I would like to know, please, if any Christian members of this community accept evolutionary theory as true; or if anyone knows any Christians, who believe that evolution is true?
Lots of christians accept evolution as a fact. I have even seen theists arguing for it against other theists in debates.
Hi, Yes, JWAH, that's true. I knew an Anglican priest who was happy to accept evolution, and I know that many bishops and the Pope accept it too.
However, a fellow member has found that no Christian members of Hub pages have stated, to him, that they agree with evolution, so I was wondering about specific people, who would be willing to state that they accept it as truth.
Good luck. I guess you may find a few although I think they might be i the minority on hubpages.
This site seems to attract the most fanatical religionists from all over the world.
I had one trying to justify having sex with a 9 year old earlier just because mohammed did it.
Well, i think it is possible. I'm not going to dismiss it.
I suppose that's not quite what you are looking for
I see most questions as very complex, so I don't tend to definative answers, and i am one of those people who makes no one happy. i am perfectly willing to say many fine Christians accept evolution as fact.
I see adaptation to environment as a fact. Does that count?
I for one certainly do except Evolution, There is proof all around us, take a
look at people in some old photos taken back in our great- great-great-parents day, see how the body's structure has changed from then to now,
Darwinian Theory tells us that part of the proof of evolution is in the fossil record, which shows a succession of gradually changing forms leading up to those known today, Structural similarities and similarities in embryonic development among living forms also paint a common ancestry , Molecular biology etc, see..creationsciencetoday.com
I am a Christian and i also indeed accept evolution, the bible is a great
history book, I believe it goes hand in hand with Darwin's Theory, after all it is all about history, Isn't it ??
How is the bible a history book exactly?
The Bible tells a modern reader a great deal about history because the texts originated in the ancient world.These texts tell us more than any archeological dig could how ancient people saw the world, what their values were, ect. It is invaluable information about societies we have no otheer access to.
That does not make it a history book. That is social commentary according to King James and filtered through your own biases. In that case, the Greek myths and William Shakespeare's works are also "history books."
This is why your religion causes so much ill will - deliberate falsehoods spread by believers. Calling the bible a history book is - at best - disingenuous.
All we learn can really glean from the bible is that people are liars and twist the facts to suit what they want you to believe.
You trust the "history" in the bible - which tells us that majik happens? I take all the "history" in the bible with a large pinch of salt.
The Bible is very historically accurate. It has greater historicity than other ancient texts.
Parts may be accurate, but there are many books in the bible.
Mormon? The reason I ask is several who've made the same claim are.
I do think that it is a very valuable resource for the historian ~ and, possibly, it is partly a history book. However, like other such documents, it cannot just be taken at face value, because of bias and because of its supernatural aspects.
No. I think you will find very few who claim that, and none who legitimately claim it in the most popular meaning of biological "evolution".
Christians believe the Bible, period. That's what a Christian is---a Bible-believing born-again person; a Christian does not have the liberty (nor the confusion!) to believe in other books or theories as authoritative.
And although there are some events that might be seen as upholding "evolution" in a way (I could elaborate but I won't here), those events do not include the account of God's creation of the first humans, nor do they include taking most of the Biblical stories as literal.
For instance, Christians believe that Jonah really was swallowed up by a great fish that God prepared.
Christians believe that God created the first Man (Adam) from "scratch" (the dust of the earth), formed him with His hands, and that He created Eve from Adam's rib. He didn't create a "Neanderthal Man" that couldn't think and communicate and walk upright.
Christians really do believe that in the beginning God created the heaven and earth. He didn't make it spring up and "evolve" from some indefineable blob of anything. He created it.
There's so much more I could go into on this subject. But since I'm not a believer in evolution per-say, and that's what you were looking for, I'll refrain from elaborating further unless you'd like to hear more.
I simply was compelled to clarify those basic points.
Hi Brenda, I'm a bible believing born again Christian who accepts evolution as the vehicle by which God created life on this planet. Evolution is proven in our genes. At the moment I am also reading up on the history of Jewish theology and beliefs, and it is apparent that Jews do not interpret Genesis literally either, but fully endorse evolution today. Heck they should know, it's their book that God gave to them.
So if you believe in a literal six day creation that occurred 6000 years ago, well that's up to you, but believing in something hard enough does not necessarily make it true.
I was taught by an Anglican priest, who believed in evolution. He considered the story of Adam and Eve to be a metaphor for early life forms.
Many bishops ~ Anglican and Catholic accept evolution.
However, a debate isn't what this thread was about ~ it was just to collect information about the acceptance, or non-acceptance, of evolution by Christian HubPages members:)
I understand that.
What I told you is that a Christian believes the Bible's account of Creation (Creation of mankind) at face value as the Scripture states. There is no metaphor for that, because a Christian believes in the God who took a personal interest in creating the first human, even created him (Adam) in His image (whether that be visible attributes or invisible).
So, you can't expand the definition of "Christian" to include non-Bible-believing people, because that makes the basic foundation of your research results invalid.
Not trying to debate, just pointing out the facts so that you won't have a false positive result.
Brenda, with respect when you say that a Christian believes the Bible's account of creation at face value, that's your definition of a Christian, and not necessarily God's definition.
To believe in a literal Genesis means to suspend all intellectual credibility and geological, astronomical, palaentological, and genetic observation must be just swept away. The scientific word is not Antichrist, it just seeks the objective truth.
If you compare the sequence of events of Genesis 1 and 2 they are different. This contradiction makes a literal take impossible. Which one are you going with?
Just a side issue - Brenda mentioned Neanderthal people. Most have thought that Neanderthals were much more primitive than homo sapiens, but recent research is reversing that. The Neanderthal brain was as large as a homo sapiens, though it had a different shape (no one knows what the different shape means in terms of function) Scientists thought Neanderthals were not capable of speech, but then a Neanderthal skeleton was found with a hyoid bone, a bone which perches in the throat and makes speech possible. The real kicker for me is a recent discovery that Neanderthals and homo sapiens had children together. DNA evidence has shown that Neanderthals have had children with humans of Asian and European background, though not with African homo sapiens. If we can have babies with them, and those babies have descendents still living today, they can't be so different from ourselves.
Eh...I mentioned the Neanderthal theory, yes.
I don't believe there were ever such beings in existence.
No proof has ever been shown of their existence. Only theories derived from unproveable conclusions drawn by men who were guessing.
It is truly stunning the damage religion does to people.
http://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/gen … anderthals
@brenda interesting...it looks like u r talking about god theory...
"No proof has ever been shown of their existence. Only theories derived from unproveable conclusions drawn by men who were guessing."
@A trouble man.....ya its really stunning and shocking too that religion can close human brain to such extent ...
What makes you think this, Brenda?
I saw the skeleton of a Neanderthal child in a museum in France. She would have been about three years old at death. It was such a sad sight.
What about the 400+ fossils?
How do you type with your eyes closed and your fingers in your ears?
I doubt that they were so very different
But where do they fit into the Adam and Eve scenario?
They were long gone by the time Adam and Eve came about. Just as Genesis 1 said of the humans created, be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, and establish dominance in the animal kingdom. This is exactly what homo sapiens did. While in the process they completely pushed the Neanderthal out of existence, along with the remaining mega-fauna (mammoths, dire wolves, saber-toothed tigers), establishing themselves as the dominant species that by 10 thousand BC populated the entire inhabitable planet, as well as the only surviving species of the homo genus.
Then Adam and Eve, free will, civilization.
So - this majik book was written 10,000 years or so after the event? And predicts what will come 10,000 years ago that has already come to pass. Sounds about right.
Unless you disagree with the religious scholars who now put the Majik book at being written 4-5 th century BC?
10,000 BC man wipes out all competition and dominates the animals (like wot the bible sez to do)
500 BC (9,500 years later) a book is written predicting this will happen......
First off, who said it was a prediction? Many of the events in creation happened millions and billions of years before humans even existed. Accurately listing these events is significant because there's no way they could have known events so far in the past, not because it was an accurate prediction of the future.
Besides, the Neanderthal disappeared from the fossil record about 28 thousand years ago, and mega-fauna about 13 thousand years ago. Without accumulative knowledge through writing or an uninterrupted society to maintain the stories, it's highly unlikely this would be known by the time the bible was written. Not to mention the fact that even the humans involved in the process would most likely be unaware of their accomplishment or of its significance.
As for the bible, yeah, the Torah was probably edited together in the form we know it today around 450 BC, following Jewish exile in Babylon. The four or more sources that this combined text was made of were centuries older.
* The Yahwist source(J): written around 950 BC in the southern Kingdom of Judah.
* The Elohist source(E): written around 850 BC in the northern Kingdom of Israel.
* The Deuteronomist(D): written around 600 BC in Jerusalem during a period of religious reform.
* The Priestly source(P): written around 500 BC by Kohens (Jewish priests) in exile in Babylon.
* The Redactors: first JE, then JED, and finally JEDP, producing the final form of the Torah c. 450 BC.
And even those appear to have been updated versions of even older texts.
For example, Genesis 11 (from the Yahwist source) lists the birth place of Abraham's father as 'Ur of the Chaldeans'. Most scholars and historians agree this is referring to the Sumerian city of Ur, though it was not called 'Ur of the Chaldeans' until the Chaldeans settled at the site of Ur around 850 BC. Obviously, in Abraham and his father's time, which definitely predated the kingdom of Judah, this would not be how that city was known. This is just one of many examples that illustrates these were old stories that were updated with names and titles that would be recognized by its contemporaries in the time they were written as we know them.
How funny that your majik book told what was to come yet it is not a prediction. And you did not say it was either? "Be fruitful and multiply" is past tense?
Like "be fruitful and multiply, fill the earth and subdue it, and establish dominance in the animal kingdom 9,500 years ago."
Little wonder your religion causes so many fights.
Cut and paste some more stuff from wikipedia so we know you can cut and paste stuff.......
When you're reading a book set in the past, do the characters speak in past tense about the time they're living in? Think about what you're saying.
So the historical accuracy is spot on then? God dunnit and it only took 14 billion years.
It only took 14 billion years and then by majik the writers knew wot god sed 14 billion years ago? It was just coincidence that humans already had conquered the earth and become dominant already when it was written down and the writers did not know this so it must be right - you know - saying what was going to happen 9,500 years after it happened?
Because this is what you are basing your argument on - the fact that it said it in Genesis and then it came to pass 9,500 years before it said it in Genesis.
Think about what you are saying. See how this prediction only works if your majik book was written before it happened.
Writing down in a majik book that god sed it was going to happen 9,500 years after it had already happened? Color me not impressd.
The part you're not understanding is that humanity did not know of any of this until the past century or so. When Genesis was written humanity still thought the earth was flat and at the center of the universe. They could not have possibly known the 13.7 billion year history of the universe, the 4.54 billion year history of the earth, or even the tens of thousands of years it took for homo sapiens to establish themselves as the dominant species.
The point I'm trying to make here is that Genesis not only confirms other humans existed besides Adam at the time, but that these other humans are a vital part of the story that make the rest of the Torah much less cryptic and confusing, and ground these events in known history.
Nonsense. Humanity was well aware it was the dominant animal of the time. Humanity did not think the earth was flat - that was religious drivel from reading your majik book.
Genesis confirms nothing at all. How desperate you are to believe in majik.
Yes - the people who wrote the majik book could not have been divinely inspired. They were just men - no majik involved. Otherwise they would have gotten it right. They would not have needed to say "day" instead of "millions of years." They would not have accidentally written that the earth was flat. Well done - looks to me like you just proved there is no Invisible Super Being.
Yes, humanity was probably aware of its dominance, but could not have possibly known what was required to make that so. Or even the idea that they didn't simply begin as the dominant species.
I get that there's no getting through to you. In the same way a young earth creationist will dismiss science without giving it due consideration, you'll reject this without ever taking it seriously enough to truly understand. Editing things out without any certainty, dismissing it as 'majik', will lead to an incomplete picture for you to then form your beliefs around.
No. Literalist Christians are not the only Christians, and in my opinion, the best evidence in Scripture says that they are not necessarily the wisest nor 'best' Christians, either: Scripture is full of metaphor, poetry, and question (think of Jesus' parables, for instance.) They are also full of inconsistencies which are either a) a result of human folly or struggle, in which case the Bible is not infallible and the product of pure Divine inspiration, or b) deliberately put there by God.
(Examples: compare Genesis 1 & 2, and tell us the sequence of Creation; compare the Nativity stories in the four Gospels, and tell us the exact circumstances of Jesus' birth; or compare the four Gospels on the Resurrection, and tell us just who first found out that Christ was risen.)
In the latter case--that the inconsistencies are of Divine origin--there are several possible explanations: a) possibly, as Kerry suggested above, God needed to use language that would be understandable to humans over many millennia--humans holding many different pictures of how the world in general is--and such diversity could not be accomplished without inconsistency; b) possibly they are there, as some have argued, in order to 'test our faith' by requiring us to believe an obvious impossibility; or c) possibly they are there to let us know that God doesn't want us to reduce His book to an instruction manual/history book. Possibly He wants us to use our minds.
Throughout history, there has been no shortage of Christians who have done so.
I agree with Brenda. You either trust in Christ and believe the whole Bible, creation and all, or you don't. It is simple. The Bible is not a smorgasborg where you pick what you want and leave the rest. You either believe the entire Word of God, or you don't.
Hi Trish, you know from our previous exchanges that I am one who believes the Scriptures to be the Word of God, inerrant and reliable in all that they affirm. I, along with many of my ilk, believe that the first chapter of Genesis is an account of creation arranged in a poetic framework designed to be remembered easily. Chapter two then picks up on it and goes into detail regarding the creation of humankind.
While there there is a sizeable and vocal group of Christians who believe that God created the world in six twenty-four hour days and relatively recently, there are also a vast number who hold that God was ultimately responsible for bringing the world into being, but has used the processes outlined in scientific theory.
Much like an artist takes satisfaction not only in the finished product but in the art process, God's is glorified not only by the end product but also be the process. So to the degree that it can be demostrated that there has been development over time (perhaps millions of years) Christians can readily accept much of evolutionary theory. I recommend the writings of Hugh Ross to any who would like to learn more of this Christian perspective.
Finally, there are assertions made by evolutionist that stretch credulity far more than anything Chrstians believe. The further back it goes the more evolution shows itself to be more a theory adopted by "faith" than an hypothesis demostrated by facts.
Thank you, Lift and Soar.
Can I just double check, please?
Are you saying that you believe that God created life and that it then evolved; or that you believe in creation, as per the Bible, but think that it is equally acceptable to believe that God created life and that it then evolved; or that either may be the case?
Louis Leakey, the anthropologist who pioneered the "Out of Africa" theory, and discovered the homo habilis skeleton, was a Christian, the son of missionaries. He was planning to be a missionary before he became facinated by bones. He saw no problem with Christianity and evolution. One of his first books on early humans was titled "Adam's Ancestors." He often said that there was no conflict between the Bible and science - some people just read the bible the wrong way.
Jane Goodall is also a Christian, and sees no problem between her faith and evolution.
C.S. Lewis did accept evolution, though in his later years he changed his mind. As I understand it - his problem was not scientific, it was he thought evolutionary theory made people uncaring about the suffering of others - his problem was with what some call "Social Darwinism."
Jane Goodall has commented on the hostility towards people of faith in the scientific community, and how difficult that is for young beleivers who want to go into science. I think perhaps many quietly choose another field. I personally think a polarizing culture has grown up that sees science on one side and faith on the other - it isn't necessary, but once the battle lines are drawn, getting everyone to lay down their weapons of war is difficult.
Sadly, we need to reject everything we know about evolution if an involved god dunnit.
There is/was no developmental destination. If this was the case, evolutionary theory is complete bunkum.
So - unless your Invisible Super Being merely threw everything in a pot to see what came out - which invalidates christianity - there is no synergy.
Life on earth has also - not finished evolving.
This may be the first post of yours, Mark, that I agree with (except for the last line, of course).
I like it when a person states which side of the line they're on; actually, when they're aware that there even really IS a line!
Perhaps we have something in common after all----neither of us are lukewarm fence-straddlers.
Maybe. Maybe not.
The thing is, there are many hubs and threads, on this site, where science and atheism are on one side and belief and creationism are on the other.
Then there is a debate and maybe even some unpleasantness at times.
However ~ as with others on this thread ~ I keep saying that evolutionary theory is not atheistic dogma.
Of course I can see where these iseas come from, and I can see why some people ~ on both 'sides' ~ think that Christianity and evolution are incompatible.
Even so, there are many Christians, who believe that Genesis is allegorical. They think that God set life in motion, allowing it to evolve.
Some Christians obviously accept this, but one fellow Hubber had not, yet, encountered any on here.
On this thread I am seeking them out (not looking for debate ~ I have debated the issue at length elsewhere )
No maybes about it.
There was either a developmental destination (us) in mind and evolution was deliberately manipulated in order to achieve this - in which case everything we know about evolution is wrong.
Or - there was not - in which case christianity is wrong.
As there is ample evidence for evolution as we understand it.... Guess what?
Just to be clear, I do not believe in the Genesis story ~ except, perhaps as allegory.
What I am saying, here, is not that Christians are right, or that non-Christians are right, or that some liberal Christians are right; rather, I am arguing that some genuine Christians do accept the theory of evolution. That's all.
Many Christians state that it is impossible to be a Christian and also to accept 'atheistic' evolutionary theory. You may even agree with them, but, either way, these Christians do exist and I am trying to find some of them.
Now, in response to your point, I would say that we do not know, yet, how life arrived on Earth. There are hypotheses, but no-one actually knows. Therefore, if we allow for the possibility of the existence of God, and if that God is all knowing, etc, etc, then it would fit that God could have created life. Once created, life could then evolve. There would not, necessarily, have to be any developmental plan, simply the ability for that first simple life to evolve into more complex organisms ~ as per Darwin.
I am not saying that I believe this. I am an agnostic, who does not think that the Bible describes God, or his works. I don't know how life got here. This is not even part of evolutionary theory. I am just saying that it is a hypothesis, accepted by some Christians, which fits with the way things seem to be.
Looking for an explanation for evolution of biological flight.
Got one for me?
I have read some of their books, but I didn't know that.
Just to explain this thread a little better....
In the 'comments' section of his hub 'My Search For Truth', Highvoltagewriter wrote: "BTW Trish, I have not had one Christian who answered my question claim to believe in evolution...I will give it a week and see if there are any takers...I know they are out there! "
So I am wondering ~ are they out there in Hubland, and, if so, will they will make themselves known?
My name is HeadlyvonNoggin, I am a Christian, I am a hubber, and I believe God created evolution. In fact, that's the main topic I hub about. Really the only topic I hub about.
And, I take the stories of early Genesis literally, including creation. One hub illustrates how Genesis 1 correctly lists 13 specific 'creations' and 6 major eras of earth's history in the correct chronological order. Another illustrates how pre-flood Genesis is actually set in an already populated world and that the humans created at the end of Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam in Genesis 2 are two separate events. And then another that links the events of early Genesis through Babel to the dawn of civilization in Mesopotamia.
I believe life formed through evolution driven by God's will that they survive and multiply and fill the earth. Life adapted in whatever way necessary to realize what it was commanded to do.
In my experience on HP, Christians here are either of the fundamental young earth creationist variety, or in the camp of accepting evolution and science in general, and viewing early genesis as metaphor. I, so far, appear to be in the minority. I hope to change that.
I really did only intend this thread to be a fact-finding mission
I must have been feeling very naive at the time
Trish_M, all of my words on this thred are my true convictions. May time find you well,as with all the posters here!
Time for me to go, Text ya later in Hubland.
I consider myself a Christian, though many would disagree with my ideas. I do believe that evolution is a distinct possibility. Do we fully understand it, I don't think so; are our definitions accurate, probably not. I think we might be close but there are just too many missing pieces to know for sure. I do know that there is too much evidence to suggest otherwise, for me to believe that the earth is only 7 or 8 thousand years old. I have studied and researched the methods used to date artifacts, and the methods are tested and tested, over and over again in separate independent labs and they are accurate to the degree that is specified by the testing methods used. Yes science is flawed, but so is everything that has been touched by the hands of man. I said everything, even the Holy Bible. We are not perfect; therefore nothing created by us will ever be perfect. Take for example Dinosaurs; the Bible doesn't mention their existence. Many will argue, oh yes it does they just changed the words to Rhinoceroses it should have been a type of dinosaur. OK, I can buy that as a possibility, but doesn’t that prove that the Bible is flawed. Then I hear oh no; that is just how it is translated. This could go on all day. The bottom line is that the Holy Bible is sacred and holy, and it holds truths that you will find in no other place on Earth, but it is the work of men of God; not God directly.
Thanks for adding your name to the list of Christians, who are willing to accept the possibility of evolution, at least .
As for fully understanding it, I get the impression that even the experts accept that they do not yet have the full picture
Well, yes, the Bible is considered to be a sacred holy book. It may contain some truths ~ ie some history. It was written by men, who thought, or claimed, that they had some kind of direct line to God. That doesn't mean that they did, of course.
Thanks to everyone, who participated in the discussion. I am not surprised at the mix of responses.
As expected, some Christians feel that they can accept evolution, and some do not.
I just wanted to show that the former did exist on Hub Pages
I actually find the ones who accept it (hard not to given the overwhelming evidence) as somewhat funnier than the ones who understand it means their majik book is wrong and need to reject it outright.
As a method of "creating something in your own image," it would be hard to think of a less efficient method than evolution. 14 billion years? If I was omnipotent, I could have created man in a day.
And if you understand evolution - a developmental destination destroys all knowledge we have of the process.
Not to mention the fact that evolution is an ongoing process and we can hardly be the end product.
At least the science deniers are being honest with themselves (if no one else). They are protecting their irrational beliefs to the best of their abilities.
Thankfully, none of us is God! I'm amazed at how absolutely certain you "scientific" types are about your opinions. Given humankind's record, that certainty is an act of blind faith.
Yes - I can see why you would need to think that. This would be why your religion causes so many fights.
Sorry you don't understand. Maybe an education would help? Were you homeschooled perchance? Did they have biology classes where you grew up?
So - you are not absolutely certain about the majikal super being you have spent your life grovelling to? Despite the 100% lack of evidence and illogical nature of your beliefs?
Well, Mark, I am as willing as anyone to debate issues, but I have no desire to cause people distress. Thus, though I am willing ~ keen, even ~ to debate the evolution issue, I don't want to insult the people with whom I disagree. I like many of them.
There are, of course, those who insult me and threaten me with hellfire, etc, but I don't want to argue with them on their level, even though I may feel annoyed and irritated by their stance.
I understand what you mean about those believers who deny evolution, because, like many atheists, they see that proven evolution could be considered as 'proof' against God's existence.
However, it doesn't have to be that way. As you say, evolution does not explain the origins of life, so there is still room for a creator God ~ provided one accepts that Adam and Eve would then have to be more like amoebae than humans.
As I said, this thread was just my opportunity to see how many Christians there were, here on Hub Pages, who might accept that possibility and see Genesis as 'true', but only in an allegorical way.
Just for the record, I find evolution to be 'unbelievable' too, yet I believe it, because it fits with our scientific knowledge. On the other hand, I find Genesis to be simply unbelievable, because it doesn't fit with much, if any, of our scientific knowledge
But - and this is a BIG but. While evolution allows for a Creator God - it does not allow for a Creator God that was involved in directing the process to end up with humans as the final product.
