-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Does Christianity support the theory of evolution?
Page 9 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
It's a freakin book, people. A book that has been around for thousands of years, translated many times by people, etc.. You would have to be extremely naive to take its words as being literal.
This is pretty much the way I think. Well said.
Although, I think I'm starting to turn more agnostic... My dad is pretty religious, and I see how it hasn't worked for him. Basically, he's taught me how not to think and what not to believe.. Heh. Kinda ironic. As for whether there's a higher being.. It does not matter to me. I am just going to live my life to the fullest extent I can, try and be the best person I can be to myself. I think that is the best anybody can do.
I think its in our nature to try and explain things that we cannot explain, and religion seems to do that.
As for organized religion... this is what upsets me. It's a crock of sh!t. They're no better today than they were a couple thousand years ago when was OK to pillage and rape because they didn't believe what you did.
This is pretty much the way I think. Well said.
Although, I think I'm starting to turn more agnostic... My dad is pretty religious, and I see how it hasn't worked for him. Basically, he's taught me how not to think and what not to believe.. Heh. Kinda ironic. As for whether there's a higher being.. It does not matter to me. I am just going to live my life to the fullest extent I can, try and be the best person I can be to myself. I think that is the best anybody can do.
I think its in our nature to try and explain things that we cannot explain, and religion seems to do that.
As for organized religion... this is what upsets me. It's a crock of sh!t. They're no better today than they were a couple thousand years ago when was OK to pillage and rape because they didn't believe what you did.
alkemyst
No Lifer
EXACTLY, yet even if a day was only 5 mins, it should still be possible....if GOD is a god, he'd be capable of things we could not even imagine.
Even creatures on earth that are definitely mortal can do certain things we can't duplicate well or come close to.
As a side project I am researching some not so popular things. In the OT many lived 100's of years, really until they sort of decided to go or were done with their purpose.
Now cloning is definitely possible (I know there are a ton of people (mostly the religious) that like the space program is all produced and fake).......
What if you could clone not only the person's body, but their mind? Once that's possible, it'd be easy to accelerate the aging process and whatever.
So after 1000 years imagine the knowledge a person would have, the feats they could perform, etc. There is a lot of study as to why our brains are so big but so unused.
Now I am not saying any of this is fact so don't start with asking for links for me to show who had done this....it has not been done....it's been researched though.
Even creatures on earth that are definitely mortal can do certain things we can't duplicate well or come close to.
As a side project I am researching some not so popular things. In the OT many lived 100's of years, really until they sort of decided to go or were done with their purpose.
Now cloning is definitely possible (I know there are a ton of people (mostly the religious) that like the space program is all produced and fake).......
What if you could clone not only the person's body, but their mind? Once that's possible, it'd be easy to accelerate the aging process and whatever.
So after 1000 years imagine the knowledge a person would have, the feats they could perform, etc. There is a lot of study as to why our brains are so big but so unused.
Now I am not saying any of this is fact so don't start with asking for links for me to show who had done this....it has not been done....it's been researched though.
Come on now folks. People did not live for hundreds of years back then. Again, this is a literal interpretation, and it takes very little common sense to realize this is virtually impossible. I mean, huh? The average life expectancy back then was like 45.
1) Say what? What on Earth are you talking about?(No pun intended)
2) Nonsense. Our understanding of vitamins and minerals are vastly superior to anything known in the OT. Back then, soil was either fertile or infertile. They had no way of measuring the nutrition content of the soil. If the mineral isn't in the soil, the plant cannot grow right, and the resultant fruit or plant is deficient in certain vitamins and minerals.
Nowdays, we can precisely meter the elements and minerals that we put into the soil, including the vital trace elements. Further, we actually understand how plants work, so we can tailor the elements and minerals specifically for the plant being grown.
It's called fertilizer.
You're going to have to do better than that. 🙂
These are very interesting.
