Jesus would believe in Evolution?

[DogLady19]

That's why my comment was specifically about the subset of Christians making these goofy arguments.

Cool. So it might have been a typo when you wrote: "Christians need to stop making such ridiculous arguments in the name of our faith." You meant to write "Young earthers"?

 

[River Jordan]

If you're not a Christian making such goofy arguments, then obviously my statement doesn't apply to you. But either way, I think we've cleared this up.

 

[StanJ]

Here is a recent headline on Patheos.com by a so-called 'friendly' atheist.

According to a Gallup poll released June 1, 2012, 46% of Americans believe in Creationism, 32% of Americans believe in god-guided evolution, and 15% of Americans are actually right.

and they vilify Christians for being opinionated!

Sad how 15% of the U.S. can influence so much of what the majority believes.

 

[pom2014]

Proof of WHAT pom? Proof that know dating technics are accurate? How has that been demonstrated?

Again proof of what?

The Bible is NEVER wrong, but men without faith in it are. Maybe you can actually provide scripture to support your POV?

I don't really care about HUMAN thought, I care about what the Bible teaches and that I faithfully believe it, but as all you are being is nebulous, there really is nothing for me to address pertinently.

I guess it depends on what you connote geocentric to be? As there is NO proof of life anywhere in our history of exploring the cosmos, why wouldn't the earth be considered the center of the universe as far as man can tell? Do we know where it ends or where we are in relational to it's overall dimensions? As far as I'm concerned, given what the Bible does teach, we are the center of the universe.
Nothing invalidates God, including your own misconceptions.

Well I'd like you to actually cite where this opinion comes from as IMO the reason men lived so long early on was because of the temperate nature of the world given that is was a perpetual rain forest. The water filtered all the harmful rays from the sun and diffused the rest. Are you purporting that the bottom of the oceans are hotter than the top and that there is no life down there?
Actually rain didn't occur until the flood, which is why people laughed at Noah when he warned them it would rain. Gen 2:5-6

We're not talking carbon dating here Stan. We're talking actually relics and writing that date that era by the people that made them. Empirical evidence.

And if you still believe that the sun and all the planets and stars move around a fixed non moving earth, well I can't help you there.

If you're going to be willfully ignorant about known and proven knowledge; then you're on your own.

Proof of WHAT pom? Proof that know dating technics are accurate? How has that been demonstrated?

Again proof of what?

The Bible is NEVER wrong, but men without faith in it are. Maybe you can actually provide scripture to support your POV?

I don't really care about HUMAN thought, I care about what the Bible teaches and that I faithfully believe it, but as all you are being is nebulous, there really is nothing for me to address pertinently.

I guess it depends on what you connote geocentric to be? As there is NO proof of life anywhere in our history of exploring the cosmos, why wouldn't the earth be considered the center of the universe as far as man can tell? Do we know where it ends or where we are in relational to it's overall dimensions? As far as I'm concerned, given what the Bible does teach, we are the center of the universe.
Nothing invalidates God, including your own misconceptions.

Well I'd like you to actually cite where this opinion comes from as IMO the reason men lived so long early on was because of the temperate nature of the world given that is was a perpetual rain forest. The water filtered all the harmful rays from the sun and diffused the rest. Are you purporting that the bottom of the oceans are hotter than the top and that there is no life down there?
Actually rain didn't occur until the flood, which is why people laughed at Noah when he warned them it would rain. Gen 2:5-6

We're not talking carbon dating here Stan. We're talking actually relics and writing that date that era by the people that made them. Empirical evidence.

And if you still believe that the sun and all the planets and stars move around a fixed non moving earth, well I can't help you there.

If you're going to be willfully ignorant about known and proven knowledge; then you're on your own.

 

[StanJ]

We're not talking carbon dating here Stan. We're talking actually relics and writing that date that era by the people that made them. Empirical evidence.

And if you still believe that the sun and all the planets and stars move around a fixed non moving earth, well I can't help you there.

If you're going to be willfully ignorant about known and proven knowledge; then you're on your own.