SO - this Creator God just threw a few bits n pieces together and had no idea what (if anything) would emerge.
Well, thinking about it, an all-knowing God would know, I suppose
It just becomes a circular argument, doesn't it
Why not? Why wouldn't God have known ahead of time, or why would God not have been able to guide the entire evolutionary process in ways either overt or too subtle to be detected by science, yet equally profound?
Natural selection and mutation, like everything else in the material universe, are ultimately subservient to God's will.
So - we need to discard everything we understand about evolution then? When there is an environmental change that means a species adapts - it is god doinit? Dammit - it was majik after all.
Should I go kill some homos?
I am saying that in the context of the assumptions that (A) the Biblical God is real and (B) He created life via the modern notion of evolution, it isn't reasonable to assume that He started the spark of life with "no idea" what would happen or that He couldn't have continued to play an active role in events from that point to the origin of man, however small or rare any such direct "nudge" in the right direction might have been on top of nature taking its course.
To put it another way, if you're constructing a hypothetical situation in an attempt to show a fallacy, you can't build your scenario on the God spoken of in the Bible being real, but not omnipotent or omniscient. If you assume the latter you're not assuming the former, so the entire scenario becomes a strawman.
Sorry you don't understand what we understand about evolution.
Lets just say it was majik n god made it look like eberlushun happens to confuse the atheists?
That way you get to win and your religion is the best. Like wot jeebus sed.
LOLOLOLOL About the Strawman. Seriously - extra s for you. You must be a Christian - right?
Edited the above, to prove a point!
Intelligence of atheist on display for all to see!
Don't have an argument, write kindergarten stile ridicule.
You must have been a bully at school. Were you??
Ah - still making attacks like Jesus said to do I see.
Well done. You bully you. Like what Jesus told you to do.
A genuine Christian. Thanks for reminding me why I reject your hypocritical religion.
Stop turning the other cheek like wot Jesus sed.
Turning the other cheek? Is that what I am doing?
If the answer is yes, then YOU are doing the hitting!
OUCH, that hurt Mark!
In your opinion / based on your (supernatural) beliefs
Why would God "guide the entire evolutionary process" to result in over 99% of all the species on earth to be extinct? How does that make sense?
Why would god create the Glyptapanteles Wasp whose only way to survive is to burrow into the larvae of a caterpillar, sting it such that it is paralyzed and then lay its eggs so the young can slowly feed on the caterpillar?
Is that what you call subservience to God's will?
Genesis only conflicts with known history when read as it is traditionally interpreted. The traditional interpretations that say Adam was the first human are centuries old and formed by people who read Genesis that way because they had nowhere near the level of knowledge we have now.
It is clear, using our modern understanding, that the creation of humans in Genesis 1 and the creation of Adam and Eve in Genesis 2 are two separate events. The 'others' that Cain feared in Genesis 4 and the whole bit about 'sons of God' having children with 'daughters of humans' in Genesis 6, humans who it also says are mortal and only live 120 years compared to Adam and his descendants who Genesis 5 says lived for centuries, make it clear that not only is Genesis illustrating this story took place in an already populated world, but that those other humans are an important part of the story.
Genesis matches up with real history all the way through the earth's formation and the formation of all life (Gen 1), then the creation of Adam and Eve as the first beings able to choose to live outside of God's will (Gen 2), then rule breaking (Gen 3/4), then children born of both bloodlines (Gen 6), then a local/regional flood (Gen 7-9), then the dispersion of Noah's descendants from Babel, each with free will, their own unique language, and knowledge of the flood story (Gen 11). Almost as if free will were planted into an already established planet.
This coincides with the rapid advancement of civilizations in Sumer, Egypt, and the Indus Valley around 3500 BC.
Almost as though "free will," evolved with human consciousness you mean?
With their own unique language?
Chinese/Italian - same roots right?
Did the Australian Aborigines swim from mount Ararat?
Or did they ride the Kangaroos as they swam?
No, I think the emergence of free will can be clearly seen historically as the same time/place that there was a noticeable increase in violence. Some associate it with 5.9 kiloyear event where northern Africa and Mesopotamia became a very dry/arid region, literally dispersing the humans in that region in all directions not long before the birth of full-blown civilizations in Sumer and Egypt...
"Historically the period of the 5.9 kiloyear event is associated with the increased violence noticed in both Egypt and throughout the Middle East, leading eventually to the Early Dynastic Period in both the First Dynasty of Egypt and Sumer." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event)
Before that, humans lived very much in harmony with nature and didn't feel the need to impose their will on others and take whatever they wanted. Kind of like the Aborigines of Australia. Their ancestors migrated out of Africa tens of thousands of years before these events. Notice the dramatic difference between the Australian Aborigines and the "civilized" humans that came from the Mediterranean region (Sumerians/Egyptians/Akkadians/Babylonians/Greeks/Romans).
And no, the Chinese and Italian languages most likely do not share the same roots language wise. Genesis clearly illustrates numerous languages coming out of the Babel story. This coincides with historical events like the emergence of the Indus Valley culture around 3400 BC, where a people of unknown origin and having their own unique language began building advanced structures and quickly developed their own system of writing. In that small region, after 3500 BC, the Sumerians, the Akkadians, the Egyptians, and the Indus Valley culture all had unique languages.
Truth is that which agrees with fimal reality. Truth and eternity are synomymous. There is no truth apart form eternity. Jesus said, "I am the Alpha and the Omega, the Beginning and the End..." Revelation 1:8. In the light of eternal truth, the theory of evolution has no creditability. It does not agree with final reality. The Word of God is the truth. It is the revelation of Almighty God to His creation, i.e. human beings. Human beings are not sovereign beings. The purpose for our individual existance did not begin with us. It began with our creator, the only Sovereign, Almighty God.
But in the light of what we can clearly see around us, the theory of evolution has lots of credibility.
I do not see how it can be possible to discount science, just because of a set set of ancient stories.
No, truth is what agrees with evidence.
That makes absolutely no sense.
Evolution is a fact, there are mountains of evidence to support it in every facet of scientific thought. This has been shown with viruses and how they evolve as a result of antibiotics, for example.
Then Jesus must be a lie, because if he has a beginning and an end, he is not eternal...and since you asserted "there is no truth apart from eternity" you have confirmed this.
Thanks for clearing that up.
Of course you must have irrefutable facts to base these BOLD assertions upon. And I'm sure you held these facts to the same uber rigid standards that you hold the Theory of Evolution .
Evolution needs time. Time has no value in the realm of eternity. Eternity is always NOW. Time has an expiration perspective. Nothing expires in the realm of time. Almighty (Elohim) God is the embodiment of eternity. All that is visible and invisible came out of Him. God is the final reality.
Correction. Nothing expires in the realm of eternity. Etertinity has no need for time. Nothing changes in the realm of eternity.
I'm sure you have no idea what you are talking about. In fact this sounds like pure drivel.
Using drivel to "prove" that God is what dunnit is desperate indeed.
You need to prove that your God exists first, then prove that He has something to do with eternity.
I'll leave you to work now, as you have a lot to do proving these outrageous assertions.
So, based on your logic, you don't own a watch or a clock or a calendar? You have no use for time and don't recognize it even though it is woven into our universe and is a requirement for it to exist?
Yes, evolution requires time, huge amounts of time, which is one of the great misunderstandings believers have because they are unable to grasp this concept.
Your words are somewhat poetic but they have very little meaning, if none at all.
I have a bunch of family members and friends who are Christian and believe in evolution. My husband and his family are Muslim and they believe in evolution, too.
It's mostly people who believe the Bible is the literal truth who don't. Reasonable people acknowledge that an immortal, omniscient, omnipotent being would be smart enough to use metaphors when attempting to explain the origin of the universe to a bunch of semi-literate Bronze Age sheep herders.
That's more or less where I sit. Try explaining "billions and billions of years" to people who lived close enough to the equator that the only seasons they knew were "wet" and "dry."
I also believe God is omnipotent, so I feel that I also have to acknowledge the slight possibility that Genesis 1 is literally true despite all appearances. He could have created the world any way He wanted and caused its origin to scientifically appear to be anything else He wanted, but that sounds like a lot of extra work to me.
Personally, I see the exact mechanics of the beginning of the world as non-crucial. I can see myself standing at the gates of Heaven, and God might say, "Oh, by the way, it really was seven days," and I'll be like, "Oh, sorry, my bad," and He'll be like, "S'alright, you still got the more important stuff right. Come on in."
Why should you be rewarded for believing someone without evidence and people who attempt to make sense of things and use the mind that god gave them get punished for ever and ever and ever.
Sounds a bit f**ked up to me.
I don't pretend to know with absolute certainty who's going to Heaven or Hell; Hell in particular. I feel that doing that is placing yourself in God's place.
Yup. I'm personally agnostic on both the existence of God and the possibility of intelligent design, but it puzzles me why God, if He exists, would bother to create the world 6,000 years ago in 7 days in such a way that all available evidence points to it being created ~4.5 billion years ago in a universe created ~9 billion years before that. I mean He certainly could have done so, but it seems like an awful lot of effort for a joke!
Of course, far be it from me to guess what an immortal, omnipotent, omniscient being might find funny...
I guess the alternative possibility is that it's supposed to be some sort of test of faith, but I find it even more unbelievable that a Creator God would scatter lies all over His creation, give us a mind capable of uncovering those lies (coming up with something like radiometric dating is, after all, quite a bit more complicated than rubbing two sticks together to make a fire), and then punish us for believing His lies.
It makes much more sense that Genesis is supposed to be metaphorical! After all, even human writers and orators have the brains to tailor their words to their audience, I think it's kind of insulting to the notion of an omniscient God to assume He wouldn't be capable of the same.
Kerryg, you've just stated the number one reason I believe the earth was created over a vast amount of time. If anything God is a God of truth and transparancy. He does not play games nor does he mislead. There's much about Him we may not understand, but that doesn't mean he misleads us.
I think you would have to be more specific with the question.
I am a Christian. I believe in evolution, as in the gradual change and development of particular characteristics within a species.
As far as evolution attempts to explain how the universe got started, well that's another question entirely. I think God created the world. But he could have created it any way he wanted. Even through evolution.
To be honest, and this may sound weird, but...I don't really care.
Whether or not I developed from an amoeba or was created spontaneously from a command doesn't really matter to me. I think I'm created by God If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. If I'm right, I'm right. Does it really matter? I believe I'm created by God either way. But that's just my opinion. Attempting to force theistic ideas on a scientific community is rather...pointless. As well as unproductive. Most Christians have the absurd idea that science is "out to get" Christianity. That's absolutely ludicrous.
Okay I'm off my soap box.
I find that most christians believe as you do.
Fundamental christians are few and far between in most parts of the civilized world, most actual christians just live a christian lifestyle and adopt christian values and morals.
There are very few people actually pushing creationism as having any credibilty, and all the intelligent christians are able to cope with the metaphysical aspects of the bible and get the message from the stories and imagery without believing that the metaphors offered as description are true stories.
Without exception the fundies show themselves to be either plain stupid, morally bankrupt or more usually they are waggling their little inflated ego stick.
Mainstream Jews don't take the Bible, or their Jewish Bible, literally and neither does the Vatican. It's quite amusing and also pathetic that there's still people out there that fully believe that the earth was made in 7 days and that life started in a garden with a talking snake.
So you think that the majority of Christians probably accept evolution.
I wonder ...
Yes - in my experience almost every christian believes in evolution, and they see no conflict with their religious beliefs. It is only a small but very loud group of pseudo-christians who are so deliberately dis-educated.
Evolution doesn't really deal with how everything began, only with how it developed, so I am not asking about that specific matter.
As for change within species, that's another 'weird' issue, because it is very difficult to exactly define a 'species'.
Because change is usually very gradual, 'adaptations' do only take place within what might be termed the same species, but many little changes can make a few very big ones, which is why it appears to some individuals that evolutionists think that one creature can turn into, or give birth to, another.
That doesn't happen, obviously.
I am asking if you believe that all the creatures, on earth today, developed, slowly but surely, from very primitive life, which inhabited Earth, many, many, many generations ago ~ whether or not at the instigation of God.
To clarify, I am including evolution of humans, and other primates such as chimpanzees, from an early ape-like ancestor.
(And, of course, some creatures still exist as they did many generations ago.)
I am asking if you believe that all the creatures, on earth today, developed, slowly but surely, from very primitive life, which inhabited Earth, many, many, many generations ago ~ whether or not at the instigation of God.
To clarify, I am including evolution of humans, and other primates such as chimpanzees, from an early ape-like ancestor.
Thanks for the reply ~ but are you Christian?
Ahh ok I see. Thanks for clarifying. To be really honest with you....I have no idea....
A vast majority of the Catholics believe in evolution. The Vatican accepted it a long time ago.
It will be interesting to see if that is reflected in the responses we receive on this thread
Paul, could you substantiate the Catholic church has officially acknowledged evolution. I have long suspected this but had no proof.
Any priest with half a brain has found he has to work the belief of evolution into the philosophy containing his religious beliefs. Some of them have done so quite cleverly.
Trish. It's not whether there is a force which we may call a Supreme Being behind the complex confusion of the universe, it's why so many follow the dictates of a small book put together so long after the event of Christ.
Man has been such an evolutionary winner, perhaps that's why he can't accept the ultimate loss of a death with nothing familiar to follow it.
Perhaps you might ask how many atheists have some religious beliefs?
For in truth neither athiests not theists can believe in their hearts that the other may be right.
I will say this. I have never met a doubting atheist, although many religious people have strong doubts.
This comment didn't come out right, but I'll leave it in place...
Trish: I think that is a great thought provoking question. I think the scientific facts support evolution. The bible and other books that were excluded from the bible by religious institutions of the time make a history of man that has many holes and shows a God that works through many strange ways. I personally believe that the Bible is far from literal and although we have professed experts of it's various meanings, that they really don't know any more that you or I. With that said, I believe that because of the facts of evolution and that the Bible is far from literally that the two are easily compatible since many of the things revealed in Genesis is easy to interpret and apply to the evolutionary concept. Such as what did a day really mean to God..a million years, a 24 hour period, etc. If God created man/woman by slowing evolving him, then he still created them.
God changes. If God didn't change, He would still be sitting in the darkness which preceded the light. Change is an evolution. If we were created to not change, we would still be as animals, not knowing good or evil, but we were made to change, to adapt. The bible is about knowing the self, the inner being. There is where God is "hiding".
Good job Trish...you got a lot more responses in this form than I did in my question form and it came from those who are "true to there school" so to speak. I also believe in a type of evolution for creatures do adapt to changes in their environment. What I do not believe in, is on species evolving into another species. I have known many Christians that thought that evolution was God's way of creating the world...that He does time differently than we do.
Now I wonder if the forms are more productive in getting a wider response than the question section.
We have always been man. Adam was an evolution. The gaining of knowledge was an evolution. (Otherwise, the first atomic explosion would have been detonated in the garden. Judaism was an evolution, christianity was an evolution. Everything changes. In this way God never changes....he is everchanging.
Although there does seem to be some validity to micro-evolution, macro-evolution is nothing more than intellectual fool's gold.
I have known many evolutionists and Christians during my life-time...I often disagree with both parties, so I am somewhat of an outcast.
Many of the "Christians" that I have known are what I refer to as "Cultural Christians", that is, they were born in what they perceive to be a Christian nation, and since they don't support abortion and since they attend church on Christ Mass and Easter every year, this somehow makes them a follower of Christ.
Many "Christians" are often led astray because they tend to be superstitious and lazy and do not actively seek God's truth nor do they concern themselves with studying God's Word. Therefore, they are easy prey and easy pickins for whatever social trend or popular thought comes along.
So, it doesn't surprise me that some "Christians" accept something as absurd as macro-evolution, nor do they understand the implications of supporting such a fallacious principle. They are like lambs led to the slaughter - lambs that have compromised themselves for material gain and actively pursue pleasurable traditions instead of standing their ground and holding fast to the truth.
Trish, I have told you before, your faith in evolution is far greater than my faith in God. You have absolutely nothing to go on, but the theories of men, who rely on the theories of their mentors, who rely on their mentors, and so on and so forth.
The reason why it's still called the "Theory of Evolution" after 160 years of toil, is they have never been able to find any evidence that would make this so-called theory into a law.
All evolution was meant to do, was to provide an alternative to "Creationism". They know there is nothing to their theory, but they feel obligated to render an alternative point-of-view to the Biblical perspective. What you have placed your faith in is an impossibility - it is nothing more than a hope and a dream.
"The reason why it's still called the "Theory of Evolution" after 160 years of toil, is they have never been able to find any evidence that would make this so-called theory into a law. "
Laws are not more "true" than theories and a theory does not become a law when it has amassed a sufficient amount of evidence to support it. They are different concepts.
Laws are concise statements (usually mathematical) that describe how nature works under a specific set of conditions. Theories are a synthesis of multiple related principles, observations, and concepts, generally applying to a much broader range of circumstances.
You might find this informative:
No, really, that is not the case at all.
It is important, when debating this matter, to understand the meanings of the terms, and a 'scientific theory' is not just a vague hypothesis; it is something, which has been shown to fit with all of the available evidence, and which, therefore, to all intents and purposes, has been shown to be true and correct.
I did not want this thread to turn into a debate, however
I have my own mind and my own brain.
I also have 'faith' that gravity will keep me tied to the earth and that the light will come on when I flick a switch.
Genesis 1:20 ... Let the waters bring forth abundantly ...
Another version says that the spirit of God moved across the surface of the waters and then life abounded. Scriptures doesn't say that God created individyally, each of these creatures, which fits quite nicely with the concept of evolution.
Well, I see Adam as the first of our species that had an actual name, I don't see him as the first man. I'm not a christian. I could just as well call the first guy Joe or Pete
Yes, I think that it's perfectly possible to be a 'believer' and to accept evolution.
"Yes, I think that it's perfectly possible to be a 'believer' and to accept evolution." - Trish_M
Indeed you do, but you also believe in evolution, so it's obvious you are open for anything...except truth.
The only "Christian" that is open to evolution are those who do not understand God's Word and understand even less about life. They must also have a fond disregard for the scientific method, such that, they also give this fallacious theory a "free pass", just like the scientific community.
Nonsense. Creationism demonstrates a complete misunderstanding of God's word as well as observable scientific understanding. To believe in creationism is to commit intellectual suicide, and to disregard biology, genetics, astronomy, geology, palaeontology,....ology,......ology,.....ad nausium.
Just where is the credible evidence for a literal 6000 year old Earth?
I think you have demonstrated a complete lack of knowledge regarding God's word.
You say "to believe in creationsim is to commit intellectual suicide" yet you endorse a faith-based philosophy that has offered more frauds than facts.
Truth is, intellectual suicide is believing in something that has ABSOLUTELY no credibility and this is exactly what macro-evolution offers. It is an impossibility, my friend - intellectual fool's gold.
Now, I may not be able to prove God's existence to someone who insists that "seeing is believing", but often times it is this same individual that turns right around and promotes something that they have never seen take place, nor have their mentors unearthed any credible evidence, nor have the authors of this theory made any observations of fact or conducted any tests to validate their theory -and then they have the audacity to claim the intellectual high ground? Now, that's intellectual suicide and flat-out dishonest!
Besides, I would rather commit "intellectual suicide" by your definitions and suffer your judgment than to be committed to eternal damnation by God's.
"Even more compelling evidence for a common ancestor comes from the study of what are known as ancient repetitive elements (AREs). These arise from "jumping genes", which are capable of copying and inserting themselves in various other locations in the genome. Mammalian genomes are littered with such AREs, with roughly 45% of the human genome made up of such flotsam and jetsam..... There are AREs throughout the human and mouse genomes that were truncated when they landed, removing any such possibility of their functioning. In many instances, one can identify a decapitated and utterly defunct ARE in parallel positions in the human and the mouse genome. Unless one is willing to take the position that God has placed these decapitated AREs in the precise positions to confuse and mislead us, the conclusion of a common ancestor for humans and mice is virtually inescapable. This kind of recent genome data thus presents an overwhelming challenge to those who hold to the idea that all species were created ex nihilo."
The Language of God, by Professor Francis Collins, director of the human genome project to map the entire human genome, and a bible believing Christian.
So who do I choose to believe? Christians who have never looked at science since high school and did not understand it then, or a Christian who has spent his entire career in genetics research?
By the way, please provide scriptural evidence that believing in evolution and accepting the bible account of creation as a metaphor, renders one subject to "eternal damnation".
That is insulting ~ not only to me, but to your fellow Christians.
absalutely ! as we humans discover the true nature of our existance, we are in fact discovering how God created the universe and everything in it, including us. Why ,after all would God give us the ability to reason, and create the tools to PROVE our history as a species on this planet ,with the full knowlage that we in fact would do that very thing ! we should not fear the truth, insted be amazed at the incredible, and beutiful design of the reality we exist in! I for one think God smiles when we become closer to him each time we discover somthing new in our universe that PROVES he is! Man was an animal that he created for his perpose, so that when he touched us and gave us a soul, and become aware of self, and of him .
Then , he gave us Christ , to redeam us to him, and understand how to live with one another. and most importantly, how to forgive our weekness in ourselves and each other. Jesus fought the battle and won ! we dont have to hate,or kill, or destroy ! we are truly FREE !! wait for it . . . . .
To commune with him,. . . the creator, of all things in heaven and earth, by UNDERSTANDING the existance we live in.
Man was never an animal. God created man as man and not as an animal unless you are saying that you are adhering to evolution.
There are more holes in evolution than in a billion slices of swiss cheese....
Someone explain flight and how many times the first bird to fly had to jump before his body 'magically' equipped the correct aerodynamic design for lift?
I could make use of so much, but I don't understand how people keep running with dead info. (clutterboard station)
Show me something that has evolved... anything new.. anything documented and witnessed..
And while you're searching, I'll build a list of everything that has died out. Extinction...
"It takes thousands of years for something to evolve!"
Well, sorry to burst your square bubble of a box you're thinking in, but in that case, we're (all life) still degenerating faster than generating. Math anyone? Plus one for "extinction of evolution."
DEVOLVING is what you're looking for, and it's still at work today.
Humans are degenerating faster than any known species on the planet, and they STILL think they are evolving... lol
What a joke.
I think the problem here is defining a species.
We can easily look at an old fossil and see that it is completely different from any known species so we instantly label it as its own species.
Of course, if we had every single fossil for every ancestor going back millions of years, every single one would be the tiniest bit different from the last, probably not even noticeable.
Where do you draw the line and define a new species?
People have been selectively breeding animals for centuries. Anyone would've thought that would be enough evidence that evolution is a fact. The only difference being that selective breeding is simply artificial selection forced by humans and natural selection is simply forced by natural surroundings.
And yes, the more complex a species gets, the less likely it is for it to survive, that is why they go extinct like we see in complicated species every day.
Look at a simple bacteria though, constantly evolving to survive our medication and becoming different every time.
Im not being funny here but to deny the fact that lifeforms evolve is pretty damn retarded.
[This is not a surrender of previously mentioned objective points]
Explain the bird then.
Thats actually quite simple. You have only to look at animals that can glide. For example, tree dwelling squirrels clearly benefit from not plumetting to their death and if the squirrels with the best gliding ability survive while others do not, then they will go on to reproduce and pass on their gene.
The same goes for some lizards. Clearly the better the ability to glide, the higher the survival rate.