There is still a lot we don't know about conciousness and the energies involved and other stuff like that. I think being able to capture an essence such as someones mind is a very, very long way off. Infact, I'll be very surprised if we don't destroy ourselves LONG before we ever reach that state of knowledge and power.......
It's cool to think about though. 🙂
I recommend reading the books The Secret Life of Plants by Peter Tompkins, and The Secret Life of Your Cells by Robert S. Stone.
VERY interesting and thought provoking non-fiction books.
I consider that a cop out, you know. 🙂 I am completely willing to listen to any further explination you have, but the two explinations you mentioned simply don't make any sense.
But that isn't the point. So beacause it's the inspired word of God, you have to take it literally? Hogwash, I say. Like I said, it takes very little common sense to realize that living for hundreds of years is simply not possible. If we can't do it now, how on Earth do you purpose we did it then? Think about it. Life back then was many orders of magnitude harsher than it is now. You could be killed from a boken arm or an infection that would be cleared up with some antibiotics in a few days now.
This has been discussed in other threads. IIRC, they went by moon cycles back then. So when they say Noah was ~900 years old, he was really about ~65 in current years.
Ok,
1) From creation until the flood there was a firmament that covered the whole earth (see Genesis chapter 1). This blocked almost all the bad UVa/b rays etc... and caused a green house effect allowing things to grow much bigger and better then they do today.
2) The earth was new and more fertile that it has ever been. Plants get almost all of there nutrients from the soil so the fruits and vegetables provided the necessary nutrients for the body. Since then man has grown crops for hundreds of years in the same place without ever letting the ground rest and replenish it self. The plants take out over 20 nutrients and most people on put 3 back in. You can even ask many doctors and they will agree we can not get the nutrients we need out of our food.
Between the lack of nutrients (most don?t even take good supplements in sufficient supply) and the lack of protection (see #1) it?s not hard to believe people lived much longer back then.
3) There is also this thing called sin that man had got so well at telling himself that it does not matter that much.
You can believe it or not but its true.
1) From creation until the flood there was a firmament that covered the whole earth (see Genesis chapter 1). This blocked almost all the bad UVa/b rays etc... and caused a green house effect allowing things to grow much bigger and better then they do today.
2) The earth was new and more fertile that it has ever been. Plants get almost all of there nutrients from the soil so the fruits and vegetables provided the necessary nutrients for the body. Since then man has grown crops for hundreds of years in the same place without ever letting the ground rest and replenish it self. The plants take out over 20 nutrients and most people on put 3 back in. You can even ask many doctors and they will agree we can not get the nutrients we need out of our food.
Between the lack of nutrients (most don?t even take good supplements in sufficient supply) and the lack of protection (see #1) it?s not hard to believe people lived much longer back then.
3) There is also this thing called sin that man had got so well at telling himself that it does not matter that much.
You can believe it or not but its true.
Joe, allow me to respond.
If I were to give a liberal estimate as to the time I've spent dealing with the KJV issue, it woud be 150 hours in the last 5 years. It's probably a lot more like 70 - 80, but I'll give a high estimate. The truth is I don't spend much time on the issue, because it's not one that I have trouble understanding. As soon as the basics were pointed out to me, it made perfect sense.
The only reason you think I spend so much time on it is because you happen to be around when it gets brought up here in ATOT, or as in the most recent case, when you bring it up.
I believe that anything that God said is of importance due simply to the fact that He felt the need to include it as part of His Word. My belief on its value is irrelevant.
I believe based on the evidence that the Hebrew and Greek texts, the methods used, and the Scholars involved in the translation of the KJV are far superior than anything else to date.
I know that the thinking, theories, and purpose behind Westcott and Horts Greek Text Revision, and subsequent English translation were corrupt and deceitful in manner.
I know that the 4 main manuscripts which they relied heavily on and which subsequent English translations are to varying degrees based on, are corrupt.