Again, WHAT? You say 'empirical', but offer nothing in support of your assertion?

Non surprising you equivocate here and don't recognize sarcasm when it is given.

WHAT proven knowledge pom? Your assertions are not proof, and trust me, I'm far from being on my own. I have God's word and my faith to sustain me.

 

[pom2014]

What would you like? Me to bring you a clay pot to your home so you might examine it?

Scientists have examined them if that is not good enough for you and you yourself must physically see these relics then you had better not believe any science you've never personally seen.

So man never went into space, nor launched satellites, there are no atoms because you've never seen one, there's no gasses that are invisible to your eyes and no deep sea animals as you've never gone down there to witness them.

Science is a complete and utter sham unless you've verified it. What limitations you place on reality. Astonishing to say the least. And you're from where on the world?

 

[StanJ]

What would you like? Me to bring you a clay pot to your home so you might examine it?
Scientists have examined them if that is not good enough for you and you yourself must physically see these relics then you had better not believe any science you've never personally seen.
So man never went into space, nor launched satellites, there are no atoms because you've never seen one, there's no gasses that are invisible to your eyes and no deep sea animals as you've never gone down there to witness them.
Science is a complete and utter sham unless you've verified it. What limitations you place on reality. Astonishing to say the least. And you're from where on the world?

I don't want you to bring me anything, just support your assertions. It's not good enough for you to say it and it's not good enough that some supposed scientists did what you say he/she did. All you're doing now is avoiding a plain request, probably because you can't cite anything.
Stop with the deflection and obfuscation and PROVE something.

Science is NOT complete, especially when it comes to ancient history, despite your assertions.

 

[Forsakenone]

What would you like? Me to bring you a clay pot to your home so you might examine it?

Scientists have examined them if that is not good enough for you and you yourself must physically see these relics then you had better not believe any science you've never personally seen.

So what is your point, we are just suppose to have faith when it comes to science?

 

[DogLady19]

So what is your point, we are just suppose to have faith when it comes to science?

Science does require some faith... If you are not a scientist yourself, you will have to have some faith in scientists... We have a responsibility to look into things ourselves. When someone tells us about something, we should go to the source and look into it and see if we came to same conclusions. (And even scientists have to have faith that the way they are testing a hypothesis is the right way)

It's gullible (and dangerous) to just believe the word of anyone, including scientists, without doing your own research.

 

[Forsakenone]

Sheesh.....it's almost like these young earth creationists are just blindly believing things without thinking about them on an even basic level.

If I recall correctly, aren't you the evolutionist who believes in Jesus? That's rich, especially in light of your comment about what they believe without thinking about them on the basic level.

Christians need to stop making such ridiculous arguments in the name of our faith.

So which species did you evolve from-the talking serpent or the talking azz? If science is based upon the known and observed universe then do you know of any monkey that ever talked? Observed any monkey talking? So if man evolved, then Biblical scriptures containing recorded data that the only two species that ever known and observed communicating using the spoken word, so if the discipline of science admonishes the use of imaginary or fabricated beliefs as facts for evidence in a hypothesis then what know or observed fact do you base that the "talking man" could have evolved from a non-speaking progenitor?

I could say that I am came down from heaven and taught the ancients how to read and write the written spoken word thousands of years ago and the falsifiable is that if any man learns to read and write the written spoken word without being taught then I am not him that was, is and will always be.

Would I be correct if I said that you did not teach yourself how to read? Neither did I.

First off, Mosaic law prohibits specific types of incest, not ALL incest. By the time Moses came on to the scene, human DNA had a chance to become corrupt with disease and genetic abnormalities... Adam and Eve's DNA was perfectly pure, so incest would not have caused any problems in subsequent generations up to a certain point. But from the beginning of Adam and Eve's line, it was always taboo for parents and children or pairs of siblings to propagate...

I was biologically born to my Aunt's brother and my Grandfather's daughter and I am not mad, not sure why that should incest anyone.

Would a Father doing his daughter be considered incest?