Chickens on the other hand, flap their wings when they run. Why? It gives them extra agility and as a result they can escape their prey easier. The more effective the wings, the easier they escape their prey and the survival rate increases.
Flying is very similar to swimming. There are plenty of fish that can stay airbourne for pretty lengthy periods of time. Clearly agility in the water is a benefit to survival when running from prey and if they can escape the water for 20 seconds while being chased, that clearly has advantages in survival.
To be honest it is not really that complicated to explain. In fact, there are more than one reason how evolving wings can be gradually beneficial. Of course you dont need to suddenly be fully airbourne straight away. All the gradual increases in agility are of benefit.
Incidentally, answering this question led me to find the most ridiculous theist question I have ever read. It asked why no species has ever evolved to fly in outer space.
Sometimes I find such idiocy hilarious. Other times, it makes me sad and embarrassed to be of the same species....
Nice attempt, but it isn't satisfactory for me to even come close to buying in.
Flight is a feat not quite so simple, nor is it to be compared to gliding in any fashion other than directed and slowed descension. Which is still an enormously far cry from lift....
When it comes to the essentials, the rate of species growth as compared to those deceasing must be in the positive for it to be a possibility.
As it stands, the rate of extinction is so rapid in comparison to the rate of growth that in a scenario of 'billions of years' life on earth would have cease to exist well before a quarter way through the current estimated lifespan they claim the earth to be on account of the death of life outrunning growth by ENORMOUS proportions.
I've did the work over and over. The details always prove the theory to be exactly what they call it.. a theory..
A hypothetical situation which did not happen as when the numbers given are applied the math shows the equation to be rendered false.
As I said, extinction is no proof against evolution.
Mankind has come close to dying out. Luckily we didn't, but we could have.
True! Dinosaurs evolved for 100's of millions of years and died out because of an asteroid or comet impact 65 million years ago. Evolution is no assurance of permanency.
Yep, all dinos died and everything else lived.. lol
Pleaseeeee elaborate Randy.
No, actually all dinosaurs didn't die out, Vector. Alligators and turtles still live, as do other reptiles. Evolution did not stop at that point either. People are taller now than they were in the past on average. As a farmer I can attest to the fact insects grow immune to insecticides because some of them survive and their offspring are immune also.
I realize it's hard for someone who worships an invisible deity of some sort to be able to disassociate themselves form their beliefs enough to understand evolution. I forgive you for this oft seen affliction though!
What do you think about ancient deities having sex with 13 year old betrothed virgins? Do you consider this being godly, and is it still okay for christians to do this?
Insects become immune!?!?!
Why you've solved the riddle master Randy!!!
Evolution is FACT now!!
Of course insects become immune to pesticides - as humans become immune to antibiotics and pseudo-christians become immune to facts and reason.
You aren't helping yourself recommend.
And you ARE irritating, as I specifically stated my Christianity has nothing to do with the fact that evolution is a hypothetical joke thought up by a man who thought cells were simple... [for lack of equipment no less]
So why the Christianity bash?
No likey my Christ? Agenda yes?
It's cool, I came to tell Randy I know he was throwing punches but I didn't mean to be so harsh, irregardless of what he did.
Same for you, except you seem to be non-objectively posting. [ except the noted agenda ]
And adaptation is well verified, thanks for the attempted lesson, but my point was that, that doesn't validate crap on the large scale evo schematic..
So perhaps you can explain why scientists all over the world are "making up" facts to support the theory of evolution? Please tell us why they would go to such extremes to attempt to fool such intelligent folks as yourself and how they can all cooperate so willingly in such a dastardly scheme.
What is their objective in such a ploy? Simply to prove believers wrong? Do you really think you are that important to them? I'll be looking forward to your explanation for why they would try and sell a fake theory with such extensive research with the result of being exposed as frauds eventually.
By the way, these same such scientists enable you to answer me on your computer because they are brilliant men and women. But then, perhaps you think some god or another invented computers since scientists lie so much about everything?
Your answer should enlighten us all!
Are you saying that things change but no matter how much they change thay will always be the same?
Now THATS a joke.
Btw, you can claim anything you like regarding extinction, but it is indeed a factor regarding sustained and ongoing life on earth. Just because people would like to dismiss it doesn't mean they can do so and be correct in their calculations.
And humanity is not close to dying out until every other animal on the list goes...
Don't forget we are at the TOP of the food chain, not in the middle Trish.
But, Vector 7, science can prove that extinction never occurs, because the magic genie that lives in all creatures is too smart for that and won't let it happen.
My theory is that when pushed to the brink of extinction, they just evolve into something completely different and then show up as a new "discovery".
Hey, this feels kinda good. I never knew that posing lame ideas could be so much fun.
Vector7 - you give it a try...try to say something really lame and impossbile, and I'll back it up. What a rush! :0)
Alright, alright C.J.
Take it easy on'em buddy.
Bad thing is I've had your second sentence held as argument against me if I'm not mistaken. An 'enhanced' survival of the fittest 'survival reaction' I think they said, or something very similar. lol [poor guy was dead serious]
Well I suggest that when the meteor hit that the large dinos died because the only things that could survive we're the organisms that could fit into small spaces where the dust wasn't airborne and wouldn't sufficate them, so therefore, the dinosaurs [large reptiles] died out as a result.
I am a pilot and gliding is exactly the same as flight. It is obvious at this point that you are simply making things up as you go. Unfortunately those with an education on the topics you are creating lies about are fully aware of your nonsense. The only difference between a glider and a single engine plane is that one has an engine and propellors and the other does not. Everything else, is exactly the same.
I would say nice attempt, but really, it isnt.
Unfortunately for you, that again is untrue. New species of bacteria and new diseases are appearing daily. And that is only the ones we encounter that affect us. You cannot win an argument simply by lying. Please give me a little bit of credit. And in any case, your claim is also false. The rate of species going extinct is completely irrelevant. A meteor could strike tomorrow, it would have no effect on the fact the life evolves.
The only false things I have seen are your assertions in this post. The theory of evolution attempts to explain the fact of evoution. Evolution isnt a theory, it is a fact and the theory of evolution tries to explain that fact.
Im surprised you dont know that since you are arguing against it. I personaly make sure I know what I am arguing about before I open my mouth. Clearly based on your posts, you dont do that at all.
Vector- proponents of evolution can't really explain their own unfounded theories. Then they call themselves smart by siting sooooo many unscientific arguments...
This is why trying to explain evolution to those incapable of thinking for themselves is an exercise in futility. Evolution is a fact of life as anyone with any degree of education plainly understands. Your example of the chicken flapping his wings is a perfect example of how birds obtained flight.
Those with the best and strongest wings lived on to pass their genes on to their offspring, eventually leading to the ability of full flight for their ancestors. A very easy concept to grasp if one isn't totally closed minded, such as members of religious cults often are taught to be.
I agree that evolution seems obvious to some of us and incomprehensible to others, which is why I started this thread simply to find out if any Christian HP members accepted evolution.
Arguing about the subject just seems to be fruiltless.
the obvious is, evolution is dubious. evolution wants seems to propose continues progress of things but the 2nd law of thermodynamics which is a real science says otherwise. They might have alter definitions of the entropy but the degradation of things are just true off all things on earth. think about it.
Evolution is a real science.
It's not dubious.
What degradation? Are you talking about old age and illmess?
That is not what evolution is about.
I wasn't going to enter this forum because Trish asked if any Christian believes in evolution, which I don't; therefore, I'm excluded.
Nevertheless, I want to validate what you said. Entropy is associated with partition mathematics and probability. The chances of DNA alone--not to mention everything else including systems--forming via random processes is 1 in
10^(50,000,000,000), and this is given the existence of forces, atoms and subatomic structures in the first place. You are right on key, Jess, the laws of thermodynamics are real science and no one using real science and mathematics can vanquish numbers like 1 in 10^(50,000,000,000), which, incidentally, are built on real science and mathematics.
I note that you mention the Scriptures in your profile, so am I correct in thinking that you are a 'believer', if not a Christian one?
Now, on to your argument about mathematics and probability....
I am not a scientist or a mathematician, but my husband is, and he accepts evolution ~ as do most scientists and mathematicians, so I am wondering why you think that science and maths disprove evolution?
I have not much time left tonight but I'll squeeze out a quick answer.
I think my comment to Jess answers your question. The laws of thermodynamics, entropy and probability prove that Darwinian Evolution is impossible. Evolutionary theory is founded upon random processes, rather than God, is responsible for the design throughout God's unfathomably complex creation. Let me ask you this: How is that possible? Through what mechanism is this achieved? What is the origin of the information that the electromagnetic force( emf) accesses in order to build complex proteins along with everything else? How does the emf know what to do with this information? If it is not the emf then what does build complex molecules in chemistry? I would be very interested in your husband giving the mathematical confirmation that would substantiate evolution.
What a question! Now one for you. If your god already knows the outcome of this earthly scenario, then what's the point? And if he created Satan first as a perfect creature as it states in your novel, then how did sin penetrate your god's perfection. Was your god's perfection flawed? Think hard now!
I've had a chat with my husband. He is not an evolutionary scientist, so he, personally, doesn't have proof of evolution, of course (but the evolutionary scientists do).
Anyway, he has looked at your comments and questions, and, regarding probability, he acknowledges that the chances of DNA coming together may well have been highly improbable, but that doesn't mean that it was impossible. That's what probability is all about. Things may only be able to happen very very rarely ~ but they can still happen.
As for the energy to make it all possible, this would have come from the 'big bang'.
(Regarding electro magnestism, he said that this is not concerned with the second law of thermodynamics.)
I have asked 5 questions and not a single one has been answered; nevertheless, I will address each of the 3 concepts you introduced.
1 chance in 10^(50,000,000,000)! You, your husband, and any other evolutionist going to bet their eternal soul on that gamble? Let us take Fine California beach sand and you can get 3 million grains in a sphere about the size of the tip of your thumb. That is small sand. You have 1 chance in 3 million of picking a specific grain. Would you bet 10 bucks let alone your eternal soul that you can randomly pick that specific grain? Now lets take that same sand and fill the universe. Now we have 10^91 grains. We are not up to the 50 billion exponent; therefore, lets take all the 10^91 grains and pack them into a single grain of fine sand. Now this tiny grain of sand has an entire universe of sand within it. Now do this with another 10^91 grains and fill the universe again with sand. Now we have 10^182 grains. Make the universe a billion time bigger and you have only 10^191 grains.
We are talking about the probability of one DNA molecule forming by random processes, not trillions upon trillions upon trillions of others, and we are not even up to systems of complexity. Nor have we discussed unfavorable mutations and random processes( rp) destroying and organized structure that may get started. You are right we are talking probability, and clearly the mathematics of probability( statistical mechanics) proves that evolution is impossible.
The emf( electromagnetic force) is not concerned with the 2nd law of thermodynamics? Let me ask you this: What is thermodynamics the study of. What does the word, thermo mean and what is its derivation? And here is the primary question: If we take the emf out of the equation then how is heat possible. If heat is not the manifestation of the emf then what is it the manifestation of? We are not capable of formulating equations to describe the complex motions of atoms and molecules; therefore, statistical mechanics addresses the macro aspect of atomic and molecular motion, but if those motions are not a manifestaion of the emf, then what are they a manifestation of.
It is late, and I'm going to bed. Work on those questions Trish.
Good luck finding an erudite evolutionist who can debunk the above argumentation with the same mathematics that I used to establish it.
Count me in sweetie.
Lets see - is a god possible? For the sake of argument (no - one is not logically possible) lets say - "yes, a god is possible."
Once we have made this rather large leap of faith - what are the chances of your god being the correct one?
There are obviously an infinite number of possible gods.
So - the chances of your god being the correct one are infinity:1.
Still like them odds? 1 chance in 10^(50,000,000,000) is looking pretty good now huh?
Feel free to work on this question. Which is more likely?
1 chance in 10^(50,000,000,000) or 1 chance in ∞ ?
I know which one I am going for. I cannot afford to take the chance on your god. The odds are too high.
I am not a scientist, so I so not follow your jargon, but my husband assured me that his response answered all of your questions.
Since 'Darwinian Evolution' occurs 'unnaturally' ~ ie selection by breeders, etc ~ then it obviously does occur, thus making any supposed evidence against it null and void ~ including your interpretation of 'laws of thermodynamics, entropy and probability'. It happens, so it cannot be untrue.
Evolutionary theory is not random. It is a straightforward, logical process.
As I said, we know that breeders use 'selection', so it is not hard to understand. I cannot see, therefore, why natural selection is so hard for you to accept.
Mathematically, is it really more likely that a ready-formed clay man came to life than that humans evolved from simpler organisms? What is the probability of clay models coming to life, please?
The 'mechanism' for evolution? ~ As I said, 'natural selection', for one thing.
Organisms thrive in environments to which they are suited, and they die off in places where they do not fit so well. Whatever trait helps them to survive can, therefore, pass on to the next generation.
Other things are involved, but that's the simple explanation.
I do not see how this does not fit with your knowledge of science and maths.
If this does not answer your question, then 'through what mechanism' is what achieved?
Are you asking about the information contained in our DNA?
Are we looking at evolution or abiogenesis now?
I don't deny that ultimate origins are intriguing (and I don't have the jargon) but, after the big bang, all sorts of chemical reactions were taking place, producing all sorts of elements and other matter.
Apparently, according to a video, based on the work of Harvard Professor Jack Szostak, there were plenty of organic molecules and 'hundreds of types of different nucleotide' on our early earth. One sentence in the explanation reads; 'When a vesicle encounters free fatty acids in solution, it will incorporate them. Eating and growth are driven purely by thermodynamics'. [The Origin of Life - Abiogenesis - Dr. Jack Szostak] Clearly Szostak doesn't seem to see a problem with evolution or abiogenesis and thermodynamics. I recommend the Szostak video. You can find it on YouTube.
According to Wikipedia, eminent Harvard scientist, Eric J. Chaisson is researching 'an interdisciplinary, thermodynamic study of physical, biological, and cultural phenomena, seeking to understand the origin and evolution of galaxies, stars, planets, life, and society, thus devising a unifying cosmic-evolutionary worldview of the Universe and our sense of place within it writ large'.
So he does not seem to think that thermodynamic or electromagnetism negate evolution.
In his book, 'Epic of Evolution: Seven Ages of the Cosmos', he writes: 'Some time between the first few millennia and a million years after the bang ... the charged elementary particles of matter began clustering into atoms.. Their own electro-magnetic forces pulled them together' and 'Because the electro-magnetic force binds the atoms within all life forms, some biologists call it the 'life force' ...'
Scientists with more more specialist knowledge than I have accept evolution, but I think that they admit that they do not yet know about life's ultimate origins.
These are two different subjects and should not be confused.
Some people believe that God created life and that life then evolved. I suppose that this might be considered possible, since no-one really knows. Evolutionary theory is not, necessarily, anti-God. Plenty of Christians accept it. I am agnostic, not atheist.
But, even if some ultimate life-force does exist, that does not mean that 'he' has to be as described in the Bible ~ or that creation has to be as described in the Bible.
Sorry, I don't understand your question.
I didn't think that forces 'knew' anything; I thought that they just acted ~ but, then, I'm not a scientist.
My (limited) understanding is that complex molecules evolve from simpler molecules.
The idea of evolution is that more complex organisms evolved from very simple cells ~ particles joining up as the 'electro-magnetic forces pulled them together'.
I don't see a problem with this.
I have already passed on his message, that mathematical probability does not disprove evolution.
Just because an event is improbable does not make it impossible. Indeed, it makes it possible ~ though rare. So far, it seems that life in our universe is, indeed, rare.
You talk about thermodynamocs and then go on to electro magnetism.
You are arguing against evolution, but seem, actually, to be talking about abiogenesis.
You say that it is highly unlikely that DNA could occur without God, yet think ~ presumably ~ that it is perfectly likely for a clay man to come to life.
Here are some extracts from an article that might interest you: 'Thermodynamics, Evolution, and Behavior'
'Ronald Fisher .. one of the founders of neo-Darwinism, wrote about the apparent incommensurability ... between evolution and thermodynamics, "entropy changes lead to a progressive disorganization of the physical world...while evolutionary changes [produce] progressively higher organization...".
'... Fisher wondered .. about the unification of the two opposite directions, apparently taken by evolution and thermodynamics, under a deeper more general principle.
... now .... we can perform such a unification. ....
'.. the evolutionary record .. shows that life arose on Earth and persisted ... as soon as it had the chance. ... Order typically arises as soon as it gets the chance ... The urgency towards existence expressed in the fecundity principle is seen in the evolutionary record writ large, opposite on both counts with respect to the second law of thermodynamics as a law of disorder.'
By the way, Caleb, since you reject the arguments of respected scientists, I am wondering what your own qualifications are?
Trish, I have enough time to squeeze out a really rushed answer. I have not the time to even read all the posts in these forums let alone answer them properly. I'll try to put my response in the order that you have above.
1. Most of what you said, we need to agree to disagree because we are at an impasse. I do not agree with macroevolution; therefore, I do not agree with you that it is happening.
2. I do not agree it is a logical process; violating entropy via randomness is not logical.
3. Again we must agree to disagree. I believe God is the Creator, and not just any god but the God of the Bible in which Jesus Christ is inextricably linked.
4. The mechanism for natural selection must be executed at the subatomic realm for it to work. This would be via the emf.
5. Yes, the origin of information that is stored within the geometric structure of DNA.
6. The emf builds complex structures; God designed it to do so, and it uses information that God stored within the structure of space( my opinion) for this to all occur.
7. We can go from chicken coops( simple structures) to skyscrapers(more complex) but specific design must be executed for this to occur. Yes simple molecules exist as do more complex but both design and the execution of that design must occur to violate entropy. God, through Jesus Christ, is responsible for the design and its execution( either directly or indirectly) throughout the entire spectrum.
8. Yes, I'm talking about abiogenesis, but even after simple life exists I still stand by my argument that God's design is responsible for the progressively more complex organic structures and systems.
I apologize for such a incomplete and rushed response but time constraints make it mandatory. Also any mispellings--sorry. I have not thoroughly read your response above, but I will. Nor have I checked out the links but I will. I do list argumentation against creationism and intend to address them in hubs. Even people who I do not have time to respond to, if they listed some valid argumentation it goes on the my list of things to address.
Please explain how you derived those numbers? Did you base them on a dynamic system or stochastic process? By taking into account "forces, atoms and subatomic structures" did you also take into account the metric entropy of that system? What were your known values? Please show your work.
Figured the number of permutations of the nucleotides; therefore 6.9 billion factorial. Did not include the premutaions of the nucleotides themselves, or three dimensional permutation. Think of it as our binary numbers where the locations of the ones and zeros are important.
And the probability of clay models coming to life, please?
Trish, I just answered that in a lengthy response that should be posted by now.
I didn't see an answer, but I'd really like to know what it is.
I believe he indicated the answer was NNNNNNNN+EVER+MMMMIND!
Trish, I did give you an answer. I believe God, through Jesus Christ, is the Creator, not random processes. God can give clay life, or rocks life. As far as my qualifications, I have none that would be useful in this forum.
Crikey - you keep ignoring my mathematical proof that your god is less likely than evolution. Why is that? I thought you would be interested in mathematical proofs.
Well, you tried blinding us with science ~ and maths.
You gave us probabilities, which I have seen quoted elsewhere, where it said that this 'probability' number had been made up.
You argued against evolution, when really you were talking about abiogenesis.
You used 'thermodynamics' and 'electro-magnetism' as (apparently interchangeable) arguments against evolution ~ or was it abiogenesis ~ though eminent scientists seem to have no similar problems with the concepts.
You demanded a mathematical explanation from my husband, re probability, which he gave ~ but which you rejected.
You indicate that he and all the other scientists and mathematicians are wrong, though they are highly educated, highly qualified, highly respected and highly experienced.
But, when I ask for a mathematical explanation for your belief ~ ie the probability of a clay man coming to life ~ you simply say that you believe God did it.
I have no problem with you believing this. That is your choice.
No-one has proof of where life came from, so maybe there is some life-giving force in the universe that might be termed God ~ I don't know.
But, if your scientific beliefs are faith-based, then just say so. To condemn scientists and then demand and reject mathematical evidence, while using mathematical jargon, is unfair.
You simply cannot use probability as evidence against evolutuion, when your own evidence is 'I believe the Bible'.
Ah yes, the truth finally reveals itself. It has nothing to do with probabilities or entropy or any made up mathematics on your part, it is all about what you've been indoctrinated to believe.
That looks like nonsense to me and doesn't appear to have anything to do with your claim of chances or entropy.
Pick up a text on basic probability and how permutations are involve will be made clear to you.
I understand probabilities, that's why I asked you those questions in the first place and for you to show your work because it appeared quite clearly you just made it all up.
IN N! = N X IN N - N, and then exponentiate to get the value. N is the 6.9B nucleotides. As I said to Trish, I have time constraints; therefore, I will not be able to answer any more questions today. Frankly, TM, if you understand all of this then why do I have to explain what many believe is elementary mathematics, which is all I ever use.
Hey there Kaleb. Think u dun got time ter respond ter my elementary probabilities?
I believe that Christianity is the correct Faith to follow because of all the prophets representing other religions only Christ could heal the sick, raise the dead, and walk on water.
Mark, I do not know the origin of God. The Bible says He exists in the eternal past and future. You do not believe in God; believe it or not, I have picked up on that. I accept God by faith because the evidence confirms His existence. You have faith in random processes, right? This is how you explain the complexity throughout creation, right? Can you distinguish much difference between your faith and mine, except their focus is the antithesis of one another?
Actually, you do not have to answer me those questions; however, there is a question I would like an answer to: What does "LAWL" mean?
That's not even remotely true. Wow, dude, have you ever read any books ever?
All the gods in the Greek/Roman pantheon could heal the sick. Literally all of them, even Hephaestus even though he was a cripple and couldn't even heal himself.
Almost every single deity of the northern Native Americans, even including some of the lesser animal spirits could heal. (Notice I picked only the northern Native Americans... makes this next one really fun).
The Incas, Mayans and Aztecs all had gods who could heal. (Wow how your premise is taking a crap right now... and I'm not even warmed up yet).
The Norse gods were radiant healers. They tended not to because death in battle was far more glorious than life on Earth, but, when they chose to, they could all heal, even Loki, and he was kind of a d!ck.
The Egyptian gods saw giving and taking of life as the same thing. They didn't even bother to specialize.
Scientologists believe in alien spirits (not actually all that different than Mormons if you take a far enough intellectual distance) that can also heal, even if they don't.
Every animist religion on the African continent has a healing element. Literally every one. There truly is no human culture that doesn't have a deity of healing.
Several of the Hindu gods can heal... I've only read so much on that one, I confess, but you can get to the heavenly gardens and get healed, you can pay off the right spirits, or... well, hell, you get to come back, so, who cares if you die (so long as you weren't too poor, etc.)
I grant that Buddhism is mostly about negating everything so, healing is sort of like regressing, but, well, they actually have that all worked out if you can untwist yourself from the spasms of your tiny vision of human possibility long enough to consider the point of this amazing set of ideas.
Notice I didn't even bring in the three main Abrahamic religions here?
Now really - why bring mathematical probabilities into this discussion if you are then going to ignore the mathematical proof I offer you?
I mean - you were the one bought up probabilities in the first place. I offer you mathematical proof that your god is far to risky a gamble and you ignore me and instead tell me it is majik after all. Why?
It just makes you look dishonest.
No, you are making stuff up, but I understand you have time constraints and must run.