I know that even if I were to spend the countless hours reviewing all the various English Versions in existance, I would most assuredly not catch the omissions that affect important doctrine, and I would probably not catch the slight additions or rewording that do because my conclusions on the important doctrines were for the most part solidified before reading the newer Version.
I believe that the KJV is a fully trustworthy translation of the Bible. I use it anytime I quote scripture and try to note it as such because not all Versions read the same. Quoting the source allows the reader to verify the accuracy of the quote.
In closing then, I'd just like to say that I don't understand why you have a problem with me suggesting to people to read the KJV, or with me telling people why I believe they should read the KJV instead of other Versions when the subject of Versions comes up. You've said yourself you don't feel there is a big difference between most of the Versions out there, so I don't see why you seem to take such offense to me suggesting that people read the KJV. It's not like the people that read my post are going to stop reading there Bible because someone they don't know told them it wasn't completely trustworthy. If they happen to find merit in what I say on the subject, if anything, they might look more closely at the subject, but it's highly doubtful that they will toss out their Bible Version because some guy on some website (me) told them it wasn't completely trustworthy. Futhermore, if someone who is not saved and who doesn't have a Bible happens to read a thread where I make the suggestion to read the KJV because I believe it is the only fully trustworthy Bible currently in the English language (I don't believe there is or ever will be a need for more than one English Bible for the flock, I believe God would like all His children to be on the same page, as being on the same exact page prevents any unnecessary confusion. If in the future God sees fit to provide a new English translation that is based off the same majority manuscripts, uses the same methedology for translation, and is done by the same amount of qualified Scholars, I would endorse it as the one and only Bible in the English language.)and they pick up the KJV because I said so. The fact that they picked up a Bible Version at all should satisfy both of us, as I believe we are both mainly concerned with winning souls for Christ, even if we don't see eye to eye on every issue.
Peace out
Dave
PS A mark is used to identify, a chip is used to identify, therefore the word mark and the word chip can be used synonymously.
If I were to give a liberal estimate as to the time I've spent dealing with the KJV issue, it woud be 150 hours in the last 5 years. It's probably a lot more like 70 - 80, but I'll give a high estimate. The truth is I don't spend much time on the issue, because it's not one that I have trouble understanding. As soon as the basics were pointed out to me, it made perfect sense.
The only reason you think I spend so much time on it is because you happen to be around when it gets brought up here in ATOT, or as in the most recent case, when you bring it up.
I believe that anything that God said is of importance due simply to the fact that He felt the need to include it as part of His Word. My belief on its value is irrelevant.
I believe based on the evidence that the Hebrew and Greek texts, the methods used, and the Scholars involved in the translation of the KJV are far superior than anything else to date.
I know that the thinking, theories, and purpose behind Westcott and Horts Greek Text Revision, and subsequent English translation were corrupt and deceitful in manner.
I know that the 4 main manuscripts which they relied heavily on and which subsequent English translations are to varying degrees based on, are corrupt.
I know that even if I were to spend the countless hours reviewing all the various English Versions in existance, I would most assuredly not catch the omissions that affect important doctrine, and I would probably not catch the slight additions or rewording that do because my conclusions on the important doctrines were for the most part solidified before reading the newer Version.
I believe that the KJV is a fully trustworthy translation of the Bible. I use it anytime I quote scripture and try to note it as such because not all Versions read the same. Quoting the source allows the reader to verify the accuracy of the quote.
