and differ from the understanding of many other Christians.

How do we lessen the "subjective"? We understand that it can't be entirelyremoved, but how can we lesson this 'he said, she said" subjective-ness?

 

[felix]

This is absurd. Do you understand the science of taxonomy at all?

Try and grasp the idea that mtDNA Eve did not have to have 'human sex' with anyone other than a human male (who, taxonomically and just like mtDNA Eve, was a great ape):

'The Hominidae (pron.: /hɒˈmɪnɨdiː/; also known as great apes[notes 1]) form a taxonomic family of primates, including four extant genera: chimpanzees and bonobos (Pan),[notes 2] gorillas (Gorilla), humans (Homo), and orangutans (Pongo).[1]'

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hominidae

This is exactly what is called bestiality which is a evolutionary requirement and is not compatible with Christianity.

 

[cupid dave]

cupid dave?
People who didn't know you better might think you were name-calling at Jesus. You do know that it was the Pharisees that called him that, not his friends, right?

~Sparrow (help me tone down the rhetoric (noise levels) so we can hear each other better)

Thank you witnessing to those who do not know how much I love the scriptures and how low I bow to Jesus, the son-of man who did what I could never have done, when he faced down the religious people in person, and told the Truth about scriptures and the heresy of what Judaism had become.


But I must disagree with you in regard to who said the son-of-man had come eating and drinking.

19 The Son of man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a man gluttonous, and a winebibber, a friend of publicans and sinners. But wisdom is justified of her children.


It was the Pharisees who condemned his behavior, but he testified to coming (from birth?) as a mere man, a son born of woman.

 

[Barbarian]

Barbarian observes:
No, it's written in the doctrines of the Seventh-Day Adventists, about 1940.

What?

Young Earth creationism is a modern, man-made doctrine.

I was plainly speaking from Genesis account.

No, you're speaking of your revision of it.

Never mind. I am not a YE creationist per say because as I already mentioned, Sun did not exist for the 1st 4 days (for a day to be equal with 24 hrs) and as I mentioned, I believe what the Bible plainly says: 7 literal days.

"Literal" is your addition to scripture to make it acceptable to you.

Barbarian suggests:
Show us that if the Bible mentions an allegory from an earlier book, that transforms it to a literal history.

When God speaks that, He wasn't mentioning an allegory.

Clearly, it was. To claim literal mornings and evenings with no Sun to have them is logically absurd, as the early Christians pointed out. Literal 24 hours days is a modern invention.

As I already mentioned, if six days of creation and rest on 7th day is allegory, then the Sabbath law, one of the 10 commandments is not real because it is based on a allegory.

If a truth happens to be allegorical, that means it's not true? How so?

So does the validity of the law and the punishments which God instituted are fake. Did Christ came to fulfill a law based on allegory? Shame on you to call yourself a Christian.

You're saying this, because you're angry that I pointed out your revisions to Genesis. I'm sure, if you thought about it, you wouldn't say such things. I certainly hope you wouldn't.

Barbarian observes:
As you know, "Yom" doesn't necessarily mean "day." It can mean era, unspecified length of time, a person's lifetime, and so on.

Yom doesn't mean era. It means the heat, referring to heat of the day.

From Strong's Concordance:
from an unused root meaning to be hot; a day (as the warm hours), whether literal (from sunrise to sunset, or from one sunset to the next), or figuratively (a space of time defined by an associated term), [often used adv.]:--age, + always, + chronicles, continually (-ance), daily, ([birth-], each, to) day, (now a, two) days (agone), + elder, end, evening, (for)ever(lasting), ever(more), full, life, as long as (...live), even now, old, outlived, perpetually, presently, remaineth, required, season, since, space, then, (process of) time, as at other times, in trouble, weather (as) when, (a, the, within a) while (that), whole (age), (full) year (-ly), younger

I think you need to do some reading.

Barbarian observes:
Same thing. BTW, the 'image' is not in our appearance. God doesn't have a nose, and toenails, and all that. The image is in our minds and souls. The fact that we are capable of knowing good and evil is how we became like God.

What kind of nonsense is this?

God's word is not nonsense.

Genesis 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil:

I quoted that verse to show that He created man "directly" from "ground" not mutating "apes".

"Directly" is another of your additions to scripture. It's not in God's word, but you felt the need to add it.

Barbarian observes:
Apes and all other living things come from the dust of the ground (yes, I know YE creationists don't believe that part of Gensis) You just object to the way He did it.

As I told already, I am not YE creationists by definition. I do believe that all living including plants are created from the dust of the ground.

Then why not just take the last step and accept the way He did it?

So a whale and a elephant can have fellowship because they have a larger head?

A rational mind is necessary, but so is that soul God gives each of us directly.

Btw, a donkey can see, remember, think and speak like a human as in case Balaam.

Anything is possible if God choses to do a miracle. But that's not the Donkey; that's God working through it.

Barbarian observes:
Young-Earth creationists, for example. But of course, genuine Bible-believing men like Francis Collins realize that the Bible is not in any way opposed to evolution.

So, people who don't believe as the Bible speaks

Young Earth creationists, yes.

Eve was taken from Adam's ribs and accept that Adam was created 50000 years after Eve are Bible believing?

The rib seems to be allegorical. Or it could have been miraculous. Why would that offend you if it was one and not the other? I have no idea what you mean by 50,000 years.