Just for my own curiosity, what do the letters DRC represent? I tried to find out by looking at your profile but somehow missed it.
Randy, they are the initials of a little girl who died way too soon--still in her infancy. It is remarkable how someone can be a part of your life for such a short time, and yet have such a profound and permanent effect on your emotions.
I for one accept, no,. . .I am convinced ! Evolution is the hand of God at work in his grand design of the universe. And Christ is his love for us manifest in the flesh to redeem us to him. I believe God would not create a false path for us to follow, rather he would provide all things in heaven and earth, to help us learn of his glorious creation!
Perhaps to simply know that he exists. speaking to a man with ample grey matter ,I would say to you, I have to make peace with myself on the matter.
when we question our existence and the manner of reasoning , we can only answer ourselves.
It’s the way I get along, and over innit
yer a diffnt sort, guessin yer ok wid me .I promise not to typo, or miss spell any more, cuz u r ridden that horse purddy far
A Christian who is happy to accept evolution.
That is what I was seeking!
Thats fantastic. Now all you have to do is demonstrate that this god exists and then we can attribute evolution to him.
You and me, for example. The evidence exists.
Dogs. Cats. Bears. Whales.
I could go on and on.
I have wriitten hubs on the subject, if you are interested.
Extinction does not negate evolution. Indeed, it's part of it.
Survival of the fittest refers to the life-forms that are best fitted to their environments. They survive.
Those that are not at all fitted to their environments do not survive ~ ie. they become extinct.
I take it that you are one of the Christians who does not accept evolutionary theory?
Oh dear Trish.. That was so cute.. lol
No.. I believe the Bible 100 percent.
I'll never lay claim to genesis being that far from reality.
There may be things we can't understand, but I've run scenarios throughout my life over and over for both views.
And evolution to me wouldn't have a chance even if I didn't believe the Bible, personally.
I've run the numbers and it falls on it's face. I understand why people believe it, and see their reasoning... but it's not accurate.
I've even been close to accepting it long ago during my work and study - but after all my work... that mess is for the birds and I plan on leading people away from such illogical babble.. lol
I'm not biased, until I've walked down both roads.. And that one is a dead end.
I don't hate people for thinking it, I just wish I could give them my brain for ten seconds. Then they'd be set to prove all it's mess false too.. lol
[ Sry for babble and mess.. just what I call anything I see as false. ]
"Attack the false idea, not the person who holds that idea."
-Martin Luther King Jr.
No, there really are not
Even in cases, where full explanations have not yet been given, this only shows that scientists are working on a problem, not that evolution didn't occur.
If you're trying to convey something to me, just for future note..
Replying from the feed puts your response, well, not under what you're directly responding to. And this is just for if you're in fact speaking to me.
And if so, what do I mean? About what Trish?
There is no need to be continually patronising and condescending. I think that most of the people in this thread, who disagree with you, have their own brains ~ and are more than capable of using them.
Furthermore, I know exactly how quoting works ~ and I quoted the sentence to which I was referring.
I'll repeat it:
".... Humans are degenerating faster than any known species on the planet, and they STILL think they are evolving......"
And I'll repeat my question:
What, exactly, do you mean by this?
What is your definition of 'degenerating'?
Why do you think that humans are degenerating?
Why do you say that they are degenerating faster than other species?
Humans evolve to adapt to their environmments. Yes, it is still happening.
Ironically I outwardly admit being sarcastic very often, but in that post I was being sincere and genuine.
And to consider that I'm so stupid as to not see what 'should' be there is pretty condescending.
Your quote isn't showing up on this device, I don't know why but I often notice quotes go not shown to me if done by formatting procedure. I can't say I've seen a formal format protcol quote on any pc or device I've used, besides when clicking the "post reply" button at the very bottom of the thread.
Eyes that need extra man-made external lenses are not evolving traits, they are devolving/degeneration of a well functioning organ or solid, liquid, and gas device.
How many drugs for health are needed nowadays? How many surgeries take place to fix deformations and abnormal growths? [non enhancing]
We see plenty of downward momentum [toward death], but no upward momentum [toward life].
And medical advancement is not evolution, it's innovation.
And innovation is where my personally held proof of intelligent design is held.
Things like viruses become immune to drugs is just like children who have allergies to peanuts.
If you give them enough peanut butter to barely irritate the childs immune system, and continue to increase the dose gradually, the body starts adapting to the toxins and begins taking larger and larger actions to prevent a harmful reaction.. i.e. swelling, etc..
This isn't some evolutionary proof. It is what people do within an organization when things change, but they do it with their intellect.
I could make a list so long for ailments and deformations that have never resulted in a single transformation that I don't even care to joke about it.
If one stops supporting evolution, and speculates the theories that are suggested, and applies them to the real world rather than just to fossils, then the entire idea breaks down into useless what-ifs that don't hold any weight at all.
Let me know if you would like for me to elaborate on something or want a clarification about anything.
I believe each of us has a right to our opinion and I respect yours. That being said, here is a link to an interesting page about evolution, check it out if you would like. http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1 … e-lab.html
lol, sry for laughing dmop.
It's nice but.. well, I see adaptation.. and that's something that's not new to me.
Ever heard of a vaccine?
I mean in billions and BILLIONS of species no limbs? No brand new organs in a species? I mean can we get out of single cell land if this stuff is true?
If evolution happened, then where are all the new mutations giving way to new possibilities? I mean, these mutations weren't ALL successful so there has to be tons of them before one takes in a complex organism right?
WHERE ARE THE MUTATIONS? lol
I see nothing even coming close to promising.
I debated about this a year ago, and they told me they were on the brink of breaking out undeniable evidence. What happened? Was he a liar or?
I thank you for respecting my opinion, but I can't say I'll give 'evolution' any credit anymore, whereas at one time I considered it possible for part of it to be true.. Now I've sifted through all of it, and for me it's NO GO..
It was an interesting article, but like the glide vs lift explanation I had to share, things just aint addin' up.
There should be more proof. They currently study animals 24/7/365 and nothing? Even after what? 100 years?
And I can always jump right back to irreducible complexity, which everyone seems to ignore or something? I don't see how they overlook what that subject does to the idea as a whole.
I know I'm being blunt, but hey.. I can't not be and sleep tonight.
Did you know that there are people, who live at high altitude in the Himalayas, who have evolved to those conditions, which would make other people seriously ill? Tests have been done on them, which prove this to be the case. Obviously, the physical differences are not obvious to see, but they are important and life-saving.
Vector: "Eyes that need extra man-made external lenses are not evolving traits, they are devolving/degeneration of a well functioning organ or solid, liquid, and gas device.
"How many drugs for health are needed nowadays? How many surgeries take place to fix deformations and abnormal growths? [non enhancing]
"We see plenty of downward momentum [toward death], but no upward momentum"
'Evolution' does not claim to prevent death, or disease, or getting old
"Someone explain flight and how many times the first bird to fly had to jump before his body 'magically' equipped the correct aerodynamic design for lift?
I could make use of so much, but I don't understand how people keep running with dead info. (clutterboard station)
Show me something that has evolved... anything new.. anything documented and witnessed..
And while you're searching, I'll build a list of everything that has died out. Extinction..." - Vector7
Hey, I thought clarity of thought and sound rationale wasn't allowed at this party? :0)
"Show me something that has evolved... anything new.. anything documented and witnessed"
Variants of flu virus for a start. Homo Sapiens and chimps from a common ancestor.
"Show me something that has evolved... anything new.. anything documented and witnessed"
"Variants of flu virus for a start. Homo Sapiens and chimps from a common ancestor." - Disappearinghead
"Variants of flu virus for start"...........Oh, come on!
Please don't tell me that is all you have come up with in 160 years?!
Please tell me that you have not prostituted your faith and integrity on variations within a flu bug?
Virtually everything in existence can adapt to different environmental challenges, but this is a far cry from evolution, in fact, it isn't even the same thing.
I refer you to my post on Ancient Repetetive Elements in the human and mouse genomes further up in this thread.
Thus far in all your posts you have offered nothing to support a literal creation and 6000 year old Earth.
I don't see why they keep throwing adaptation out like it's evidence..
We are talking about solid, liquid, and gas machines that can reproduce themsleves.. LOL
And adaptation isn't expected?
To LEARN is to adapt. Is that what grows new limbs?
I mean I don't understand the correlation here..
And mutation isn't even symetrical.. Ever witnessed birth deformations?
You grow an extra finger on one hand.. not on both [ even if you did, there is still the larger quantity of those who didn't ]. Species don't 'die out' because of simple mutations, so if evo theory was right we'd be seeing TONS of mutilated parts on all kinds of species.
It's just so filled with errors when you put it into action and run the scenarios..
What have you read and studied, to make you so so anti-evolution?
"What have you read and studied, to make you so so anti-evolution?" - Trish_M
Well, I would have to say - just about everything.
There is no credible scientific evidence that supports evolutionary theory. None, nada, zip, ziltch, zero!
It's nothing more than a myth that is repeated time and again and reinforced by those who control the media and most educational institutions. It is a faith-based sytem institutionalized and governed by mob rule. Science has nothing to do with it.
You've studied evolution have you? I'm guessing that all you've done is listen to some know nothing pastor.
Tell me how many science degrees do you hold? How any papers have you published in scientific journals? To what educational level have you studied a science subject?
Nothing? If so you are in no place to call evolution a myth.
Well I didn't know that was required for educational study and research.
And science states itself it's a theory. Don't lose yourself in an unproven concept.
My point is our friend sledge has never done any study into evolution otherwise he wouldn't be so ignorant.
Critics are fond of pointing out that "evolution is only a theory" which betrays a lack of understanding of the word 'theory". A theory describes fundamental principles underlying a science, art, music, maths, e.g, a theory of equations. Would anyone suggest that Pythagorus' theorem is "only a theory"? Of course not, but in this sense a theory is a demonstrable principle, as is evolution. The term theory does not denote uncertainty, for that purpose we use the term "hypothesis".
But hey, perhaps thousands of brilliant minds over the last 50 years are all wrong, and we should just accept the creation account literally. After all, Jesus' parables make perfect sense when taken literally don't they. And what about Revelation with literal talking Eagles, Jesus walking about with a medieval broadsword hanging out of his mouth, and 10 headed dragons basking in the sunshine on the beach eating an ice-cream.
Hello. Jews for whom Genesis was written understand it as metaphor, why does a small section of fundamentalist Christianity choose to ignore facts?
Tell me Vector, who are the most credible? Those who spend their careers objectively researching genetics, biology, geology, etc, etc, or some pastor who knows nothing other than the doctrines taught him in bible school?
Who is more credible?
Man or God?
I'll stick to God's Word.
Jesus wasn't talking metaphorically when He said Moses wrote of Him..
Tell me Vector, why the antagonism towards evolution? Do you find it threatening to your faith? There is no conflict between the two. You may ask the atheist if he has ever honestly objectively looked into the existence of God, but have you done the same with evolution?
There are plenty of books available by Christians who have spent their careers in astronomy, biology, genetics, palaeontology, etc etc, and have seen for themselves the evidence for evolution. Why not go and buy one.
As I told Brenda up the top of this thread, the first two chapters of Genesis describe the events in a different sequence, thus they cannot both be literally correct. So which one have you chosen to believe?
It's not my faith that creates the problem.
It's the fact that people are looking so close to the tree they can't see the forest. Literally.
All the fine details are worthless if the concept as a whole doesn't function within the parameters of life.
Can you explain why there are no mutations on everything that hasn't evolved if evolution is as they say "by chance"?
I don't see any chances being pursued by any animal or human being currently.
All the deformations are so grossly close to the grave it would be silly to claim they add to the argument.
And not a single example of one evolving limb? Or major function?
Really? With billions of species alive, the claim is that none of them are going through the process they say shaped the earth?
I have a problem with things that are claimed as facts which I know to be false. Respectively. [and respectfully]
lol, he means it's micro scale adaptations, not macro scale evolution..
So what's the beef with macro evolution? Where are you drawing the line between micro and macro? We share some 99% of our DNA with chimps, so for a common ancestor is that macro or micro?
And every animal alive shares leg and shoulder traits.
Similar design doesn't mean one species created the other.
This is a circle argument.
I'm going to go check some other threads and hubs.
" We share some 99% of our DNA with chimps, so for a common ancestor is that macro or micro?" - Disappearinghead
Well, my friend, a watermelon is 99% water and yet it is not even close to being a cloud, which is 100% water vapor. This just goes to show that "close" only counts in horse-shoes and assumptions can make seemingly intelligent people look rather foolish.
It's the same thing ~ just think a bit more long-term
Good to see you friend. In the war rooms at that, careful for bouncing betties.
They told me gliding led to flight. lol
I'm not convinced... nor impressed.
And I think their rule is less thought, more pushing power.
They can push all they want, Vector7, but the truth never yields.
[sry guys, no harm meant.. just shooting blanks for fun.] lol
Gliding frogs, gliding snakes, gliding squirrels , they all exist right now . . . on this planet! look it up, google it . Behold the God created universe so man could evolve and discover flying squirells theory.
I like your passion and I LOVE that you believe in God.
But I'm not going to argue with you bro.
Just a kind word. PLEASE look carefully at the devolving rather than evolving and consider for yourself if you really think it's possible.
I've been down the long road, and if you start looking at things without following their little 'proofs' the concept as a whole is a utter hopeless disaster.
Sometimes I wonder why I even try. But if I didn't know something factually, I wouldn't have ever considered opening my mouth.
I understand why, and what, you believe. Just jump sides for a little while and test their theory as if it wasn't true.
You might be surprized..
Well, no need to disqualify, it is possible that I do know what I am qualified to speak about .
And as for the “long road” you speak of, I too have left many footprints on the path that seeks wisdom ,and knowledge. And for the 50,and some odd years ,ahemm. . .that I have traveled this path , twenty were as an atheist ,fifteen more. . . as a borne again God fearing Christian. And for the rest, I have studied many things to justify either one, and end the battle of, heart and soul, vs mind and self.
For which the preponderance of evidence is to lay bare the the truth of our existence, . . . . . No man can know. But we can surly settle to a comfortable, and self justifying acceptance of what we can live with. So I go in this manner to the dust that I surly was wrought. Happy with MY conclusions, and quite entertained with your published struggle to accept yours as your many question s would suggest.
Well, well.. It's seems I found one of those buttons I didn't intentionally intend to push.
I'm sorry to tell you, but you are clinging to what man says.
Even though evolution falls on it's face without my Bible, with it it never had a chance. And when Christ says the very scriptures I read are Holy and true, well then... they are verified by my King and God in their entirety.
I try not to be pushy, and I figured people would pop their ego everywhere, but I believe God.. Not man and his silly little dating tools.
I know my view is fact and wish I had time to write all the hubs for it. Maybe one day.
But that leaves your view [or man's should I say] as they say, a fish without water. Dead.
Be entertained all you like friend. I know the factual truth, while you think you know something. I don't care how many people jump on my Bible.
Jesus Christ said that Genesis is a Holy account. The very Word of God given to us to tell us the truth about our history and who He is.
He said Moses wrote of Him, which means if Moses wrote of Jesus and every word was right, then so is everything else he wrote from God in Genesis.
Jesus, the person you claim to follow, denies your theory because He verifies the scriptures are from Him...
But enjoy. Be entertained. And I don't mind a bit if you don't want to budge. That's all between you and God my friend.
Read the Bible.
That.. is my proof.
Christ didn't come to save all the monkeys and every other animal on the planet.
He came to save mankind, because the Bible says "mankind" sinned.
What? God waited billions of years before He walked with the smarter monkeys in the garden?
Putting evolution into my Bible is silly and will never work, no matter who wants it to.
If you claim Christ, then you might as well forget evolution because my Lord did not come put himself in evolved monkey shoes.
He came as a man, and I'm getting a little disgusted with people shaming my God's Holy Word and my Saviour tainting it with silly ideas that ego-bloated men thought up and spreading lies because of it.
God never lies.
Man always lies.
Evolution is man's idea.
The Bible is God's Holy and TRUE Word.
He wasn't giving you figurative poetry, He IS giving you an account.
AND even IF GOD DID write a book of nothing but poetry and only poetry it would STILL be the TRUTH and nothing man thinks He has figured out is right.
God knows what happened and DID NOT write a book to play tricks on people..
He wrote it TO TELL YOU WHAT HAPPENED.
If you refuse His words for those silly men's, I've already told you, that is between you and God.
Fixer - I mean no disrespect, but I know plenty of middle-aged fools and a few young people who can think them under the table. Age has little to do with wisdom and folly, rather, it's the condition of one's character and the soundness of rationale that is employed.
You asked Vector7 to prove what? You already alluded to the fact that you are much older and wiser than he is, so where is your proof? For a man who has seen it all and has attained the ripe old age of 50 (ahemm)...let's hear what you've got. Astound me.
You know as well as I ,no intent of age/wisdom relative implication, just that I haven’t lived in narrow box all of my life. I have sought diligently to satisfy my rational for the things I stand behind. To entertain your request that I Astound you with all my wisdom, I am quite sure not even one argument would lead to anything more than a mutual disdain towards someone with whom I know very little about. Save for the constant call for V7’s detractors to prove to him something that no living mortal has the ability to accomplish, given his zeal for God, and approach to this subject matter. Good for him. As too “fools” and their folly, it is you who “implies” . And about Me,. You can read what I have to say on the subject on this forum. My Question to V7 stands, it is his to answer, I doubt he needs anyone to defend his position. So, have a nice day.
I gladly accept anything C.J. intends to speak on my behalf.
See, the thing is, there is nothing.. and I mean nothing, that we disagree on because in the end we serve Christ Jesus, and believe every Word of the Holy Bible to the T with no differences.
And yes I'm sure of it... because I know C.J. intends to bring God glory.
So if he chooses to speak on my behalf, please know that it may as well be coming out of my very own mouth, and I'll back it up when I get there.
Btw, the request for proof is something you've demanded twice, and I've stated my proof.
Just because you don't accept the Bible as God's Holy Word, does not change that it is.
It is just as if God were to be speaking to you out loud with a thundering voice and kind yet commanding tone....
And there is NO room for addition, nor for subraction.
You take it all, or you don't, just as it is.
You may choose to pick this and that or add your theory, but the end of Revelation in the Bible itself says don't add or take from the story it holds.
I am not the judge, I am just a man who can see God in His Holy Word, and I don't want people to be led astray.
People are my brothers and sisters from Adam, and I love them all.
But sometimes you have to be blunt to show people how loyal and devoted and sincere and SURE you are of what your mind's eye can see..
I don't care if people hate me, because I know Christ Jesus loves me.
And He is the ONLY thing that matters.
That.. is what the Bible is all about.
Then I could accuse you of the same thing for not accepting Harry Potter as God's Holy Word.
Just like The Son of Sam heard a loud commanding voice from his...dog.
I think you meant Lucy...because there is no evidence of Adam & Eve. Brother.
You should collect all your posted images and start a coloring book for adults that share all your favorites..
And you seem distracted.
"You take it all, or you don't, just as it is."
You deny it all don't you?
Hmm, seems your post is a little useless then.
@ts progressive christians yes...conservatives no...ironically christianity itself has evolved...1st century christianity was much different than what we have right now...
"...ironically christianity itself has evolved...1st century christianity was much different than what we have right now..." - pisean282311
I will agree with you there, but there still is a remnant of God that practices "Christianity" in its purity.
Indeed, the Roman Catholic Church has done a great disservice to the Christian Church as a whole, and through its tenets of compromise and greed, has ushered in many pagan and heretical beliefs, practices, and traditions.
It’s all about TIME! People, we have a hard time comprehending the nature of great spans of time. No man can witness the natural evolution of any creature. But man has created” forced evolution”, in the manipulation of many plants, & animals. Dogs, Cats, corn, bees, in very short time spans, the natural order of mutation occurs extremely slow! Causal formats are limitless in # and efficacy. But,I say to you TIME is almost incomprehensible from our short life span . Compute the formula ; one million days, divided by 365 you will be surprised by the sum! Now apply that concept to years, decades, centuries! Millennia! Now you might be able to imagine how slowly these things happen. Evolution becomes plausible! I dare say even certain! Understanding the effects of radiation has on our dNA constructs, and the relentless sun shining on us every day. Not to mention the stronger, and more intelligent survive to pass on the DNA that produces the next generation. So there! Na, nana, na, na ! This is fun!
I personly dont belive in eveloution becuase it goes against the Bible. Plus last time i checked a monkey wasnt solving quadatic equations 24/7. God made man smarter (just by a little bit) so he could watch over the animals(Genesis 2:15-20)
Wow Trish, I created a monster just by stating that I thought evolution the way it is presented in modern textbooks is foolish! That is why you created a thread...that lead to a debate... WAITE SECOND...IS THIS EVOLUTION IN ACTION RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR VERY EYES????? QUICK, SOME TAKE SCREE SHOT FOR I THINK I JUST FOUND THE MISSING-LINK...ALSO KNOW AS WASTING PRECIOUS TIME DEBATING!
It would be a waist NOT to debate ! A static mind does not evolve and learn.
Just as a static universe would not support life .
Don't be sad Trish!
I still love you no matter what!
I'm just really, really passionate.
But I LOVE YOU!
You're still a cool person, and I know I am stubborn and can get pushy, but I don't mean bad by it.
I just know I'm saved from Hell by Christ Jesus and I want EVERYONE to be saved and I can get defensive about the Bible.. [obvious right]
Sry if my harsh words were wrong, I just want people to see what I see because everyone needs God....
God bless you Trish.
Wow Trish, you really brought the dimwits out with this thread ! it is almost beyond belief that people can believe the twaddle of creationism and actually be able to write - I know the spelling and grammar is atrocious, but they can still actually write at some level - this is amazing !
I've been not so bold until now, and I think it's time after reading the sloppy and disgusting notion that what God said in His Word and Holy Scripture is "partially wrong" that I set the record straight because God is GOD.
If you claim evolution, and Christianity, you are NOT a Christian. (Christ said you'd hate me, and this is why. I'll give you a verse in conclusion.)
God did not say anything about evolution in His Holy Bible. Christ verified every scripture ever written in the Bible, and question me if you'd like you are wrong if you think otherwise. I won't teach you a lesson I've heard children verify and recognise as obviously true.
Who is Christ saving then? Just the nowadays monkeys [us] or every monkey we came from? Or every organism in the chain from rats and mammals?
Who sinned? Us or the ancestor monkey? God just waited until something showed up smart and then when they sinned He decided to save them?
FORGET IT.. You pick evolution, or you pick my Christ Jesus. But you CANNOT have both.
Who do you think you are to say "God didn't mean for us to take it literally."
REALLY....? I HOPE you are joking. So I guess anything wrote in there can be twisted any way someone understands it?
No...... it cannot. Only ONE sequence of events took place and God told you what they were.
He is not a liar or a prankster, and it makes me sick people imply such simply because they want to cling to their little brains ideas fabricated by men.
If it were figurative then Christ wasn't saying a wise thing in Matthew 18:3 when He said you must become as a child to enter the kingdom of God. And my Saviour and King never says anything unless it's true and important.
You don't need a degree from some university to find God.
You quit stating "God didn't mean it literally." Humble yourself and read it for what it is like Jesus Christ said to in Matthew 18:3...
And don't try to add to or take away from it and you'll find Christ Jesus and the truth of History.
God doesn't need man to say anything extra or add to the story. HE WAS THERE.