In closing then, I'd just like to say that I don't understand why you have a problem with me suggesting to people to read the KJV, or with me telling people why I believe they should read the KJV instead of other Versions when the subject of Versions comes up. You've said yourself you don't feel there is a big difference between most of the Versions out there, so I don't see why you seem to take such offense to me suggesting that people read the KJV. It's not like the people that read my post are going to stop reading there Bible because someone they don't know told them it wasn't completely trustworthy. If they happen to find merit in what I say on the subject, if anything, they might look more closely at the subject, but it's highly doubtful that they will toss out their Bible Version because some guy on some website (me) told them it wasn't completely trustworthy. Futhermore, if someone who is not saved and who doesn't have a Bible happens to read a thread where I make the suggestion to read the KJV because I believe it is the only fully trustworthy Bible currently in the English language (I don't believe there is or ever will be a need for more than one English Bible for the flock, I believe God would like all His children to be on the same page, as being on the same exact page prevents any unnecessary confusion. If in the future God sees fit to provide a new English translation that is based off the same majority manuscripts, uses the same methedology for translation, and is done by the same amount of qualified Scholars, I would endorse it as the one and only Bible in the English language.)and they pick up the KJV because I said so. The fact that they picked up a Bible Version at all should satisfy both of us, as I believe we are both mainly concerned with winning souls for Christ, even if we don't see eye to eye on every issue.
Peace out
Dave
PS A mark is used to identify, a chip is used to identify, therefore the word mark and the word chip can be used synonymously.
RandomCoil
Senior member
First, "lower animal kingdom" is a cute term having strong religious connotations and seemingly little scientific meaning. I gather it means animals that aren't humans. I appreciate the fact you only want to know about species-level changes; these only require the most modest of mutations (as opposed to genus/family/order/etc.). The most enjoyable read I could quickly find discussed the evolution of whales, and it goes well beyond species evolution. You'll find it amusing as it starts with the question "How do you convince a creationist that a fossil is a transitional fossil?". LINK
The answer given describes the pointlesness of the whole evolution/creation debate.
I'd guess that you're going to read the article and say it doesn't "prove" anything. I'd be curious to know what would "prove" to you that evolution occurs? Perhaps a dog giving birth to a cat? Perhaps if you had two pet lizards that gave birth to a pair of feathered lizards, that gave birth to a pair of achaeopteryx-like animals, that gave birth to a chicken, that gave birth to an eagle? If either of those is what you're looking for, there's no point in having a discussions like this. Just don't worry about it! Go do some yardwork and enjoy a beer! Science can't prove the theory of evolution is correct in that way any more than you can prove that creationism is viable by getting God to do an interview for Dateline. Both religion and science are based on faith (which is something some scientists like to forget -- not the good ones, mind you). The 'faith' in science is more-or-less that everything has an explanation, and that explanation is never God (except sometimes for the really hard and/or scary problems, like what happens when they die). A magic trick is a wonderful model: do you have faith that David Copperfield made the Statue of Liberty truely disappear, or do you have faith that it was all smoke and mirrors? You can't really prove either if you only have the video tape.
The problem with creationism is that God-based theories have this nasty habit of not working out in the end. Remember some of those early explanations of lightning bolts? Some guy named Zeus? People had real faith in Zeus, and if there's one thing christian creationists and scientists can agree on, it's that Zeus does not exist. But Christianity's far from perfect as well - I seem to recall some Copernicus fellow who got in a whole lot of trouble for going against the God-derived knowledge of the church. Has science been wrong? Heck yeah! Science didn't use to bother with 100+ elements; it only needed earth, wind, fire, and water! The difference is that science is malleable and expects change -- it requires the ideas to be challenged. The theory of evolution is not proven. The theory of gravity isn't proven either, but it's a model that's worked pretty well so far. Science usually doesn't excommunicate its members, though it might well mock them for a while -- especially if they're _really_ sure they made a perpetual motion device.
Finally, I have to say that the God that resorts to 'creation' as a model for making people and the earth and whatnot is rather pathetic. How long did God spend deciding trees should be green and monkeys brown? What's up with the "fake" dinosaur bones to throw off the non-believers (or is this not the earth is 7000 years old crowd?). If you really want a God that can get things rolling, put him pre-big-bang. Believe that your God has the power to set pi and Boltzman's constant, and e and all those other wonderful numbers just right so that someday a chimpanzee and a hairless ape will evolve from a common ancestor and the hairless one will look at the chimp and state, with great assurance, that the chimp is part of the _lower_ animal kingdom.