God had a serious problem with Noah's daughters committing incest with him, but it did happen, and God blessed the descendants anyways because He doesn't go back on His promises.

Absolutely dissappointing comment. <_<

 

[StanJ]

Science does require some faith... If you are not a scientist yourself, you will have to have some faith in scientists... We have a responsibility to look into things ourselves. When someone tells us about something, we should go to the source and look into it and see if we came to same conclusions. (And even scientists have to have faith that the way they are testing a hypothesis is the right way)

It's gullible (and dangerous) to just believe the word of anyone, including scientists, without doing your own research.

Most of what we are told is here say and is never supported when it comes to this issue. People makes claim but when asked to support it they become VERY ambivalent on the matter and just questions the IQ of the person asking the question rather than try and provide an answer.

It is also of paramount importance that we, as Christians, ALWAYS question any science that contradicts what the Bible shows is the TRUTH in God's Word.

 

[DogLady19]

I was biologically born to my Aunt's brother and my Grandfather's daughter and I am not mad, not sure why that should incest anyone.

Would a Father doing his daughter be considered incest?


Absolutely dissappointing comment. <_<

Oh My! I am so sorry! Noah didn't have any daughters! It was Lot whose daughters got him drunk one night and slept with him, and God was NOT pleased with it. The two boys that resulted in the incest were the greatest enemies of Israel. The Bible doesn't say that it was a punishment for their sin, but they definitely lived the consequences of sin.

Leviticus 18 describes what constitutes incestuous sin per Mosaic Law:

Having sex with your mother, your father's wife, your sibling, step-sibling or half-sibling, your niece or nephew, your aunt or uncle, or your daughter/son in law.
No other familial relationships are prohibited by Mosaic Law.

 

[River Jordan]

If I recall correctly, aren't you the evolutionist who believes in Jesus? That's rich, especially in light of your comment about what they believe without thinking about them on the basic level.


So which species did you evolve from-the talking serpent or the talking azz? If science is based upon the known and observed universe then do you know of any monkey that ever talked? Observed any monkey talking? So if man evolved, then Biblical scriptures containing recorded data that the only two species that ever known and observed communicating using the spoken word, so if the discipline of science admonishes the use of imaginary or fabricated beliefs as facts for evidence in a hypothesis then what know or observed fact do you base that the "talking man" could have evolved from a non-speaking progenitor?

I could say that I am came down from heaven and taught the ancients how to read and write the written spoken word thousands of years ago and the falsifiable is that if any man learns to read and write the written spoken word without being taught then I am not him that was, is and will always be.

Would I be correct if I said that you did not teach yourself how to read? Neither did I.

I'm going to be 100% honest with you here. It's this sort of ridiculously ignorant and goofy rhetoric from Christian creationists that gives people the impression that we're a faith of backwoods science-hating hillbillies. I mean, my high school age niece apparently knows more about biology than you.

Please stop.

 

[pom2014]

I don't want you to bring me anything, just support your assertions. It's not good enough for you to say it and it's not good enough that some supposed scientists did what you say he/she did. All you're doing now is avoiding a plain request, probably because you can't cite anything.
Stop with the deflection and obfuscation and PROVE something.

Science is NOT complete, especially when it comes to ancient history, despite your assertions.

Here is a site with some information, there are others, but at least this MAY help you.

Honestly I don't think ANY evidence will sway you unless you see it for yourself.

http://www.cemml.colostate.edu/cultural/09476/iraq02-03enl.html

 

[StanJ]

Here is a site with some information, there are others, but at least this MAY help you.

Honestly I don't think ANY evidence will sway you unless you see it for yourself.

You're missing the point pom. Your assertions don't hold any weight unless YOU can back them up with corroboration in an exegetical fashion. We start from the premise that the Bible is accurate and infallible and move on from there. A biased website means nothing to me if it contradicts God's Word. There are far to many people who make assertions and have NO idea about the facts. If YOU know what the facts are, then show them. Please don't assume that this site offers evidence, because in my experience, which is considerable, they are ALL biased.