And He doesn't say we evolved. And twisting His Holy Word will NEVER work.
I HATE lies, and evolution is one of them. Period.
And I could PUKE to hear people claim they serve my Lord and King Christ Jesus and then claim the Father's written Word to be something we've misunderstood when it's obvious to those who aren't listening to outside sources like silly little men with silly little tools that make silly little mistakes that turn into enormous and asinine lies against my God's truth....
Evoltution never happened, and if you claim Christ you need to quit leading people away from believing the Bible, because THAT is NOT what Christ Jesus' will is...
You cannot believe that garbage without having to change or disbelieve parts of the Bible, and that is evil. You either believe it and take it all, or you don't.
Picking and choosing is writing your own book, not listening to God's.
And now, if you will turn in your Bible to John 7:7 you will see what my Lord said about this future event that just took place.
I am vector7 for a reason, and I know the world hates me, because I am not of this world.. I am a child of God and a servant of Christ.
And I don't care how many people here hate me, God's Word is Holy and it says believing in evolution is evil, because that means God isn't telling the truth...
But GOD NEVER LIES. And the Bible tells you what happened, so quit trying to stuff your un-holy man-made slop into His Holy God revealed Truth..
Oh dear, oh dear.
Ok, as I said, Vector is a Christian who doesn't accept evolution.
That's OK. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions.
However, there really is ample proof for evolution. People can choose to accept or ignore it.
I am not a scientist, I am a historian, but I read, in order to educate myself on numerous issues. I would recommend that, before rejecting evolutionary theory, people should read some good quality, unbiased works on the subject.
By the way, I love studying the Bible, but I don't think that it is the word of God. I don't even know whether or not there is a God.
I would say that, if people claim to be both Christians and evolutionists, then that that is their opinion ~ to which they are also entitled.
And if there is, indeed, a God, then it will be up to him to decide who is, or is not, a 'good Christian'.
As for allegories in the Bible ~ what about the parables attributed to Jesus?
Anyway, I don't want to get further off track.
I would ignore the looney if I were you.
What you refer to is a large part of the 'other' argument. If we only accept the bible as a story book in a historical setting there are still many things that it is useful for. Simple analysis can show the moral stories, and those parables that are supposed to come from 'their' horses mouth, well - they seem to be all the things 'they' ignore when using the rest of the thing for their own nefarious purposes.
Their own main character pointed out very clearly that the 'old' ways (the old testament) was finished and that his teaching was the new way to follow - yet all the various loonies root their bigotry and intolerance in the old testament - can't they read the simplest words from their own proclaimed messiah ?
Their own main character pointss out that his words will be twisted and used to amass a huge following - and yet 'they' ignore the obvious and very clear 'twist' in their bible supplied by Saul that was the means to establish one of the most evil and long lasting regimes the world has ever seen.
Every bit of scriptural blabber that is posted in these threads has been negated by their own 'messiah' figure, and yet they blabber on and on and on
Christ is the very example I cannot, by my above post proven, cannot be.
Christ is passionate.
He is loving.
He is good.
He never does anything wrong.
HE IS MY SAVIOUR BECAUSE I AM A SCREW UP AND ADMIT IT AND ASK HIM FOR HELP AND FORGIVENESS.
My screw ups do not negate anything.
They prove I need a Saviour, and the only difference between me and you is I've come to Him to ask for help and admit I need Him.
I will never in this lifetime not screw things up.
And that is exactly why Jesus Christ came.
So - you spread the hatred and ill will and he comes to do away with that by majik? I think I get you now. This means it doesn't matter what you do, how many people you hurt (or stick the tough "love," at to use your parlance) it always gets forgiven by majik.
Is that why christians are so nasty? You do not have to accept responsibility for yourselves? It is always fixed by majik?
Nope, I admitted to what I done.
I'm getting the consequence through you right now.
I'm ashamed. [not of the message, but how I went about it.]
And yes, Christ Jesus forgives all that want to genuinely do better.
I'm nasty, because I'm human and as such have flaws.
And it's not magic at all. It's sacrifice.
It just means I'm one who knows I need it.
Because I'm a sinner.
Pity you don't just decide to behave better and show genuine love instead.
Thank goodness Jesus loves me enough to forgive me, teach me better, and help me while I'm learning how.
Which makes my point I think. You are choosing not to learn.
Twisting things is a specialty of yours.
Don't put words in my mouth.
Learning, is present tense and implies ongoing process.
But if you insist on trying to slander me for a mistake I've admitted to, and attempting to tell everyone else what is in my heart, as if you actually knew..
Nice one sweetie pie. I 'gree wit cha. There b no room fer eberlushun in Kristianity. Just int make sense fer the Invisible Super Being to use it. No need fer salbation or nuffink.
Sadly - for you - there is MASSIVE evidence, including laboratory tested speciation, plus numerous other disciplines that support evolutionary theory.
Guess what this means.......................?
No Majikal Invisible Super Being for you.
Shout about it some more. I love it when Kristians ATTACK the others as not being REAL KRISTIANS!
I have never met a real one myself...............................
Don't worry Vector. When Jesus comes back, he's gonna kill all these phony Christians who don't take his word literally. He made a place for them. Oh yeah!
And since you have proven that the God of the bible created everything...Why is the Government denying that "truth" and foolishly teaching evolution, as if evolution has more evidence or something?
Oh dear. I think you may have lost any respect with that last post.
I am so relieved to find someone who can answer all of the mysteries of the bible, Vector. Boy, do I have some questions for you!
1-When the ark finally grounded on Mount Ararat and the animals were released into the wild, how did all of the animals unique to Australia get there? And why didn't some of their species stay in Asia since the climate there was suitable for their well being?
2-Where did all of the water come from to cover the entire earth and where did it go afterwards?
3-Why was god so mad at the animals that he drowned them during the great flood?
4-Why didn't god simply say abra ca dabra and make all of the sinful people--babies included I suppose--disappear instead of flooding the earth and drowning the animals? Yes, I know PETA wasn't around back then but just sayin'!
This are just a few of my queries about Genesis and I'll add more when you answer these. I really appreciate your taking the time to clear these things up for me. I've never heard anyone be able to actually explain the "literal" text before where it made any reasonable sense at all. Thanks!
I see nothing new here..
Regurgitate on someone else's time...
So far, you've claimed to be able to answer my questions about your novel but have simply fled each time one is asked. I'm through with this guy! Typical christian.
Jesus Christ will forgive me for my mistakes when I die and face Him.
And I'm done with people attempting to prove me wrong, I'd rather be reading my Bible.
Thanks for judging me because I love Christ Jesus.
I judge you because of your actions, nothing to do with Junior in the least. You speak but fail to back up your words. No surprise. You have a good day now, ya heah!
Jesus spoke in parables all the time. If Jesus could do it, why not God?
Ok this stream of comments nudged me into a hub check it out. Just posted.
Be very careful, lift and soar. Even hinting at a new hub is now grounds for being banned unless it is on the Extreme Hub Makeover or a staff allowed forum. Just a heads up and not being critical of your hub.
Evolution theory of creation is rebelion against God, How could a Christian who's basis is God's living Word accept such a rebellion?
Lucky for you - evolution is not a theory of creation so you can still accept proven scientific facts as real. You no longer need to get all your facts from a majik book.
Because God's word reflects what we see in the fossil record....
Sauropsida ("lizard faces") is a group of amniotes that includes all existing reptiles and birds and their fossil ancestors, including the dinosaurs, the immediate ancestors of birds. Sauropsida is distinguished from Synapsida, which includes mammals and their fossil ancestors. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropsid)
Sauropsids (reptiles and birds) 350 to 150 million years ago ...
Genesis 1:20 - And God said, "Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl that may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven."
Genesis 1:21 - And God created great sea creatures and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
Synapsids (mammals) 65 to 34 million years ago ...
Genesis 1:24 - And God said, "Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth after his kind"; and it was so.
Genesis 1:25 - And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind; and God saw that it was good.
Humans 4 million years ago to 10 thousand years ago ...
Genesis 1:26 - And God said, "Let Us make man in Our image, after Our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth."
More than 99% of all species on the Earth are extinct based on the fossil record. Is that what god was trying to show us?
Mess with this god - he will extinct your ass just like that.
Considering only those of us who have lived in the last century or so could even know that, I don't think so.
That's just what it took to get to where we are today. Countless generations of life so that animal life and our physical forms could live and operate in this physical existence. Our physical forms learned balance and equilibrium, how to break down and process food, how to decipher what we see/hear/smell/touch, how to heal cuts and mend broken bones, breathing, etc.
I know everyone wants to equate death = bad, life = good, but the fact is death is part of life. It's part of the circle of life. Part of the process.
Or, as Maynard James Keenan of the band Tool put it, "This is necessary. Life feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on life, feeds on ... this is necessary"
Sorry, but there were no birds (fowl) on Earth 350 million years ago.
Sorry, but there were no cattle on earth 54 million years ago.
Sorry, but there were no humans on earth 4 million years ago.
Seems your biblical account is seriously wanting.
You understand I didn't get those dates from the bible don't you? The earliest known bird showed up roughly 150 million years ago (Archaeopteryx), but the ancestors that led to birds first climbed from the sea about 350 million years ago (Mississippian Epoch (359.2 to 318.1 mya)).
Proto-mammals then small mammals first appeared around 200 million years ago, but mammals really began to thrive after that strangely selective K-T mass extinction 65.5 million years ago that wiped out the then dominant dinosaurs (bird's ancestors). Cattle showed up during the Eocene Epoch (55.8 to 39.9 million years ago).
4.4 million years ago marks the first appearance of Ardipithecus, an early hominin genus. Technically, it would be 6 million years ago if you also include the first bipedal hominins. Modern humans (homo Sapiens) first appeared just under 200 thousand years ago.
I guess I should have been more specific. I was kind of assuming you guys knew this stuff and didn't need me to clarify.
Actually, we do know what we're talking about.
By taking loose quotes from the Bible and attempting to align them with the fossil record, unsuccessfully?
As a Christian, wouldn't believing evolution as truth, be contradrictory?? It's crazy to even accept such a notion. Why would you ask?
I asked, becaeuse a fellow Hubber said that no Christian, on here, had told him that they accepted evolution.
I know that many Christians do accept it, so I asked.
The Pope accepts it.
Many, if not most, of our Church of England Bishops accept it.
Our Anglican priest at school accepted it.
If they all accept it, why do you think that it is crazy???
Evolution is an attempt to hide the truth of the scriptures unless you as a christian don't fully believe in biblical account. With regards to the changing structure of body built that you've pointed out. That is because of the losing genetic information as all through out passing generations but they did not changed into another form or species. They remain as man in appearance. According to the Bible in the creation account, Gen. 1 and 2, We are informed that God created all things according to their kinds.
Evolution is not an attempt to do anything of the sort. It is a scientific discovery.
If it doesn't fit with Scripture, then it doesn't fit with Scripture, but it doesn't have an agenda; it just is what it is.
Christians have to come to terms with this.
Some Christians acknowledge that evolution is true and they try to find ways to make Bible and Science co-exist.
Some Christians feel that the two cannot co-exist, and they either reject their religious beliefs, or they reject evolution.
But just because someone rejects it does not make it untrue.
That would be like rejecting the theory of gravity.
True Science agree with the literal account of the scriptures. evolution is not a scientific one but a bias that could not be proven. I would like to believe that Christians who upholds evolution believes in the so called gap theory in Gen. 1: 1 and 2.
You are obviously well educated in the scientific field. Genetics, right?
I don't know where you have obtained the idea that 'evolution' is biased, unscientific and unproven.
There is a huge amount of evidence to support evolutionary theory. It is a scientific truth, backed up by facts, research, etc. There is no bias in genuine science.
Genuine science does not oppose any truth of the scriptures. Whatever scientific proofs they may present, sooner or later they will reject.
Why I say evolution is a bias, it is because they must assume something that must be true and then hunt for the proofs that will somehow validate their assumption. We did not learn this from school for they don't want us to know that evolution theory emerged from a bias view point.
Have you studied the history of evolutionary theory?
I respect your right to your beliefs and opinion, but they have to be based on truth and what you have been told is not true.
Well, I cannot impose my faith to someone who has a double standard belief system. Who is not satisfied with the literal truth of the scriptures.
Believing in the Bible does not need any other bias for us to understand the science of God.
So - should we kill homos and sorceresses?
Who has 'a double standard belief system'? ~ The Christians who accept evolution?
However, as I said, I respect anyone's right to believe as they wish ~ but this does not mean that they have the right to state or imply untruths.
'Evolution' does not have an agenda; it is not biased; it is not unscientific; it is not the belief of bad or ignorant people; it is not an attempt to hide the truth of the scriptures; it is not without reliable evidence. It just is as it is.
Again I have to wonder: have you actually studied the history of evolutionary theory?
Er...check out the quoted persons educational history. This is what they teach in many religious institutes. No telling what the poster was taught in such a place. Some take pride in willful ignorance.
The Gap Theory is rampant unfounded speculation based on one word in verse 2...
"... the earth [was] without form and void"
"... the earth [became] without form and void"
This is an attempt to accept scientific history AND a literal 6-day creation by cramming the entire scientific view of earth's history between verses 1 and 2.
This is unnecessary. The only contradiction with science is the traditional interpretation of Genesis, not Genesis itself. If you first remove the interpretations established centuries ago, like Adam being the first human ever, and simply read it for what it actually says, Genesis matches up significantly with history as we only now really understand it.
So true. Snakes can indeed talk! Believe it or not.
The image of a serpent was often used in ancient carvings and hieroglyphics, and was often used to represent one who is a deceiver. With the countless other aspects of Genesis that line up historically, consideration should be given beyond such a literal take on a single word.
Consideration is indeed given as to whether anything in the old novel should be taken literally. I would be very interested in the "countless other aspects of Genesis" which line up historically. Perhaps where all of the water came from which covered the entire earth during the great flood, would be a good starting point? Not to mention, where the drain plug was and where the water is now? It certainly isn't on earth any longer.
I'm sure many scientists would appreciate you bringing them up to date on this enigma. Me too!
Haha.. I have to say, Randy, whether or not I agree with what you're saying half the time when I read your posts, I can definitely appreciate your sense of humor.
First off, even in the traditional sense, the flood happened 1656 years after Adam's creation. Do you really think a global flood would be necessary to wipe out the wicked element in humanity at that point? Or do you think maybe the concept of 'all the earth' to someone from the Bronze age or before would basically consist of the region they knew?
There were many floods of the Mesopotamian valley. In the archaeological site of Ur, there's a layer of sediment that indicates a flood around 4000 BC that lies just above artifacts of the Ubaid period, with no such artifacts above it, indicating this flood had a pretty catastrophic effect on that region. The Sumerians spoke of a great flood too, and even spoke of a single man who was warned ahead of time and built a boat, saving himself, a handful of people, and a bunch of animals.
If you're sincere in being 'very interested', I have 3 hubs on the topic under the title 'God created Evolution'. One is a general overview of Genesis compared to known history when read as Adam not being the first human, another that matches up the creation account, and one that goes into more detail about the city Cain built in Genesis 4 and its correlations with the Sumerian city of Eridu, established somewhere around 5300 BC.
Besides the epic of gilgamesh is a flood story, which was before bible, from which Noah flood was copied
Yeah, I know that's the assumption based on the dates of the surviving copies we have today. What doesn't make sense from that perspective are things like how the writers of Genesis could take the box-shaped boat as described by the Sumerians and change it to describe a very much sea worthy vessel centuries later, though during that time they would have had no way of understanding such things.
When you realize Genesis speaks of other humans in existence besides Adam and his family, then the sudden advances attributed to the Sumerians that led to the dawning of the first ancient civilization make more sense as they were the people that lived in that region during the time that Genesis is speaking of.
Then all the parallels between Genesis and Sumerian mythology take on a whole different context.
Er...the ark was indeed box shaped. It had no propulsion system and had no way of being steered. It was based on common knowledge of the then known properties of what was required for a stable non-propelled barge. Nothing new in the days of either mythical tale. If you were writing a novel wouldn't you want to make some parts of it realistic?
Don't you find it odd how the ark could have floated for 40 days and nights and yet, ended up in roughly the same place it started from? Hell of an anchor, eh?
The detailed dimensions given are definitely not box-shaped. It needed no propulsion or steering, only to stay above the water. As for realistic, the Sumerians wanted theirs to be realistic too. They just had no idea a box-shaped boat of that size wasn't realistic. There were boats, but nothing of this magnitude. But I guess it could be possible the Israelites could have maybe used this knowledge and extended it out to a larger scale. But that's a stretch.
And no, I don't find it odd that the ark ended up close to where it started. The only way that would be odd is in a global flood scenario. A regional flood, yes, it makes a lot of sense that it would end up in the same area.
Oh cool! That explains how a regional flood would deposit such a craft up on the side of a mountain. Er...what would keep the flood from spreading out over the rest of the world instead of rising up to the height needed to fit the biblical description? Too literal once again?
And certainly the principles of buoyancy were known at the time of whoever wrote the myths. The ark described in the book is merely a rectangular box with very little in the way of streamlining as a steerable craft would require. And of course, the laws of physics were apparently nonexistent until after the flood if there were no rainbows before. Rain is not required for rainbows to exist.
Again, 'mountain' is a translation thing based on the traditional interpretation of the story. Mount Erarat is an assumption based on the traditional interpretation of the story.
Genesis 7:19-20 - And the waters prevailed exceedingly upon the earth, and all the high hills that were under the whole heaven were covered. Fifteen cubits upward did the waters prevail, and the mountains were covered.
Mountains is the same word as hills elsewhere, even in the verse right before. Both are the same word in Hebrew. A water level 15 cubits deep could cover some pretty significant hills, would be one catastrophic event, yet still very much regional. Here's a good read on the topic ... http://ncse.com/rncse/29/5/yes-noahs-fl … hole-earth
As for the rainbow thing, I have no answer. This is one thing I am wildly curious about. Could there have been a change in the atmosphere that would allow light to refract into a visible spectrum of colors where it didn't before? It's something I would like to look into further, but just haven't yet. But you do make a good point there and I can't deny it. I have no answer.
While you are at it consider this. A mist coming up from the ground supposedly watered all plants on the earth. If it did not rain before the great flood the earth would eventually become dry, as the water evaporating away would not be replenished by needed rainfall. No cycles of rain, no groundwater. No rivers flowing to the sea, no lakes, no freshwater fish because no rivers or streams were needed to drain away the excess rainfall.
Wasn't the Garden of Eden supposedly located near the convergence of the Tigris and Euphrates rivers? Hmmm. Where did these rivers originate and what was their source of water if not rainfall? Have you really thought this thing out?
This is exactly why the traditional view doesn't make sense. Genesis 2 is a separate and regional account. The water cycle was established way back at the beginning of Genesis 1. However, the Mesopotamian region had recently transformed into desert like conditions because of the 8.2 kiloyear event (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/8.2_kiloyear_event). So the region matched the description given in Genesis 2 during that timeframe.
So, we can't take this part seriously, then? I am well aware of the biblically plagiarized flood tale in the Epic of Gilgamesh, HVN. You novel is full of such myths, and even in the NT the story of Jr. was borrowed from a much earlier Egyptian religion.
With "countless" historically based biblical tales I'm looking forward to the proof of such a statement. Just a few will suffice. And how does one tell which parts, if any, should be taken literally? Can I still sell my daughter into slavery? Or am I taking this the wrong way? Enquiring minds and all that.
I never said this means it shouldn't be taken seriously. Only that consideration should be given to the context of the times it was written in. A catastrophic regional flood that wiped out countless people is no less serious.
If you read my hubs you'll see I take it literally and it still works. As for selling your daughter into slavery, I wouldn't advise it. You have to understand that at the time protecting the blood line that would ultimately bring about the savior was the priority. And if you understand that Adam was the introduction of free will into the world, then you know that anyone not born of Adam's bloodline did not have free will, so they did not require a savior. Free will is the priority and is the reason Jesus is needed.
Genesis 6 says the 'sons of God' (Adam's descendants) had children with the 'daughters of humans' in its explanation for why the flood was necessary. It also explains that humans are mortal and only live 120 years, in contrast to the lifespans detailed in Genesis 5 as lasting for centuries. And it says that 'God's spirit will not contend with humans forever'. Subsequent chapters detail a gradual decline in lifespans. Something else Genesis has in common with Sumerian mythology.
Ezra 9 speaks of not diluting the 'holy seed'. The 613 Mitzvah laws detail how close you can 'keep it in the family' without getting too close, what to eat to remain spiritually 'clean', and how to handle those neighbors that threatened the maintaining of that bloodline.
Understanding Adam wasn't the first human makes the whole rest of the story make sense, matches up well with known history, and even helps explain things we don't understand like the rapid advancements in that region at the dawn of civilization, the multiple languages coming from such a small geographic location, and the fact that similar flood stories are part of ancient myth all around the world.
Not even close. So where are all of the skeletons of those humans who lived these hundreds of years during the time mentioned in the book? You do know it's possible to estimate the age of a person by examining their bones, don't you? So far, no such remains have been discovered to my knowledge, but feel free to enlighten me with links to such interesting claims if you can do so.
So far you have given nothing but conjecture and I'm still waiting for the countless claims of historical accuracy you referred to in the previous post. There have always been floods of limited area around the world. why lie and say it was something it was not unless the tale was meant to mislead those who the book was intended for? The bible is touted as God's truth, not guess correctly if you can.
For one thing, you're talking about a few hundred, maybe a few thousand, people. The chances of finding the remains of one of these is remote at best. Plus, the Mesopotamian valley is the geological equivalent of a storm drain. Anything killed in a large flood in that region would most likely wash out to sea, making it that much more unlikely any remains will ever be found.
Understand, the Genesis account isn't a lie, but it's clear that even those that translate the text think the flood was global as their translations clearly illustrate. For example, you can take 'all life on the earth' and 'all life in the land' from the same Hebrew words.
The historical accuracy I referred to is detailed in my hubs, which I also referred to.
Are you kidding me? If folks lived so long back then the population would have exploded. Imagine how many kids they had over their lifetime of hundreds of years. And why didn't all of the now extinct hominid remains also wash out to sea, along with the plethora of fossilized dinosaur bones?
I'm sorry, but if the reasoning you exhibit here in the forums is any indication of that in your hubs, then I'm still not convinced they are worthy of perusing. Try again though.
Yes, there could have been quite a few, but still. Think about that. I think somebody said earlier that there are 400+ skeletal bones found of Neanderthal man? They existed about 370,000 years. Being that this happened sometime around 4000 BC, I think the answer to your question about hominid and dinosaur remains is fairly obvious.
Whether you decide to read them or not is up to you. I told you about them because you said, "I would be very interested in the "countless other aspects of Genesis" which line up historically". If you truly are interested, they're there for your reading pleasure.
So why didn't all of the bones, including those of Neanderthal man wash away also? Nope, it's difficult to believe a regional flood would wipe out all such long lived beings, and besides, didn't Noah's offspring have his genes? Why suddenly did man's lifespan become so much shorter?
I'm sorry, you've given me no reason to want to read your hubs until you can post at least one answer which deals with a true historical or scientific basis in fact. Still waiting.
Neanderthal man had been extinct for 20 thousand years or so. Besides, there was very little Neanderthal presence in Mesopotamia, if any. They were cousins of homo sapien, as both genetically trace back to homo heidelbergensis. Neanderthal man was made up of those that migrated north out of Africa and into Europe. Homo sapiens came of those that remained in Africa, then migrated north later.
The decrease in lifespans was not sudden. Genesis clearly details a gradual decline. All other humans other than those that descended from Adam, were mortal already, as Genesis 6:3 says. They only lived to 120 years. Same as always. Once the two bloodlines mixed, the lifespans gradually dwindled down to normal/mortal levels. Abraham lived to 175.
And it's Noah's descendants who spread out in all directions throughout the world. Each of them had knowledge of building cities consisting of agriculture and building structures (like Eridu and a tower, or ziggeraut, located at that site), each of them had the free will of being descended from Adam and Eve, and each of them had their own unique language.
Genesis 4 says Cain was banished after killing Abel. Because it says Adam was 130 when Eve had Seth, who Eve said was given to her to replace Abel, we know Cain was banished within the first 130 years of Adam's existence. It then says he built a city.
Eridu was established in southern Mesopotamia around 5300 BC. For the first time in history humans began to use advanced concepts in farming and irrigation to allow for year-round agriculture, which allowed for higher populations of humans in a smaller vicinity. Sumerian mythology says Eridu was one of the first 5 Sumerian cities that existed before the great flood, according to the Sumerian Kings List. This list also details extremely long lives of those that ruled over these cities as kings (Sumerians also invented the first system of government, a Monarchy), and a gradual decrease in lifespans after the flood.
The flood happened 1656 years after Noah's creation, a little over 1500 years after Cain's banishment. The dispersing of Noah's descendants happened between 100 and 300 years after the flood, or 1600 to 1800 years after Cain's banishment.
The flood of Ur that appears to have halted the Ubaid culture in the region happened around 4000 BC, somewhere around 1300 years after Eridu was established. Then, 3900 BC, there was a climatological event, known as the 5.9 kiloyear event, that dramatically transformed the region to a dry/arid climate, which dispersed the human populations there in all directions, settling in river valley regions. Within 400 years or so, the Sumerian civilization exploded. A century or so later to the west Egyptian culture made dramatic advances in technology and craftsmanship, leading up to the first Dynasty era around 3150 BC. Around the same time, to the west of Sumer, came the Indus Valley culture...
http://www.historyfiles.co.uk/KingLists … ulture.htm – “As the first great civilizations took shape in Sumer and Egypt, a people of unknown origin who were centered in the Indus Valley in modern Pakistan and India began constructing their own series of cities. These were as remarkable as any the world had yet seen, and at the same time trade flourished, and a system of writing evolved.”
By the time the Akkadians from the north got all intertwined with the Sumerians, they had their own established language. The Egyptians, the Sumerians, the Indus Valley culture, each of them had their own unique language as well.
This makes no sense at all. We can find fossils from creature millions of years ago but none from thousands? What a crock! So how did the kangaroos get to Australia from the middle east? Not to mention all of the other species found nowhere else. Did they walk there?
You really have to go out on a limb to try and explain things away, don't you? Face it, it's fairy tales and nothing more. What god would go to so much trouble to create a scenario he already new the ending of. It's the same as if I threw dice with sixes on all sides and predicted sixes. Even a mortal like me would get bored after a toss or two.
Only an extremely bored deity would go through with this and cause human suffering for thousands of years to achieve and end already known to it. And we are supposed to respect that? Yeah boy, you are some smart god. Bored out of your gourd, no doubt.
Who said anything about kangaroos? Again, this was a regional account. Iron age man had no knowledge of Australian wildlife. Remember, their 'earth' was the land they knew. All the animals [on the earth] is the same in Hebrew as all the animals [in the land].
As for remains, two things...
One, again we're talking about a very small number in a region where the archaeological evidence is abundant. Hundreds of thousands, probably millions, of humans lived in this region throughout the Millenia. Finding the remains of one of these beings would be beyond a needle in a haystack scenario.
Two, there was a flood. With these early city-states being situated between two rivers right at the mouth of the sea, you all of the sudden have a much smaller pool to find evidence. For another bad analogy, now you're looking for just the eye of that needle in that haystack.
That all sounds stupid I realize, but hopefully you get the idea. The odds of finding remains of one of those particular beings is remote at best. This would be like you locating a specific relative of yours who lived in a heavily populated region 300 generations ago by digging. Good luck.
As for the whole Adam and Eve scenario, the way I see it, it's very simple. Free will is the whole point. Basically, if you're a God capable of creating existence and life, you've got 3 choices...
1. No existence
2. Existence with every living thing behaving according to your will exactly
3. Existence with beings that have their own unique free will
God chose C. God chose to give us the choice of whether or not to live according to His will. This is dangerous. This is like each and every cell in your body having the choice whether or not to adhere to the DNA code. Those cells that only live a day or two would have no grasp of the consequences of their actions if they veered from what the DNA code dictates.
The same goes for us. Free will is possible, but for existence to work with each of us having our own free will, we have to learn to behave basically as the ten commandments dictated. Acknowledge God is the authority and that nobody knows better than Him, and treat each other well. That's it. However, many will simply choose not to and decide they know better, becoming instead a potential cancer with far reaching consequences.
So, the way I see it, this life, that choice, all has to do with learning. Just as physical life had to learn how to survive and thrive, so too must a conscious mind with a will of its own. Just as the bible makes clear, just as life in general makes clear, wisdom and knowledge cannot just be given. It must be learned.
I see free will bandied about as an excuse by believers all of the time on these forums. How is it free will to be threatened with eternal hellfire if one doesn't do as your god demands? Your excuses as to why there are no fossil remains of the obviously fictional entities who supposedly lived for centuries is laughable at the very least.
And Adam waited 120 years before having his first child? Sorry, but unless there was another creation somewhere nearby, all men were descendants of Adam, and thus inherited longevity from the patriarch himself.
Genesis is merely a collection of old tales from a much earlier time just as the rest of the novel is. In order to even consider it to be true one must ignore common sense and facts, as well as, buy into vast amounts of superstition and to completely refute scientific evidence to the contrary. No problem at all from indoctrinated believers but not so for those who are educated into the real history of our planet.
You claimed "countless" incidents of proven history backing up the biblical story. So far, you've shown nothing but conjecture and "what ifs" to back your claim. So, there were no kangaroos on the ark? Tell that to those who claim dinosaurs were aboard the fictional vessel.
I'll wager you were indoctrinated at a very early age. Baptist?
The 10 commandments? Surely you recognize just a few of them cover the rest with no need for more. Your god seems to be a bit redundant as well as a very bad planner since he can't seem to make up his mind exactly what he wants. Not a creature I would even consider having any respect for, much less, worship and adore. It's apparently satisfactory to those of your limited scientific education though. I have no problem with the ignorance of other people as long as they don't expect others to buy into it themselves.
So let me get this straight. You wanted some of the 'countless' incidents of proven history backing up the bible, I give you some, you respond instead with why you object to the bible philosophically, I respond to that with my philosophical take related to the same topic, and you respond to that by saying, "So far, you've shown nothing but conjecture and "what ifs" to back your claim."
Remember, this was your excuse for not reading my hubs. I gave you what you asked for. You ignored it and changed the topic. I engaged you on the new topic. Now we're back to this?
And no, I clearly said Adam was 130 when he had Seth. He had at least had Cain and Abel before that, not counting potentially unnamed offspring. And though it doesn't say, I'm pretty sure Cain was older than 10 when he was working the land and killed his brother.
As for those that think dinosaurs were on the ark, though I've never encountered one myself, I can't speak for them. But no, kangaroos were not indigenous to the Mesopotamian valley, so no, I don't believe there were any kangaroos.
"It's apparently satisfactory to those of your limited scientific education though."
What exactly gave you that impression? As for you finding my explanation about Adam and his family 'laughable', I don't know what else to tell you. You apparently have no grasp of the sheer magnitude of the equation. You're talking about a region that literally contains over 8000 years of human history. And you're wondering how it could be possible that we have not located remains of a small specific group? One that the bible says were swept away in a flood? Alright. Believe what you want. Read my hubs or don't. That's totally up to you.
Apparently I've missed something in your replies, HvN. You recount "a" flood but did you prove it was THE flood and also you've admitted it was not as suggested in your holy book. You've inferred advanced ages of certain biblical characters but no actual proof they ever existed. You excuse the lack of fossils to prove these people actually existed as being swept away by a flood although other remains are found from the same time period.
Which of these "facts" are among the countless you claimed existed to prove the accuracy of the old myth book. Just because the flood account was stolen by your god's inspired writers doesn't mean it was actually concise nor anything but a natural occurrence. How about something which actually relates to the bible and which there is clear proof for other than historical places. Do you still buy the tower of Babel joke? Indoctrinated as a child? Baptist? Whiskeypalian?
"You excuse the lack of fossils to prove these people actually existed as being swept away by a flood although other remains are found from the same time period."
Actually, no. There were no other remains either. During that short period, which understand would be a thin layer in the earth, the Ubaid culture came to an abrupt halt ....
"Archaeologists have discovered evidence of an early occupation at Ur during the Ubaid period. These early levels were sealed off with a sterile deposit that was interpreted as evidence for the Great Flood of the Bible by excavators of the 1920s." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ur)
"You recount "a" flood but did you prove it was THE flood and also you've admitted it was not as suggested in your holy book."
Yes, there were numerous floods in that region around this time period. The problem is you're discounting the other events I referred to. It's not just one flood. It's the establishment of the first city, a city that archaeologists and ancient Sumerian texts confirm to be the first city in the region, which coincides with Cain's city. And it happens to be roughly the same number of years between its establishment and this flood. That plus the 3.9 kiloyear event, an event that literally dispersed the humans in that region in the same way the bible says they were dispersed, happening just after.
I'm not just pointing to one flood and saying "that must be it". There are a series of events that coincide with timelines given in Genesis. But you glaze right over that because you don't respect me or my view. You think you already know better so there's no reason to really listen to what I'm saying. Your responses are evidence of that when you get facts I directly stated wrong. Like the 'Adam had his first kid at 120' thing above, for example.
As for 'admitting it was not as suggested' in the bible, I never said that. I said bible translators obviously believe a global flood when they translate it. Big difference.
None of this is proven to be anything caused by any sort of god, nor is it proof of anything but mere speculation by archaeologists as you say, in the 1920's. Conjecture, pure and simple. I don't doubt there was a major flood at this place. Whether or not it was the flood mentioned in the myth book is another thing entirely. But even if you are correct, it doesn't mean Noah actually existed and this is the main point I am trying to make.
Merely because the anonymous author(s) of Genesis stole an older myth and incorporated it into the old goat herders storybook does not mean goddunit. End of story.
Indoctrinated as a child? Baptist? Whiskeypalian?
Of course these events are not proven to be caused by God. The universe and life can't be proven to be caused by God. What exactly would you expect proof to look like, anyway?
Okay, let me put it this way. Let's zoom out a little bit. These specific events I'm pointing to aren't just random events that happen to match the description. They're a series of events that all happen to match the description and timeline given specifically in Genesis. AND, and this is the big one, they lead right up to the single most fundamental change in how humans would from that point forward exist on this planet. Civilization ...
"Historically the period of the 5.9 kiloyear event is associated with the increased violence noticed in both Egypt and throughout the Middle East, leading eventually to the Early Dynastic Period in both the First Dynasty of Egypt and Sumer." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.9_kiloyear_event).
It was in this time period right here that things changed dramatically for humans. While there are many theories that point to advanced farming practices, more human interaction due to higher population levels, maybe higher protein intake leading to larger or more capable brains, we're still guessing as to what exactly happened here. Why and how did we get so smart all of the sudden and start forging our own existence rather than living at the whim of nature? The sudden appearance of free will, if one were to consider the option, would be another compelling possibility.
Just look at the difference between the humans that came from this region and much of the rest of the world. Mainly the bits that were geographically cut off from these people. The Australian Aborigines. The tribal cultures of Africa south of the Sahara. Native Americans across the ocean. Though many of the same conditions that some attribute as being the catalyst that spawned civilization can be found in these regions as well, they changed very little until civilization actually reached them. Some still have not changed much. They're still content to live in nature.
Understand I'm not trying to push some religious agenda. I'm trying to point out that if you remove all of those preconceived notions about what Genesis is saying that are based on traditional religious interpretation, Genesis is telling a very deliberate story that appears to be explaining the introduction of free will into an already established, already populated world. If I'm right then it goes a long way towards helping explain who we are and where we came from. It clarifies history, clarifies science, and clarifies the rest of the bible.
That could all be one gigantic coincidence. Some huge delusional story dreamt up by a devoted believer trying to reconcile science and God. But the facts just keep lining up, every direction I look. And while many have argued with me over this like you have, there's just no denying the facts are there. It's usually a more philosophical objection that gets in the way.
I know and understand how this can sound nuts to someone who does not believe in God. And I fully acknowledge I could be wrong. That's why I'm here writing about it. Discussing it with others. I cannot find a flaw. Everywhere I look I only find more evidence that supports it. That's often an indication that you're on the right track. I welcome found flaws. That's how I learn.
You can bandy about the religionist's talk concerning "free will" all you like, but can you prove free will exists only in humans? Or, can you show it didn't exist long before men invented your god, along with hundreds of other previous gods? Of course you can't. It makes no difference how you justify your own little theories about Genesis, because it is simply stolen tales from other god worshipers. Why should your god have to inspire his messengers with plagiarized stories from pagan gods? Can't he come up with some original stuff by himself?
The ancient human brain became bigger around 500,000 years ago. Some scientists believe it was when we first started eating large quantities of meat, first from scavenging it from carnivores and eventually learning to hunt them ourselves. It takes lots of protein to operate a large brain, not something you may easily get from fruit and berries.
Yes, when nomadic folk become overpopulated the forming of an agrarian society becomes imperative. No big surprise so far. this same thing happened in the New World as well as other places not associated with your god or his stolen myths in any manner. Sure, you apparently enjoy your own little theories about making the pieces fit to Genesis like many others of your ilk. But supposition is all it is unless you can make it all fit exactly as your novel says. Not "I'll accept this, but that part is BS" type of rationale. that's a cop-out of the worst kind.
Indoctrinated as a child? Baptist? Whiskeypalian? (I know you see these questions every time and still don't reply. What's that all about?)
See, I know and understand you dismiss the bible. What you don't seem to be acknowledging is that we have no real idea where exactly the books of Moses came from or how old they really are. We can only base what we know on what still exists. We can take how it's written, what language it's in, titles used, all of that, and guess at when this particular incantation was done, but it's pretty evident from the elaborate stories given that these weren't just dreamt up. They're made up of countless stories told for many generations. Some of them are songs that were sung word for word, thus remaining incredibly accurate. All the Sumerian tales illustrate is that these same stories were well known in that region even during their time. Your assumption that they're plagiarized is nothing more than that.
Notice how the Sumerian stories also explain how they first started living a civilized life. Something we know they actually did. Writing came about way later, but when they did begin to write these things down they didn't give credit to their incredibly inventive ancestors. They say they were taught by immortal, human in form gods who physically lived in temples that we know they built in the middle of cities that we know existed. They believed these gods created them to serve them. To grow food and herd animals and provide for the needs of these gods.
Genesis describes Adam and his descendants as being something more than mortal. Genesis 6 says humans are mortal and only live to 120 years. Genesis 5 says Adam and his family lived much, much longer. If that's true, then to a mortal human Adam and his family would appear god-like, living the equivalent of 8 and 10 mortal lifetimes.
So, what if the mythologies born of the Mesopotamian region are not entirely myth? I mean, while some of the stories are rather elaborate and hard to believe, the evidence we can find does seem to agree that at least some of it is based on real things. Cities were actually built. There actually was a halt in the region due to a flood like the Sumerian King's List says. And there really were numerous advances in technology and know-how that led to the dawn of civilization.
The Sumerian stories seem to be describing these gods from a kind of outside perspective. The Sumerians were always trying to understand these gods. For example, their invention of astronomy/astrology, according to them, was an attempt to understand these moody, unpredictable, immortal, human in form, walking on the earth, gods. They associated them with the heavens and tried to understand them by understanding the heavens.
There's plenty of evidence. My comments here and even the hubs I have done so far, hardly even scratch the surface. But it's a start.
"Indoctrinated as a child? Baptist? Whiskeypalian? (I know you see these questions every time and still don't reply. What's that all about?)"
Yes I see it. And I know that answering it will take us completely off topic. So I have been ignoring it. But if it will make you happy, I grew up in a Baptist church. A church where I met much resistance because I wouldn't dismiss science as they did and wouldn't accept the explanations they'd try to give me that conflicted with science. I do not doubt God for many reasons I won't get into and that you wouldn't accept anyway. And I don't doubt science. I only doubt human interpretation and have always been that way. After a lifetime of reaching my own understanding, finding the common ground between science and God, I am now discussing it with others in an attempt to confirm its legitimacy.
On a side note, while I do usually appreciate your humor, I have to say 'Whiskeypalian' is kind of lame. Maybe worth typing out once, but certainly not three times. Like I said before, I see comedy as an art form, and can sometimes be kind of a comedy snob. In this case I just couldn't help myself.
Headly- I subscribe to the fact that gap theory is a rampant unfounded speculation.
It is as obvious that your argument has nothing to do with evolution as it is obvious you have no understanding of evolution whatsoever and only shows a deep indoctrination of beliefs in which you will defend at any cost.
A troubled man. Many are troubled because they reject the truth of God and subscribe unfounded theory of evolution. You may call me not ignorant of your acclaimed theory but that is a glory for me because I only cling unto the one true God and His Holy Word. Evolution is I have said a theory that could never be proven. I can discuss with you in detail issues on evolution outside hubpages.
It is neither unfounded nor unproven.
Who has told you this?
Evolution is not just a theory, it is a fact supported by mountains of evidence in every facet of science. To ignore that evidence is simply dishonest.
The WHOLE world is in a conspiracy to make you stop believing in the bible.
What do they gain out of it? Are they all talking about it behind your back?
If they are deliberately trying to deceive you, then they must know the bible is true, and that would mean they believe in hell so why would they send themselves to hell? What do they have to gain from deceiving YOU?
Last time I spoke to you, you said you were going to prove that all 400+ neanderthal fossils were fraudulent.
How are you getting on with that?
i've asked many believers the same questions with no coherent answers thus far. What motive would well educated scientists have to try and cover up proof of evolution being fake? How could such a vast conspiracy be kept secret, especially in countries where religion is still considered important?
These silly christians feel okay to use scientific knowledge to further their means--this forum for example--or especially if they are sick and need medical attention, but don't trust science when it spoils their little bible stories. What hypocrites they all turn out to be.
Where, oh where does it say that the great flood was the first time it had rained. Making things up again, I see.
To be fair, I believe he's referring to this ...
Genesis 2:5 - and before every plant of the field was in the earth, and before every herb of the field grew; for the LORD God had not caused it to rain upon the earth, and there was not a man to till the ground.
Because it's always been assumed that this depiction of Adam's creation and the creation of humans at the end of Genesis 1 were the same event, this description has always been seen as a global description, meaning before any plant life ever existed and before rain had ever fallen. Though it's not even in the same order as Genesis 1.
Thank you, HN. I think it is safe to say that scientifically speaking, there was a point in earth's history when it rained for the very first time. In discussing Gen 1 and 2, there is an interpretation which has not gained much publicity or acceptance. Gen 1 is God as in supreme being. Gen 2 is Lord God's creation which can be said to be a different aspect. In G-1, man is created having DOMINION over the entire earth, and that creation is good. VERY GOOD. G-2 is where evil appears in the form of an aspect of knowledge in relation to Adam, who, not having dominion, was confined to a specific place, a garden called Eden. I see Adam as a descendant of dominion man. Dominion had already been acheived, and the garden was the end product of it. Some have argued in the past for G-2 to have been a separate creational process. I see it as a logical extension of G-1
The separation between Dominion and Garden we know as ICE-AGE.
I can see what you're saying, and agree in a way.
Genesis 1 illustrates an existence that does exactly as God commanded. Animate or inanimate, it did exactly as God's will dictated. Including the humans. As you pointed out, after God created these humans in His form and likeness, and after He told them to populate, subdue, and establish dominion over all the earth, THEN it says He looked at all He created and saw that it was good.
If humans had free will at that point, just as Adam and Eve and Cain all illustrate in Gen 3 and 4, there's no way they could have carried out such an elaborate set of commands that would take numerous generations to carry out. These humans were different.
In the time period in which Genesis 2 forward is set according to ages given and locations and civilizations listed, this story coincides with a dramatic shift in how humanity lived. Humans began to forge tools and develop methods and build structures that made life more convenient. They began writing at first to track goods sold and labor worked.
Humans before this are believed to have traveled extensive trade routes and worked with other tribes of humans to get what they needed for many thousands of years. Yet it's here in Mesopotamia that humans needed to invent a way to account for work done or goods traded. And it was only here that humans invented things that suggest a level of individual accountability. Like government and laws. A desire to understand like astonomy/astrology. The humans before went from stone tools to tools made of sticks and stones over the course of 2 million years. But in just a couple of thousand years, especially in this region specifically, you've got an explosion of invention.
I suggest this indicates the introduction of an individual free will that wasn't there before. This is what I believe Genesis is describing. For example, right after 'the fall', when it says the 'eyes of both of them were opened', Adam and Eve immediately were aware of their nakedness. While humans had been wearing clothes for functional purposes for tens of thousands of years, I believe it's here that humans became bashful like no other species of animal and began covering themselves. There are tribal cultures to this day that still aren't so concerned. Mainly in those regions largely unaffected and untouched by civilization. And mainly amongst those that never procreated outside of their ancestral roots.
This age also marks a notable increase in human violence. The dawn of weaponized battles. Slavery. This could be evidence of free will. A free will wants no limitations. It wants to go where it wants when it wants to do whatever it wants. But when you've got numerous people, all with free wills of their own, you get conflict. Conflict can be found in nature too, and can even be found in early humans. Homo sapiens pushed Neanderthals out of existence, for example. But only here did conflict give rise to inventing new ways of achieving what one desires at such a rapid pace. And humanity has never been the same, and has never stopped fighting, since.
You are simply grasping at straws now. It is entirely possible the neanderthal species of hominids were annihilated by the more agile cro-magnon species, much like the Europeans did to the Native Americans. There is nothing whatsoever to show violence between humans started to occur all at once. Geez, I give up trying to make sense of your ramblings caused by your obvious lack of science, geology, history, and archaeology! Indoctrinated baptist, no doubt!
"There is nothing whatsoever to show violence between humans started to occur all at once."
I didn't just make that up. And I didn't say it 'started to occur all at once'. I said it increased significantly. I even acknowledged human on human violence before that. Homo Sapien or Cro-Magnon is irrelevant. Increased violence following the aridification of northern Africa and the Middle East is an established idea. Not just me grasping at a straw.
"An established idea"? What an insignificant, as well as, unhelpful claim. Indoctrinated as a child Baptist? The coveted triple LOL! I'm through with this guy!
Okay. I'm not sure why you would dismiss a noted increase in violence in that region that's considered one of the key catalysts to the establishments of the first dynasties in both Egypt and Sumer as 'insignificant'. Are you denying it happened? Or are you suggesting I'm being dishonest?
And I'm not sure why you have avoided my questions about your indoctrination and which cult you are a member of. Want to count back and see how many times you've done so? Naw, me neither!