What is a "firmament"? Are you talking about the ozone layer? There is no evidence that it was "thicker" 2000 years ago. There is no evidence that more UV rays are getting in now than 2000 years ago. You obviously don't know what you're talking about.
Besides, even if this was true, it surely wouldn't account for a discrepency of hundreds of years in lifespan. UVA and UVB rays cause cancer. What about societys that have very little cancer due to diet?
2) I agree with you on some points, but again.. this simply is not enough to account for a lifespan of hundreds of years. It is true that soils become depleated if they are used too much. What does this prove? Nothing. A plant simply will not grow right if all nutrients are not available to it. I am not talking about N-P-K fertilizers here, although of course those are used a lot.
It is true that some fruits and vegetables are not as nutritious as they could be. It is also true that Americans(and most people, for that matter) absolutely do not eat right. But we are talking about a realitivly recent thing here - with the invention of fast, processed food. But what about 100 years ago when our diets were vastly different? Did people live longer then? No, of course not. The average life span was less than it is now. What about 200 years ago? 3, 4, 500? That is nothing in the scheme of time. We even have some records from that time period. Going by your logic, the Earth should've been more fertile 500 years ago.. So why didn't people live longer back then?
The fact is, they did not even really know what nutrition was back then. They had no concept of vitamins and minerals and how they are needed both in our bodies and for plant growth. We have very in depth knowledge now, and we can very easily supply every macro and micro nutrient needed to produce every biological compound the plant needs to flourish.
3) So it's because of sin that man doesen't live for hundreds of years anymore?
I'm sorry, but yes it is very hard to believe people lived longer back then. There is absolutely no evidence of this, but there is a lot of evidence that they had shorter life spans. I suggest you take a basic Biology class, bring yourself back down to Earth, and realize that back then, the Flu was a serious illness that could very well kill you. This is just one example.
Look, I have a very strong belief system. But I can't stand it when people spout stuff that is very easily debunkable, and really doesen't even make sense. 🙂
Eli:
You asked and I replied with the truth. If you don't understand what the firmament is read at least the first chapter of Genesis first (as I stated earler). If you want to disregard what I say because you have a different believe fine its your lose not mine.
This started out with a title "Does Christianity support the theory of evolution?". The answer to that is a deffinate No. There are popal oppisites. I believe in Christianity (not Baptist Cathoilc, etc... whichall seperate them selves from the Bible in different area) because its been proven to me. Yes its provable if your open minded but i takes more then can be done in this thread.
You asked and I replied with the truth. If you don't understand what the firmament is read at least the first chapter of Genesis first (as I stated earler). If you want to disregard what I say because you have a different believe fine its your lose not mine.
This started out with a title "Does Christianity support the theory of evolution?". The answer to that is a deffinate No. There are popal oppisites. I believe in Christianity (not Baptist Cathoilc, etc... whichall seperate them selves from the Bible in different area) because its been proven to me. Yes its provable if your open minded but i takes more then can be done in this thread.
I am extremely open minded. I believe in God. I have a very strong belief system.
No, I asked you and you replied with what you believe. While it is true that what you believe is your truth, it does not equal the truth. Like.. I'm not disagreeing with you because it's in my religion. I'm disagreeing because there is no evidence that people lived for hundreds of years. If there were evidence showing that it were true, of course I would believe it! Regardless of my religious beliefs.
We're only talking about 2000 years ago here. Nothing in our environment has changed significantly in the last 2000 years, let alone to cause a many hundreds of year difference in life span. I mean... What?! If we had the potential to live for many hundreds of years, surely there would be at least one person on the planet exhibiting an above average age? How do you account for that?
This is the problem I have with people that have your mentality. I can say the exact same thing to you. You are disregarding what I say either because you do not understand it, or because you simply do not want to believe it. You are the one who needs to open their mind. If you could show me evidence that it were true, I would flipflop immediately. I have no problem admitting I am wrong. Infact, it almost brings satisfaction, because I have learned something new!
Why don't you address the things that I've said instead of putting your foot down and saying "But.. that is what the Holy Book says. It has to be the truth!".
If you would sit and think about it with your own mind for a second, you would think differently about what I am saying.
It is not fair for you to use science when it is convienent for you, but disregard it when it goes against what you believe. Why don't you rise above the situation and look at it with your own eyes?
There are people that believe the Earth is 6000 or whatever years old. It is painfully obvious that this is false. To believe this requires a gross lack of understanding regarding even the most basic of things, or simply blind faith.
Do you believe the Earth is only 6000 years old? If not, is it because of the mountain(no pun intended) of evidence that proves beyond a reasonable doubt that this is false?
If so.. I rest my case.
alkemyst
No Lifer
It's funny how the Planet of the Apes (all 5 movies) are running until 8pm tonight.
In both cases (The talking man appearing in the Apes world and the talking chimpanzee that shows up in the Human's world), the controlling species wants to destroy the other out of fear and because their religion says such is impossible (both Ape and Man believed they were created in God's image and were the only species granted a SOUL).
The SOUL part is another thing I don't know about being so good....does an animal have feelings? without a doubt. Are some capable of thinking and solving problems? yes, even simple animals.
Now say I do a good job and go to heaven....they say you can have everything you want. However that is not true, you can't have a pet in heaven, can I drink in heaven, can I watch porn if I wanted, what about sex.
What they say happens is you are freed from your earthly requirements so that you can praise God 24/7 and be happy doing so. I mean WTF? paradise = slave with the special cookie that keeps him happy and controlled. Perhaps we become Borg.
You think Christians (which I am one) don't like Evolution discussion, bring up the parameters of Heaven and how that's supposed to work.
In both cases (The talking man appearing in the Apes world and the talking chimpanzee that shows up in the Human's world), the controlling species wants to destroy the other out of fear and because their religion says such is impossible (both Ape and Man believed they were created in God's image and were the only species granted a SOUL).
The SOUL part is another thing I don't know about being so good....does an animal have feelings? without a doubt. Are some capable of thinking and solving problems? yes, even simple animals.
Now say I do a good job and go to heaven....they say you can have everything you want. However that is not true, you can't have a pet in heaven, can I drink in heaven, can I watch porn if I wanted, what about sex.
What they say happens is you are freed from your earthly requirements so that you can praise God 24/7 and be happy doing so. I mean WTF? paradise = slave with the special cookie that keeps him happy and controlled. Perhaps we become Borg.
You think Christians (which I am one) don't like Evolution discussion, bring up the parameters of Heaven and how that's supposed to work.
Vic
Elite Member
What MJ99 is spouting is not in the Bible. I don't know where he is making it up from.
The only real possible suggestion for the long lifespans antediluvian (pre-flood) that could possibly be inferred from the Bible (and I will use the Bible as my source because we are discussing things in the Bible) is that people who lived before the flood were exclusively vegetarian ( Genesis 1:28-30, Genesis 3:19) and God allowed people to eat meat after the flood (Genesis 9:1-3).
Otherwise, there is no other explanation for the lengthier lifespans antediluvian, AFAIK. And once again, certainly nothing of what MJ99 is saying is actually in the Bible (or anything else I have ever read for that matter).
My suggestion for the longer lifespans is a different interpretation of the word "year". If I'm correct, the 12-month calendar wasn't invented until after these stories were passed down. Furthermore, the definition for the word "year" was derived after also. Maybe, back in biblical times, their unit of time was not 365 days.
Vic
Elite Member
While that would matter to you, it would not make the slightest difference to me.
Why should it? Whether Adam lived 930 years or 93 years is entirely unimportant (no, entirely irrelevant) compared to the message of Christ.
AND... I don't believe that I have to believe the tiniest irrelevancy in the Bible in order to embrace Christ's message of peace and hope.
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
-
-