 

[Forsakenone]

I'm going to be 100% honest with you here. It's this sort of ridiculously ignorant and goofy rhetoric from Christian creationists that gives people the impression that we're a faith of backwoods science-hating hillbillies. I mean, my high school age niece apparently knows more about biology than you.

Please stop.

What is ignorant about the fact that a child, if deprived of human interaction, specifically in regards to a lack of exposure to the spoken word, permanently lost their ability to develop any language skills, or as us backwoods ignorant hillbilly's say, they never learn to communicate using the spoken word.

But as far a Christian Creationist comment, as a scientist I thought your disciple was to gather all the available data before forming a conclusion. But fear not, I am neither a Christian nor a creationist, so excuse me if I am not impressed by your religion of scientism, but thank you for the demonstration of its proficiency. But I guess presuming is the rule, not the exception, for those who lack the ability to discern a principle from a presumption. However, before you presume that I am dismissing the discipline of science because of my rejection of scientism, well believe what you want because as discussing the matter with one that has forsaken reason is like giving medicine to the dead.

But as far as the 'forbidden experiment', being a feral child that is essentially isolated from human contact substantially or entirely meaning that they have little to no interaction or care. While it is unconscionable to even think of subject a child to such experiment, there have been instances where children have become accidentally lost, or in most other cases the victims of abuse by caregivers that have resulted in these children being exposed to these isolated conditions. And in a number of these cases, depending on age at time of isolation and length of time from human contact, the children are never able to learn how to speak despite concentrated efforts to teach them.

However, the same concentrated effort has been given by scientism to teach primates to speak, yet despite their efforts they can not teach a primate to communicate using the spoken word. But interestingly enough, like feral children, they can teach monkeys too to use sign language. Which if asked why a primate cannot talk, what would your response be, it would be that the physiology of a primate differs from that of a human which prevents them from obtaining the ability to use language, or rather the spoken word. So does that make those who are attempting to teach primates to speak morons? If it is scientifically proven that the physiology of a primate prevents them from speaking then why are they expending their efforts and resources on what is supposedly known scientifically can not occur.

But of course being the backwoods hillbilly I am, I am just hating on science because you choose to insult the person when you cannot defend your beliefs. Yet I will definitely state if they teach a monkey to communicate using the spoken word then I will stop.

Oh My! I am so sorry!

That is beautifully refreshing, while all make mistakes not all are gracious to acknowledge them without casting dispersion or insults in return. Thank you for the glass of water.

 

[River Jordan]

What is ignorant about the fact that a child, if deprived of human interaction, specifically in regards to a lack of exposure to the spoken word, permanently lost their ability to develop any language skills, or as us backwoods ignorant hillbilly's say, they never learn to communicate using the spoken word.

The ignorant, goofy rhetoric I was referring to was your comments like, "If science is based upon the known and observed universe then do you know of any monkey that ever talked? Observed any monkey talking?" If you honestly think that is an argument against evolutionary biology, then you demonstrate my point for me.

But as far a Christian Creationist comment, as a scientist I thought your disciple was to gather all the available data before forming a conclusion.

I've studied both evolutionary biology and creationism (in its many forms). What am I missing?

But fear not, I am neither a Christian nor a creationist,

Why does your profile list you as a Christian member?

so excuse me if I am not impressed by your religion of scientism, but thank you for the demonstration of its proficiency. But I guess presuming is the rule, not the exception, for those who lack the ability to discern a principle from a presumption. However, before you presume that I am dismissing the discipline of science because of my rejection of scientism, well believe what you want because as discussing the matter with one that has forsaken reason is like giving medicine to the dead.

It's hilarious that in chastising me for alleged presumption, you are presuming to know anything at all about my background and experiences. Tell me...how do you know what I have or haven't studied?

yet despite their efforts they can not teach a primate to communicate using the spoken word.

Because humans are the only primate with the necessary anatomy.