And where are the statistics you claim show a sudden increase in violence in the mentioned area? I wasn't aware there were police records or any other kind which accurately kept numbers showing the yearly crime reports. And what about the rest of the world? Did "free will" only take place in the middle east and not anywhere else?
Remember, this was thousands of years after America had been populated by humans who seemed to have no problem establishing agrarian societies without the benefit of your particular god. They invented their own gods with no help from yours in the least.
Despite your wanting to believe the silly novel so much, there were no people to keep records of exactly when or where the first cities were formed. Unless of course, you believe writing was the first thing on the agenda of non-nomadic tribes. I don't think even you would suggest such, but I could be in error as your seem to invent your own suppositions. Nothing would surprise me at this point. Unless you answer my repeated questions concerning your cult, this will be my final response to your flawed reasoning concerning known facts and history.
And I'm not sure how you missed the whole paragraph in response to your question. It's there if you want to go back and look for it.
"And where are the statistics you claim show a sudden increase in violence in the mentioned area?"
Again, I didn't make it up ....
"In Mesopotamia, monumental public and religious buildings accompanied the rise of political power, with some of the earliest representations of violence and authority during a period of region-wide aridification (Pollock, 1999; Brooks, 2006a). The unification of Egypt soon after 5200 BP was depicted as a violent act, and probably represented the end result of a process of competition between smaller polities (Midant-Reynes, 1992; Brewer, 2005)."
(http://www.nickbrooks.org/publications/ … ov2009.pdf)
- Pollock, S. (1999) Ancient Mesopotamia. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press
- Brooks, N. (2006a) ‘Cultural Responses to Aridity in the Middle Holocene and
Increased Social Complexity’, Quaternary International 151: 29-49.
- Midant-Reynes, B. (1992) The Prehistory of Egypt. Oxford: Blackwell
- Brewer, D. J. (2005) Ancient Egypt: Foundations of a Civilisation. Harlow, UK:
Okay, I did go back and see you confirmed my guess as to your indoctrination into the baptist cult. Sorry I, messed it but you certainly avoided answering the question for quite some time. So am I psychic? Of course not!
It's merely knowledge obtained over many years of trying to deal with those who have been brainwashed at a very early age. Many never recover from such nonsense and apparently you are just one of many such victims. If you had been born elsewhere, you would now be arguing for the truth of some other ridiculous novel instead of that you have been reared by.
The first thing I do when I read such nonsense from a poster in these religious forums is to see where they hail from. Almost all of those who repeat the same old "facts," and I use this term very loosely, are from Texas, Tennessee, Georgia, (yes, we have baptists here in overabundance) or other places in the Bible belt. And most--like you--delay confirming my suspicions of their cult because they dislike affirming my suspicions about them.
I am ending my conversation with you because you are hopelessly lost as far as being able to distinguish fact from fantasy. More than likely, you can thank your parents for this flaw in your character because they had you indoctrinated from a early age. I'm sorry you had to experience this.
I know because I went through the same procedure but never fell for the spiel spewed by the ignorant Baptist teachers and preachers. Sorry you were exposed to such nonsense. Have a good life, but don't worry about an invisible, cruel being watching your every move nor being judged by those who have been cruelly brainwashed as a child. If you can, that is!
Wow, that's incredibly lame, Randy. And that's exactly what I expected and why I initially avoided the question. As soon as I told you I grew up Baptist you used it as an excuse to dismiss everything I say. Even though you yourself had the same unfortunate start, somehow I'm a hopeless lost cause?
Just like you, I've had numerous conversations from a wide variety of people with different views. And just like many others who actively argue against religion as you do, they often find a way to dismiss everything I've said or claimed categorically when they find they can't easily dismiss my claim with facts and evidence.
Rather than look into it further, maybe read up on something they weren't aware of before, or God forbid actually acknowledge I'm right about something, they instead find one excuse to latch onto to dismiss every single thing I said, usually by somehow attacking my credibility like you have here.
The fact that you grew up Baptist does not dismiss the utterly ridiculous things you say, but it certainly serves to explain why.
I agree it does not dismiss what I'm saying, yet Randy seems content with that for an answer.
Well then illustrate how exactly what I say is ridiculous, other than the usual philosophical dismissal that it can't be true because God doesn't exist. There are literally numerous scientific and historical facts that support my claim and I in no way conflict with any of it. Ancient texts written by the descendants of those who actually lived during this time also support my claim. Not to mention the bible itself, especially when what's known about the origins of the Books of Moses is taken into consideration.
Archaeological evidence, climatological evidence, geological evidence, historical evidence, ancient mythology and other ancient texts from that region and time period, my claim lines everything right up with one single, simple alteration to the traditional view of Genesis and offers an overall explanation to all of it. Like I said before, for all of this to line up as it does would be one gigantic coincidence if I'm completely off base.
I'm no odds maker, but the chances of me formulating a single claim that literally takes into account the entirety of earth's history, life's history, and human history, without conflicting with modern understanding and often actually supported by what's known, I would think would be pretty remote.
It's totally up to you whether or not you decide to just dismiss it rather than look into it further, but I'd strongly consider what reasons you're using to do so, or what reason you convince yourself everything I say is ridiculous. You might just be missing out on something important because you've convinced yourself you already know better.
Then show me how it's ridiculous. Don't just keep your superior knowledge to yourself. I'm open to being wrong if someone can illustrate to me I am. My faith doesn't hinge on this theory. Help me understand how you know for certain my claim is ridiculous. What makes it so obvious to you? What do you know better than I do that assures you there's absolutely nothing to any of this? Show me.
You get to say anything you like and then insist others disprove it or prove it is ridiculous. Seeing as "ridiculous," is defined as "Deserving or inviting derision or mockery; absurd," the very fact that you are getting ridiculed is proof.
Yeah, well, many new ideas are ridiculed at first, including the ones that turn out to be right. Like a heliocentric planetary system for instance. Or evolution. Or the big bang theory, which I know from previous conversations you place in the 'majik' category along with God. Ridicule isn't necessarily proof of the idea itself being wrong. Sometimes it's more proof of unfounded arrogance or an inability to comprehend the idea by those doing the ridiculing.
Just like any number of other things, it could go either way.
No. Your majik is ridiculous. How funny that you put yourself on a par with Darwin and Hawking though.
Sorry you did not understand.
Actually I didn't, if you'll read it carefully, but somehow I knew that's how you'd respond anyway. And where exactly does Hawking come into play? I didn't mention him and he wasn't responsible for anything I specifically mentioned.
Hawking explains the Big Bang Theory very well.
Sorry you think comparing your LOL "theories" with evolution is not comparing yourself with Darwin.
I now understand why you hide behind a fake persona.
Trolls usually do.
This is why your religion causes so much ill will.
And I'm sorry reading comprehension still seems to be an issue for you. I did not compare myself to those people. I merely compared this idea that is inciting ridicule with other ideas that have also incited ridicule.
You know, you'd save yourself and me a lot of time and effort if you would just give me the benefit of the doubt from time to time instead of arguing pointless things like this just for the sake of argument.
My icon has more to do with not subjecting the online community to my mug than hiding behind a persona. If you'd like me to send you some pics I'd be happy too.
And I'm not sure you understand what a Troll is. You might want to find out before trying to use it.
Why should I give you the benefit of the doubt? You are not an honest person.
I do find it extremely funny that you compare your ideas to the BB theory and Evolution though.
You know, you don't have near the comedic wit that Randy does, but I have to say that was funny. It wasn't intentionally funny. When you actually try you fail, but this time you managed to haphazardly trip over a gem!!
I know you purposefully try to incite hostility with your posts by being as condescending and dismissive as you can possibly muster. Your comment to me in a previous "discussion" that you hope to make the world a better place when I asked what it is you hope to accomplish was mildly funny, but this one is a whole new level of comedy from you. Calling me dishonest while being dishonest AND actually managing to embody everything it means to be a troll right after I said I'm not sure you know what a troll is. Nice!
I couldn't exactly call you a comedic genius if it turned out this were purposeful because a big part of what makes it so funny is the fact that you're totally unaware. That combined with the sheer number of hours you must waste just to end up being a kind of ironic clown makes this comedy gold in my eyes. Well done.
Nice. Condescending, passive/aggressive, accusing me of being dishonest while lying through your teeth - all the hallmarks of your religion. This is why your religion causes so many conflicts. Wouldn't the world be a better place without this sort of behavior?
Hiding behind a fake user name and avatar is a good indicator of a troll.
Sorry - what is your real name again? All we really know about you for sure is that you are a Baptist and you do not understand science. Sadly - this covers a big group in your part of the world.
Tell me how your ideas are the same as Darwin's ideas again.
Sorry HvN, but you are way off target if you merely consider Mark to be a troll in these forums. For years he was an HP regular and I have great respect for his knowledge, both as a writer, and especially as a debunker of religious dogma. But once again your ignorance of facts, as well as your false assumptions concerning Mark, is detrimental to your credibility in these forums.
You have 4 hubs published here while Mark has 365. And if I'm not mistaken he has removed some of his previous articles. And you refer to him as a "troll". You can do better than that, MvN Personal attacks because he is right?
You're right. That was not my proudest moment. I have not read any of his hubs. The only experience I've had with him he's been exceptionally condescending. We've got a whole discussion thread in one of my hubs you're welcome to check out. I was respectful throughout and he simply wasn't. That's all I have to go by. This is just the latest in the back and forth between myself and him and marks the first time I gave into the urge to bite back a bit. I'm sure he's a great guy, he's just yet to reveal that side of himself to me.
Have you really thought this thing through, HvN? You are only looking at this from your own perspective. You fail to realize how insulting it is to a non-believer when a religious person insists there is an invisible super being exerting control on their earthly lives and then goes on to rationalize their beliefs with stories from an old goatherd myth book.
Sure, it all makes some sort of sense to you because you've been told it is true all of your life. For goodness sakes, you live in Texas! Not many other states are as steeped into fundamental baptist type beliefs as yours. I should know as Georgia has just as many silly cults--if not more--as the Lone Star state. Besides, many of the former slave owners fled from here to Texas with their entire workforce when slavery began to be frowned upon in the east.
That's why our southern accents are so similar. So I know where you are coming from. Mark and others have never been subjected to "Deep South" religious folks and don't realize you guys believe you are doing everyone a favor by telling them they are wrong about their beliefs because God is on your side. But I suppose you don't see your claims as being an insult to non-believers while you consider theirs something to be miffed about. Everyone hasn't been indoctrinated into the one true faith, you know.
Yes, I have thought this through heavily, and no, I am not only looking at this from my own perspective. And I never said an invisible being has control of your life. Quite the opposite actually. That's what free will is. What would be the point of giving someone free will if you were just going to override their choice and control their lives anyway?
What you don't get is that your perspective is the other half of my internal perspective. The internal antagonist to my faith-based view that's been arguing with each other since I was capable. I don't dismiss your view and I don't disrespect you based on your views. Your assumptions about me to this point have been way off the mark.
And as I said before, I am not here advancing a religious agenda. I am not a church-goer and I am not witnessing to the Hubpages community. I am acknowledging that science answers a majority of questions about this physical world, but has as of yet been unable to answer a few key questions. I also acknowledge that of all the organized religions I've studied, they all also leave much to be desired as far as explanations.
However, when you remove all of those per-conceived ideas of what the Books of Moses are and what they're saying, whether they're ideas formed through indoctrination or ideas formed through a disdain for organized religion in general, and just read Genesis for what it says it actually does start answering some of those questions.
You keep referring to it as a goat-herders book, illustrating that you have dismissed an ancient text based on personal biases and in no way based on actual evidence. I know this because I know there is no definite determination made that can give us an actual origin of the Books of Moses. Assuming it was written by goat-herders is just that, an assumption. Can you tell me without first looking it up what evidence you base this view on?
You're running on a lot of assumptions about me based on my belief in God, my being raised in a baptist church, and where I live. Even your comments make it clear you're not actually discussing this with me, but rather discussing this with some self-created internal image of who you think I am. That is made clear in every reply that incorrectly states my claim, then argues against it. This is something I've grown accustomed to seeing as it is a more and more common occurrence.
It's akin to the same kind of irrationality you get from a young earth creationist when it's become clear they cannot converse on a topic based on evidence and facts. You've yet to refute a single claim I've made based on evidence or facts, you've yet to refute a single fact I've stated in support of my claim based on evidence or facts. Everything you have argued against I'm just supposed to take your word for as the authority on the topic apparently, with no reference to anything beyond yourself. You've to this point avoided that topic all together choosing instead to attempt to dismiss me yet again by attacking my credibility.
Personally I find your attempt to dismiss me and what I'm saying as 'insulting' is laughable, yet at the same time bordering on infuriating.
Touche! Now you know how those of us who consider the bible as merely old myths feel. I cannot argue with facts when they are merely assumptions on your part. Sure, you mix a bit of known scientific facts in here and there, but you assume these facts match up with old bible tales from a book you've been brought up to believe were written by ????
The NT was certainly the paperback novels of the day in Greece when Christianity became THE religion to belong to. But the OT was not even organized into the book we see today for thousands of years after Genesis was supposed to have taken place.
Until then it was a toss up as to which goat herder's group had the correct slant in their myths concerning the beginnings of human creatures on this planet. So, where did the author of YOUR favorite version of Genesis get his information from if God isn't figured into the equation?
That is my whole point, Randy. Trying to say I'm mixing in a bit of known facts here and there is a gross misstatement. I am linking Genesis 2 through 11 and beyond to events we know to have happened that are also spaced apart the same number of years as how those events are described in Genesis. I'm pointing out how these beings as described in Genesis are actually reflected in the mythology of the people who existed in that time and place. And I'm showing that the key fundamental change that made Adam and his descendants unique as described in Genesis (free will/knowledge of good and evil) lines up with a fundamental change we know to have happened in human history that forever changed how humans exist on this planet (civilization).
Beyond that I also illustrate how first acknowledging the creation account in chapter 1 is told from a surface of the planet perspective as specified in verse 2, combined with an understanding of the changes in the earth's atmosphere throughout the millenia (opaque/translucent/transparent), Genesis 1 actually manages to describe 13 specific events in the correct order, 6 major eras in earth's history in the correct order, and manages to do so as if someone witnessed these things over the course of millions and billions of years from the surface of the planet. Then turned around and described it in a way that humans from the bronze age and before would understand.
And while this mystery writer could have maybe had knowledge of these events in chapters 2 through 11 that they built a story around, as far reaching as even that may be, there's no way a human could have known the history of the earth well enough to explain it so accurately. Without the God that Genesis is specifically describing in the equation, being able to describe these events that happened hundreds of millions of years before humans existed would be impossible.
Yes, the OT was organized hundreds, if not thousands of years after it was written. We have no idea how old they are or who wrote them. Yet they appear to be describing things we've only figured out in the past century or so.
Does this prove with absolute certainty that Genesis is legitimate? No. But what it does do is establish a much more credible, much more likely explanation of these events than the traditional view that, if true, places the stories in Genesis into actual history. And, if true, also goes a long way towards explaining how those first human civilizations came about, where those ancient mythologies originate, as well as where we come from and why we're here.
If there's anything to this, is this not something worth looking into? If we remove all the religious hoopla that's been associated with this book throughout the centuries driven by whatever motivations, and just look at these as ancient writings with no known origin other than being roughly from the same time and place that human civilization first began, is it really so wise to just decide we already know better and throw it out? When all we really know about Genesis and what it's saying was what other humans who knew just as little or less told us?
If an alien from another planet helped the unknown author of Genesis along with the historical timeline, I could possibly buy into this scenario. But a supernatural being or beings creating the planet, or narrating the story to the Moses dude, is a little too far fetched for me. But if you enjoy thinking about it in this manner, then more power to you!
I agree. That's why I know that no matter how much people, arrogantly, ridicule The Flying Spaghetti Monster, it doesn't prove that it is untrue!
I already did that and you ignored it. How long do you think people are going to put up with that nonsense of showing you just how ridiculous your claims are and you just ignore them and continue spouting the same nonsense?
If you're talking about that little blurb way back where you attempted to show my dates for when specific animals existed as being wrong, I did not ignore it. I addressed that by showing you I was not wrong. If you find anything factually wrong with my response then please point it out to me. I believe I asked for that before and then you ignored it.
You might go back and check these things before you start making these sort of accusations. It's all in writing, all documented right here in this very forum.
You did no such thing. You attempted to align biblical creationism with evidence and failed miserably.
Prove it. Prove I failed. I asked you to before and got nothing. Here, let me help you so you don't even have to go through the trouble of looking it up...
"Sauropsids (reptiles and birds) 350 to 150 million years ago ..."
"Synapsids (mammals) 65 to 34 million years ago"
"Humans 4 million years ago to 10 thousand years ago"
"Sorry, but there were no birds (fowl) on Earth 350 million years ago."
"Sorry, but there were no cattle on earth 54 million years ago."
"Sorry, but there were no humans on earth 4 million years ago."
"Seems your biblical account is seriously wanting."
"You understand I didn't get those dates from the bible don't you? The earliest known bird showed up roughly 150 million years ago (Archaeopteryx), but the ancestors that led to birds first climbed from the sea about 350 million years ago (Mississippian Epoch (359.2 to 318.1 mya)).
Proto-mammals then small mammals first appeared around 200 million years ago, but mammals really began to thrive after that strangely selective K-T mass extinction 65.5 million years ago that wiped out the then dominant dinosaurs (bird's ancestors). Cattle showed up during the Eocene Epoch (55.8 to 39.9 million years ago).
4.4 million years ago marks the first appearance of Ardipithecus, an early hominin genus. Technically, it would be 6 million years ago if you also include the first bipedal hominins. Modern humans (homo Sapiens) first appeared just under 200 thousand years ago.
I guess I should have been more specific. I was kind of assuming you guys knew this stuff and didn't need me to clarify."
"Actually, we do know what we're talking about."
"By taking loose quotes from the Bible and attempting to align them with the fossil record, unsuccessfully?"
"I already did."
"Oh ... huh .... I don't see it. Maybe you can copy/paste where you explained what you mean?"
I showed these things happening in the same chronological order as what's specified in the Genesis 1, something you did not even attempt to object to, deciding rather to correct things I didn't even have wrong. I asked for more information and you provided none.
So, now's your chance. Bring it on home, ATM. Correct me.
ATM, I responded to this and got a message that says, "Sorry, the post you are looking for is no longer available on this page. If it still exists you should be able to find it here now:..."
I tried again and it failed saying it was a duplicate post. I can see the post on my homepage, but not here on the forum page itself. If you're not able to see it let me know and I'll post it again.
I basically just cut/pasted our whole previous conversation illustrating A) I did not ignore you, and B) you did nothing to prove my statement wrong or ridiculous or anything of the sort.
I showed how the creation of the animals in Genesis 1 is in the right chronological order with how it actually happened. You tried to say I had some of my dates wrong, I corrected you, you never clarified how I had anything wrong.
They're on pages 11 and 12 if that helps.
And exactly where did I state I was content with your being a Baptist and therefore your claims were disproven? If you had immediately confirmed my suspicions of being what I suspected, you may have attained a modicum of credibility.
Instead, you intentionally ignored the question hoping it would go away. If you strive so diligently to keep from admitting something which should be obvious to anyone familiar with the bible belt, then what lengths will you go to ignore even more important facets of your faith?
You are no different than the humorous dude on another forum who belives a natural rock formation is the ark, even though scientists have long found it to be nothing of the sort. Desperation is pathetic in these instances and does nothing to help the cause of the claimant and rather hurts the credibility of the poster by their strident appeals for others to buy into their delusions.
You are trying to make history fit the old novel, but only bits and pieces of it, not the entirety of the text. We do not have the original texts to peruse for facts we may place some reliance on. Either explain the literal words--all of them--or simply say you can't. I see no reason why an all powerful, all knowing, deity would allow his inspired "messengers" to screw it all up with stuff even the most religious believers cannot swallow.
But you are now stuck with your own little theories about the old novel and I doubt you'll ever give up trying to make it all fit. Go back to the baptist preacher and ask him some of these tough questions if you dare. I think you already know what he will tell you. He can't make any sense out of it either. How do I know this? I've queried many personally. Most baptist preachers are even more ignorant than their flock. They too had indoctrination by professionals.
Right here ...
"I am ending my conversation with you because you are hopelessly lost as far as being able to distinguish fact from fantasy. More than likely, you can thank your parents for this flaw in your character because they had you indoctrinated from a early age. I'm sorry you had to experience this.
I know because I went through the same procedure but never fell for the spiel spewed by the ignorant Baptist teachers and preachers. Sorry you were exposed to such nonsense. Have a good life, but don't worry about an invisible, cruel being watching your every move nor being judged by those who have been cruelly brainwashed as a child. If you can, that is!"
Remember, this is when you decided not to discuss the evidence you asked for and I provided, and instead tried to use this to bow out of the conversation?
And I'm sorry if I made an assumption based on prior experiences, just as you acknowledged doing to me, by jumping to the conclusion that telling you I grew up Baptist would just totally take us off topic. Here we are still discussing it, and I seriously doubt it would have gone any differently or that I would have earned any 'credibility' as you put it, but I'm the one that made the assumption and have to live with it.
I'm not aware you have any credibility as far as religious topics are concerned, HvN. If you can tell me you have discovered your indoctrination into the Baptist cult had no influence on the way you look at facts and now disavow the silly novel as just being that, then I will consider you in a different light. Otherwise, you are correct in your assumption of my not taking your posts seriously.
There is no need to imagine an invisible presence having hands-on manipulation concerning the history of our planet. There has never existed any proof of our needing either a god or an antagonist to meddle in the affairs of men. We are simply the most advanced species on this planet with no pretend gods needed to do good or evil in any given scenario. Blaming pretend deities for either good or evil is simply a way of controlling the masses by those who require such control. All gods were invented by common men for just such reasons.
Expel all of your indoctrination and we'll talk. Until then, you are still buying into the sad old novel just as you always have. No gods are needed for humans to advance. Especially one which seems to require relinquishment of common sense and reality. Genesis is fiction, get over it!
Looking at existence with no God makes just as little sense. Human consciousness does not fit in a causal-only existence. A sense of humor, music and our enjoyment of it, crying, individual pride in a job well done, art and imagination, none of this makes any sense in a natural causal-only existence. There's no explanation for any of it scientifically beyond speculation. And no explanation how a conscious mind such as ours could literally form out of nothing when nothing like it has ever existed before anywhere ever.
I'm sorry, but your viewpoint makes absolutely no sense to me. And neither did the view of my Baptist upbringing. Both individually left too many pertinent questions unanswered. However both offer answers to quite a bit of it when combined together.
Yes I believe religion has used God and a fear of hellfire to control the masses. Humans all throughout history have used whatever they could to control others. Free will is a dangerous thing. Hard to control by its very nature.
And again about this 'proof' thing, please tell me what exactly you would expect proof of God to look like? Think about that. Just as it says in Romans 1:20 ...
"For since the creation of the world God’s invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that people are without excuse."
Key word invisible. His divine nature can be clearly seen 'being understood from what has been made'. In other words, all we can see scientifically or otherwise are the results of His actions. Not the actions themselves. No gigantic arms floating out in space balling up new planets like clay. No giant finger prints to point to. Trying to use natural science, which is the study of the physical world, to try to determine whether or not God exists is like using a screwdriver on a bolt. It's the wrong tool.
That's why that whole other branch of science, the social sciences, exist. Like God, human consciousness cannot be grasped in any tangible/physical/measurable way either. We have to study what's created by consciousness in an attempt to understand it. Same concept.
Sorry, but even animals are consciously aware of their surroundings. "free will" is simply a concept used by your ilk as an excuse for there even being a god or gods. Is it free will to confess to things not true to preserve one's life or to prevent an eternity of suffering? I would label such results as mere extortion for another being to have their own way.
You are free to prove free will being a godly gift instead of merely instinct and preference if you wish. A dog has free will whether to eat his food or hide it from other animals. Whether to come when called or instead to run away. How many canine ministers have you ever observed?
First off, there's a big difference between consciousness and free will. And while consciousness and the will to live and procreate isn't exactly explained in science either, those parts of human consciousness that set us apart from the animal kingdom definitely have no viable explanation in a natural causal environment.
Second, free will is a will apart from God's. That doesn't mean everyone and everything will listen to your will when called. It's more obvious if you step back and look at the overall picture. Most living beings, other than us, live in total harmony with the natural world. Only we live in such direct opposition of it. They all exhibit the same things Genesis 1 says God imbued in them. Be fruitful and multiply, survive, become this and that, come forth from the sea, etc.
A dog deciding whether or not to eat or hide food is part of survival. Natural instinct. Part of being fruitful and surviving.
Who decides the viability of an explanation to you? An invisible being who has never made himself observable to his supposed creations? You cannot prove free will exists unless you can also set up a scenario without any possible consequences or results at all to the person using their own free will.
In any situation where choices are made there are always consequences. Even animals are aware of this. Some dogs will nose through the garbage can knowing they will run and hide when the master gets home because they are aware he will be angry. Others will refrain for the same reasons. Mere instinct would dictate all dogs would disobey the master. Free will?
Sure, no animals kill other creatures and never their own kind. Where in the heck were you educated, HvN? Utopia State University? Chimpanzees are known to sneak around and have sex with other chimps. They hide from their prospective mates until the deed is done. They used their free will to do what they knew was wrong and their guile to pull it off. Sounds sorta human like, or perhaps you disagree?
A man deciding whether or not to eat his food, or hide it for later when his friends leave is part of survival. Right? No free will involved? No natural instinct either? Greed? Just exactly where do you draw the line between instinct and free will? Very few decisions we make in our lives are totally unencumbered with consequences of some sort. True free will requires no consequences at all, otherwise there is always something pushing us in one direction or the other.
"Some dogs will nose through the garbage can knowing they will run and hide when the master gets home because they are aware he will be angry. Others will refrain for the same reasons. Mere instinct would dictate all dogs would disobey the master. Free will?"
Simple survival. Direct remembered consequences. The same can be seen in nature amongst scavengers. Risk versus reward.
"Sure, no animals kill other creatures and never their own kind. "
Never said they didn't. When you've got multiple beings all trying to be fruitful and multiply and survive, some will win out over others when resources are limited. Remember, evolution, survival of the fittest, all of that is included in my claim. I'm not denying it or arguing against it. The struggle to survive and procreate brought about lungs and eyes and teeth and claws and stingers and poison. A physical world is a rough place to live and forced living things to adapt, forging them to survive in the most adverse of conditions.
"Chimpanzees are known to sneak around and have sex with other chimps. They hide from their prospective mates until the deed is done. They used their free will to do what they knew was wrong and their guile to pull it off. Sounds sorta human like, or perhaps you disagree?"
Nope, I don't disagree. God told the animals to procreate, He didn't say pair up with just one partner. The sex drive is a powerful thing in all of creation. It drives life in a lot of ways. Nothing about this suggests a will outside of what was commanded by God. Those commands achieved the ultimate goal. Chimps are still here.
"A man deciding whether or not to eat his food, or hide it for later when his friends leave is part of survival. Right? No free will involved? No natural instinct either? Greed? Just exactly where do you draw the line between instinct and free will?"
Again, the most obvious evidence is when you pull back and look at the whole picture. How many species do you know of make waste like we do? Or destroy their environment like we do? How many spread out and take ownership of more terrain than what's needed? There is an obvious balance in life that we as humans do not abide by like everything else does.
There are plenty of animals which foul their own nests. There are also plenty which have destroyed their environment if left to their own devices. I know in your own state there are places which have a problem with wild hogs.
Give certain animals the chance and they will eat themselves into a situation where they will either become extinct, or a large number of their species will die off enough to level the playing ground. Simple supply and demand, not unlike situations humans faced at various times in our history. Nothing at all to do with free will in the least.
You keep saying "Step back and look at the whole picture" or something of the sort. All of the things mentioned required no god to take place. As far as I know, the old guy never comes down and says "okay guys, I want you hogs to let up a bit on the food chain. Remember how I drowned all of the bunny rabbits back in the day"?
I'm sorry, HvN. We are getting nowhere fast. You want Genesis to be a somehow cryptic message entailing all of the history we are curious about. I'm sure it would make you feel better if you could convince someone besides yourself of your being correct about it. Too bad you weren't born a couple of hundred years ago when science wouldn't get in your way.
Unfortunately, those like yourself will find it even harder to try and wiggle around the inconsistencies in the old tome in the future. But don't fret over it. There will always be a certain amount of people who are happily, willfully, blissfully, ignorant and they will listen to you as if you really had something there.
I know we're getting nowhere. We're in the gray areas now. As you said, the line between free will and natural instinct is a hard one to draw. That's why I was trying to stick to facts and evidence, yet we somehow still ended up here anyway.
As for this, please don't tell me you won't acknowledge the differences between humans and animals. There is obviously a difference. Even between the humans who were born of civilization versus those that still live within the confines of nature there are differences.
Genesis describes it as being 'god-like' because they had 'the knowledge of good and evil'. And it states the first thing Adam and Eve became aware of after their 'eyes were opened' was their nakedness. In Genesis 11 He points out that these 'children of men' were basically able to do anything they imagined.
Look at humanity throughout the past few thousand years compared to every other living thing. We wear clothing, for one. We make plans to carry out an imagined outcome. Not by instinct. Not simply to adapt to living conditions or a new environment to survive. It's beyond that. We are able to dream up an invention and then make it. Rather than following instincts taught over many generations, we make our own plans and carry them out.
How many species can you point to that completely altered their usual instinctual habits to live a totally different chosen path? And I don't mean adaptations to changes in the environment. I mean a species that changed course for no given reason to instead live an alternate way than what was done previously? How many species try to convey how they feel through some form of art?
And if you don't see my perspective, try then to explain yours. Explain how human consciousness in all its glory comes about through natural progression. How does laughing and a sense of humor develop? And not the sound of a laugh that can affect social behavior, but laughs like when there's nobody but you in the room and you see/hear/read/think something that just cracks you up. That kind.
Believe me, I will discuss this topic with you all day long. But much of it is subjective and will most likely reach no conclusion. That's why I point out things that can be proven. A series of events that line up with what's described in Genesis that also happens to lead right up to a fundamental change in how humanity has existed ever since. Genesis explains it. The Sumerians seem to be describing it. History and science confirm there were dramatic changes. It all fits. Whether you acknowledge it or not, this is significant. This book that you and many others have ruled out long ago has much more to say than even most believers give it credit for. I'm simply trying to point that out. If I'm right then this can teach us a lot about ourselves. I don't think it should be so quickly and easily dismissed.
We are not the only species known to wear clothing, HvN. Along with Neanderthal Man, there were quite possibly other hominid species which also utilized skins or fur for apparel.
All of these species came down from the trees at some point in their evolution, and yes, we are animals. Sure, the highest form of animal on this planet, but animals nonetheless. We can change a lot of things in our lives unlike most all other creatures, but this is because we ARE the smartest animals on earth.
Do you believe it is merely coincidental we have many of the same features as other primates? Or do you think the similarities are just the luck of the draw? God's sense of humor? "Hey, I've made one in my image, and now I'll make one that looks like my Mother-in-law! Voila! A baboon I think I'll call it"!
I mean really, what are the chances we aren't animals at all? We have a heart, lungs, brain, etc. just like most mammals. It's just that some folks don't want to consider they aren't really all that! But if you are afraid to be flesh and blood, like most other animals, then you just keep on pretending you're not. Pretend you have a super deity too if it makes you feel better. Just don't expect everyone to take you seriously.
Personally, I kinda like to be called an animal sometimes.
Like I said before, I'm not arguing against evolution or natural human development. I know and understand that we share a lot in common with chimpanzees and other primates, including a close relation DNA-wise. I acknowledge and accept that we're animals ourselves. Afterall, one major theme throughout the bible is the weakness of the flesh and its desires. Understanding it from a modern scientific perspective, that makes much more sense than ever.
And I don't argue that early Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals, Cro-magnon maybe, and maybe even earlier species as far back as Homo Heidelbergensis or earlier wore clothes for functional purposes. Specifically those that migrated north out of Africa into colder temperatures. That's part of survival, especially considering that another thing humans were specifically instructed to do in Genesis 1 was to populate and subdue the earth. That means traveling. Traveling long distances started all the way back with homo Erectus, who were the first to lose their body hair according to body lice DNA evidence that shows where head and pubic lice diverge genetically. Traveling also means adverse conditions to adapt to.
But there's a difference between wearing clothes for functional reasons and covering yourself because you're aware of your nakedness. We know this wasn't always the case. We know this changed somewhere along the way. There are tribal cultures still in existence today that don't feel the need to cover themselves for anything other than functional reasons. So when exactly did humans change from wearing clothes that served a functional purpose to wearing clothes to cover the nakedness they were self-conscious about?
That's more my point.
There is a simple answer for the why of clothing. The climate during the many ice ages required humans, and other related species, to wear skins for protection against the elements. In northern climes our ancestors didn't know anything about moving further south where the weather was warmer so clothing was a necessity to survive. Embarrassment due to nudity was perhaps the least of their problems.
Another clue environment had more to do with function instead of shame is the types of clothing used in hot and cold climates. Nudity is not considered sinful in many cultures where the climate is hot. I see no evidence of nudity being the chief cause of clothing being utilized by ancient man. More than likely the shame came from religious leaders of some sort, similar to the ones we unfortunately still have today.
I know you want to lay the blame at the feet of religion, but we know that's not the case. The two earliest ancient civilizations, Sumer and Egypt, both depict their people and their gods wearing clothing in their carvings. And there are few places warmer than northern Africa and The Middle East. Neither civilizations' mythology specifies anything religiously mandated regarding clothing.
Why are you assuming clothing wasn't utilized until only a few thousand years ago? A few years being around 10,000+ years at least and perhaps much much longer. When you can tell me exactly when and where this took place, we'll then have something to work with.
The ancient civilizations you referred to are simply among the first known large settlements we are aware of in the old world. They are certainly not the first settled spots on earth by any stretch of the imagination. I believe you would have to agree with that. Unless of course, you think someone all of a sudden said, "Hey Uggah, the dust from these mud bricks keep irritating my scrotum. Hand me a strip of that smilodon hide to gird my loins with"!
Prohibitions against nudity probably came about because of religious beliefs and man made morals. There is nothing to indicate otherwise. Do you believe the garments worn in Egypt and other hot parts of the Middle East are a fashion statement? Or, perhaps they might offer a bit of protection from the sun as an afterthought. This whole "clothing was invented for morality purposes" subject is really you grasping at straws to try and make Genesis fit into ancient history somehow.
Do you actually think the first clothing was fabricated from fig leaves? Your god's inspired record keepers said so. Either it has to be true or nothing else in the book is true either. Pick and choose until you finally get something YOU believe fits the story. A person wanting so badly to believe something can take any old myth and "what if" and "maybe it" until it makes sense to THEM. Did I ever tell you why I think Jack in the Beanstalk was actually inspired by my god Moe? "There were giants in those days" you know!
"Why are you assuming clothing wasn't utilized until only a few thousand years ago?"
I'm not. Use of clothing goes back at least 50,000 years according to that study on human lice I mentioned. This most likely coincides with when homo Sapiens migrated north out of Africa. And that's not just my assumption but is the popular theory.
"Unless of course, you think someone all of a sudden said, "Hey Uggah, the dust from these mud bricks keep irritating my scrotum. Hand me a strip of that smilodon hide to gird my loins with"!"
Nice. Especially working in a smilodon. Interesting side-note, homo erectus was often food for smilodons as evidenced from petrified fecal matter. Gross, a little scary considering large cats in my opinion are the single most frightening creature on the planet, but interesting.
"Do you actually think the first clothing was fabricated from fig leaves?"
No, I think that if you in an instant realized you were naked you'd grab whatever was handy. A fig leaf works in a pinch.
"This whole "clothing was invented for morality purposes" subject is really you grasping at straws to try and make Genesis fit into ancient history somehow."
I didn't say clothing was invented for morality purposes. I just said that somewhere along the way humans transitioned from wearing clothing for functional purposes, like protection from the sun or to keep warm, to wearing clothing to cover their nakedness. According to that human lice study, it was sometime in the past 50,000 years. According to Egyptian and Sumerian carvings that depict clothing beyond being simply functional, it happened sometime between those two events.
There is no agreed upon theory to explain this transition that I've found, but what I have found is those that assume this was a natural transition usually feel it was socially motivated and most often agree it happened before the 1st dynasties of both Sumer and Egypt.
"But once again your ignorance of facts..."
One key part to determining whether or not something is a fact is proof. So, in the spirit of factual discussion, point to me just one fact that you have proof I have wrong. Just one. I've asked and asked for this from you and many others who feel totally comfortable speaking off the cuff about how ignorant I am yet feel no need to provide any sort of evidence to back it up. Usually when I try to get into facts and evidence we instead steer into a more philosophical discussion.
Contrary to popular belief I don't just talk out of my butt and I don't outwardly and purposefully lie. I can't and won't deny the possibility of being delusional simply because a delusional person would be the single worst judge of whether or not their reasoning is sound, and I acknowledge that. But what would anyone possibly have to gain by speaking of things they know nothing about or being purposefully dishonest? I can provide reference material to any fact I have stated here or elsewhere. I'm not a fan of looking like a fool, so I do my research to ensure as best as I can that doesn't happen. Not that I've never looked like a fool, but I do try to keep it from happening if possible by first verifying what I say.
Please back up this statement by proving it, or please stop saying it. Just because I'm a believer doesn't mean I don't have the same right to respect as any other human being. I realize there are many believers here and elsewhere that do not, but I do try to retain a level of respect for other people's views and don't think of them as less of a person just because I don't agree with them. If they have something wrong, I try to illustrate it with a reference that backs up what I'm saying. Please extend that same courtesy to me and refrain from the baseless slander.
Obviously you take the word "ignorance" as a bad thing. I freely admit to being ignorant on many subjects with no shame at all. Most of my knowledge has came from reading over 10,000 books in my lifetime, many more than once. But still I know there are many things I don't fully comprehend in our world.
I am a permanent student of our wonderful history on this earth. Besides owning a large collection of Native American projectile points and artifacts--collected by myself on my own property-- I am also a contributing member of several archaeology sites, one operated by the Smithsonian Institute.
So I do have a bit of background studying early human history. Although the oldest points I've collected are only around 12 to 14,000 years old--a blink of the eye in our historical timeline--they far predated the flood myth and anything associated with Genesis. A tale which we know was written by an anonymous author long after the supposed events happened.
It was composed with the then known--or thought to have been known--facts of the day. Many of the aspects were wrong of course, but the author was apparently still able to convince willing people to have faith in them. If you like the tale, then fine. Go with it. But I believe you'd be better off discussing this with those who can also rationalize the plethora of inconsistencies in the old tome.
God proved to me that he is present. Maybe if you ask really nice...and mean it, he might reveal his presence to you, too. It does say "Seek and you will find, ask, and it will be opened to you." It does work.
I did the same for the pink unicorn. Sure enough, right after a few shots of tequila and a hit of mescaline, he told me the meaning of life. We are so lucky to be able to communicate with these beings. What did yours look like? Tall, short, did he have a beard like in all of the movies about him? Really, give us the scoop!
Most Christians I know believe in evolution (I do). How can they not? There's just too much evidence, and it's not all old evidence, either. Humans are still evolving. I read in a couple of medical journals that women's pelvises are gradually getting narrower, for one thing. Humans are also getting taller.
evolution of a specific species within itself sure...BETWEEN species eh no
P (X=k)= God through his son Jesus Christ is creator
(3×2)(3×2)(0.125×0.125)=0.3125=The Bible is True
This math is complicated, but I'm starting to get quite good at it.
Repentance + Faith + Jesus Christ = Salvation = Eternal LIFE
Not hard at all!
Very simple...but since these moronic atheist can't understand simple math, their brains are too primitive to grasp the irrefutable fact that math proves that God, through His son, Jesus Christ, is the Creator.
I suggest they take an immediate remedial Math class, if they know what God can do...before it's too late!
Yes sir. You can count on me anytime, to help you with your....War on ATHEIST!
As a Catholic Christian, I don't really have a developed position on evolution. Where it does not contradict my faith, it is not an issue for me. Evolution is the realm of science, not faith and morals. We (Catholic Christians) do believe in the creation of the universe ex nihilo (out of nothing), the special creation of our souls, and monogenism (descent from one original set of first parents). That's as far as I have ever speculated.
Yes, I was quite surprised when I discovered that the pope accepts evolution and that it was Roman catholic priest who came up with the idea of the'big bang'.
I was not aware of that, but then Catholocism does not meet my definition of Christianity. I was educated in the sciences (natural and medical) and have a degree in natural science as well as an extensive background in the medical field but have since abandoned my belief in evolution, at least macroevolution. I believe in microevolution because science backs it up, but macroevolution, the transfoforming of life forms into completely different species and the evolution of complex organs and organ systems just does not make sense.
But Catholicism is Christianity and it is the version from which most of the others evolved.
That is surprising. Most scientists seem to accept it.
Well, I don't have a science degree, but I disagree. Macroevolution is, in effect, just a build up of microevolution, over thousands of years ~ just as the evolution of complex organs has developed slowly over many, many, many years.
And yet, if you actually knew anything about evolution, which appears that you don't, you'd understand that the process that produces microevolution is exactly the same as what produces macroevolution, the only difference being the spans of time.
And, you say you're educated in science?
Evolution in the Darwinian sense could have never taken place, which can be proved with computer easily. Too bad Darwin had no computer, else he would not have made a fool out of himself and we all ( especially many school children) could have been spared his nonsense.
There is an "evolution" of sorts taken place according to the Bible, because the further we get from God's original creation, the worse matter gets, like mutations, decay, desease ect.
I am not a scientist, not really a Christian- more a child of God according to John 1, reading my Bible, talking with God all day, like that, I have not much use for religion per se.
I know many Christian, who believe in theory of time laps =gap theory, which COULD have been taking place- only God know.
The bottom line is though: it makes NO difference What we believe, but WHO we believe. I prefer to believe God.
Pray and God might give you a better answer than I did.
I just started to do blogs and have no clue about internet stuff, but you might find some answers to your questions here in my blog: http://adifferenceforyourlovedones.wordpress.com
Blessings to you.
And yet modern scientists do have computers and they haven't proven that evolution did not occur ~ quite the opposite.
Evolution, ie. natural selection and diversity of species is a fact of nature, not computers.
We can see who is making a fool of themselves and it certainly wasn't Darwin.
Ah, I see the problem now, you know nothing about evolution, but are rejecting it based on the Bible.
And yet, you have religion, by definition.
Yes, maybe your God knows, because we humans understand that as nonsense.
It makes a huge difference when believers like yourself come on to public forums and fabricate lies about things they now nothing about and only do so in order to defend their irrational beliefs.
Sorry, but your imaginative invisible super being does not talk.
Horrible blog. Lots of garbage there.
Blechings to you, too.
In other words, you prefer to maintain a closed mind, while deceiving us, with these outright lies about the Theory of Evolution.
Morally, this is questionable.
I am so glad God gives us the choices as to what we believe. Fact is: I hate religion, since God hates religion. If you choose to believe in fair tales , by all means do so. There is no room in heaven for mysticism, because TRUTH is synonymous with reality. Always was and always will be. Truth is an absolute, not a theory, regardless of hat you choose to believe.
And what you choose to believe is NOT the TRUTH, but rather a childish fairytale, based upon nothing but primitive ignorance.
The Theory Of Evolution is based upon years of research and experimentation.
May be so, may be not , but I prefer my "fairy tail" since it is logic. Your fair tail has too many gaps for me, since you can't prove a darn thing. However the biblical creation is confirmed more and more as science progresses, since the Bible is app. 400 years old and humans finally get the hint about DNA, micro organisms, healing ect. Praise God of the universe for choice!!!!
actually in my opinion Christianity neglected and cursed the theory of evolution.Because they could not refuse the 6 days theory of the innovation of god . But now a days people think logically and believe in the theory.
Finewords:Amen: Logic always wins! However Christianity might have rejected evolution for a good reason.. But than: God is not a Christian and HIS word, the Bible, proves accurate about science in many now discoveries: DNA, 4 species, elements, fossils and many more. Look at the geological evidence like carbon dating: Perfectly plausible that the world could have been created in 6 days, since one can "manufacture coal in a lab in 7 hours, versus million of years. Noah's flood perfectly explains cataclysmic forces, fossils and the distinction of the dinosaurs. I am not a scientist. i just seek truth and hate it when I am lied to by people who don't have their life together, while God confirms my life every turn I take. Thank you for your good comment!
God is responsible for the distinction of the dinosaurs? Amazing!
You're so overt with your sarcasm... +1
Yeah, i cant let an opportunity like that go to waste
I really don't see how the Bible is particularly accurate about scientific discoveries ~ unless in an allegorical way.
The Bible is the first historical account of all life. Nothing else an give you a more accurate understanding on HOW and WHY we live. Whatever the subject matter: the Bible has the foundation. Not enough time to write, but just look at Psalm 23. it has all components of modern psychology: Security, love, significance, certainty/ security, variety. the book of Genesis origins, the book of job Anatomy, Physiology and pathology. I am sorry the Christian religion messed things up. But than God never intended Christianity to be a religion, since God hates religion.
Yes, like so much other sciences that make any religion like Christianity look utterly ridiculous, unfounded and childish.
Believers will say anything, no matter how dishonest to support their beliefs.
Yet, here you are attempting to align science with myth.
Yet, here you are filling your posts with lies. Curious behavior.
Amen!!!! I am not sure who lies, but it is perfectly acceptable to the majority of people, very common in the nature of fallen humanity.
by Rhys Baker5 years ago
Here is my point. All of the heads of the major branches of Christianity, as well as the heads of the other major religions all accept Evolution as the process by which the biodiversity we see before us came to be....
by Justin Earick4 years ago
Sodom wasn't smited for homosexuality (false-idol worship, poor treatment of strangers and the poor, gang rape). Leviticus doesn't matter (old covenant, pork, lobster, tattoos, mixed fibers, period sex,...
by Claire Evans5 years ago
Particularly fundamentalist Christians believe that you are offending God, or even blaspheming, by questioning the authenticity of certain parts. If you believe so, can you explain why?
by Shakka James14 months ago
Meaning, I want to know if you think evolution is a process of God's work. If you even believe in evolution.
by Catherine Mostly62 minutes ago
This is a really good question for Christians... Why was Obama erroneously-labeled the anti-christ; while a man like Trump is considered to be 'called' and appointed by God?Ps 21:1 "The king's heart is in the hand...
by cooldad6 years ago
My personal opinion is that, YES, most Christians believe in God out of fear. And that starts when they are children. When a child is taken to church and told that he/she will burn eternally in the fiery...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.