But interestingly enough, like feral children, they can teach monkeys too to use sign language. Which if asked why a primate cannot talk, what would your response be, it would be that the physiology of a primate differs from that of a human which prevents them from obtaining the ability to use language, or rather the spoken word. So does that make those who are attempting to teach primates to speak morons? If it is scientifically proven that the physiology of a primate prevents them from speaking then why are they expending their efforts and resources on what is supposedly known scientifically can not occur.

What does this have to do with evolution? :unsure:

But of course being the backwoods hillbilly I am, I am just hating on science because you choose to insult the person when you cannot defend your beliefs. Yet I will definitely state if they teach a monkey to communicate using the spoken word then I will stop.

You should stop regardless. But then, if you're not a Christian I guess I can't say you're making my faith look bad by tying such bizarre arguments to it.

 

[Forsakenone]

as a scientist I thought your discipline was to gather all the available data before forming a conclusion.

It's hilarious that in chastising me for alleged presumption, you are presuming to know anything at all about my background and experiences. Tell me...how do you know what I have or haven't studied?

Why do you presume that I made the quoted statement upon a presumption?

So are you a member of the scientific community or not?

Because humans are the only primate with the necessary anatomy.

From your source:
"Unlike humans, apes lack the anatomical pre-requisites for verbal language production.
The organs within the vocal tract, such as larynx muscles and vocal cords, cannot be moved
as freely and coordinated as in humans, especially not at a comparable speed. For this reason,
we cannot talk with apes in the first place...
And they submit to the following link to demonstrate this scientific fact that monkeys cannot talk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2Dhc2zePJFE


-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My response:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=weu-R_bgmU4
Seems like these primates are using the vocal tract in a fast and coordinated manner....
____________________________
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Another reason why apes cannot speak is because they lack the cognitive capacity necessary for complex communication processes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKauXrp9dl4
___________________________________________________
So lacking the cognitive capacity for speech, is that like saying animals are just too stupid to talk?

So birds which lack the anatomical prerequisites can reproduce the sound of the spoken word?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s71QW_WNKXA

 

[River Jordan]

Why do you presume that I made the quoted statement upon a presumption?

You either have direct knowledge of my background and experience, or you were presuming. Which is it?

So are you a member of the scientific community or not?

I am.

Seems like these primates are using the vocal tract in a fast and coordinated manner....

No one said they don't have vocal cords or can't make any sounds at all.

So lacking the cognitive capacity for speech, is that like saying animals are just too stupid to talk?

If you prefer to phrase it like a 5 year old, then yes.

So birds which lack the anatomical prerequisites can reproduce the sound of the spoken word?

Some are very good mimics, yes.

What does any of this have to do with evolution? And why does your profile list you as a Christian, if you're not?

 

[Forsakenone]

You either have direct knowledge of my background and experience, or you were presuming. Which is it?

You say you are a Christian and have faith, then would you consider Mark 9:23

I am.

I guess I am going blind cause I see no sign of it.

No one said they don't have vocal cords or can't make any sounds at all.

Exactly- no one said they don't have vocal cords or can't make any sounds at all. You are making it up because you are a liar.

The information you presented states "The organs within the vocal tract, such as larynx muscles and vocal cords, cannot be moved
as freely and coordinated as in humans, especially not at a comparable speed. For this reason, we cannot talk with apes in the first place... "

An idiot and 5 minutes of research produced what I would suggest disproves the "experts" claim of physical limitation of the primates to which prevents them from speaking.
https://youtu.be/weu-R_bgmU4

But I would be interested to see if any other members have a comment.

If you prefer to phrase it like a 5 year old, then yes.

Some are very good mimics, yes.
What does any of this have to do with evolution?

I rest my case on your qualifications as a scientist.

And why does your profile list you as a Christian, if you're not?

I don't know, you think it might have evolved? I mean random means random, undefinable, could have evolved 30 minutes ago or 30 days ago, who is to says, its random.

Let us ask a Moderator who should be able to answer whether the GROUP field is entered by a Member or by the Staff.

But if you had read all the information before coming to the reaching presumption based upon the first piece of information that you believed supported you claim you would have read the faith section, clearly marked Other. Yet are you not familiar John 10:16 And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold: them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd.