Bible-Creation-Evolution

[TheReasoner]

And here's an example of you guys':

I thought - after your bringing up a random atheist's blog as a universally applicable and completely valid source that you had learned that you can't group people together in small constrictive clumps.

For the record I think that post was intended to make you think about your own attempt at literalism as it does point to another interpretation of the bible claiming to be literal and infallible which was employed by the inquisition, the settlers in Boston and many many others.

They were wrong. You more than likely think they were wrong in their absolute belief. Yet you yourself claim your interpretation is infallible, do you not? Why?

 

[sandwiches]

And here's an example of you guys':

If you don't like what the Bible says, I'd say to take it up with the authors but they're dead. =\

 

[TheReasoner]

Keep it up, the rest of us understand this kind of sick fiction says far far more about you than it does about anyone else.

Hespera, teach me about Buddhism. I'm thinking some meditation might help right about now.

That said, ask yourself the following:
Do these people who so loudly proclaim their Christanity reflect the behavior, mindset and actions of Christ?
I do not think they do.

 

[1611AV]

...... Double post .....

 

[1611AV]

Lets try and keep things on track. No need for everyone to attack Research1's post.

Now I posted this the other day to faith gardian, without a response thus far

Genesis 2:18 And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him.

How do you explain this? Why would man be alone with all the billions of years of evolution, No Female???? Did God speed up evolution for Adam and cause the "common ancestor" to produce a full grown Human Female for Adam. Did God bring Adam a Baby to raise and marry and eventually mate with? Did the sub Human ancestor raise her?

No, God brought forth a Woman not a baby Gen 2:21-22 And the LORD God caused a deep sleep to fall upon Adam, and he slept: and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; And the rib, which the LORD God had taken from man, made he a woman, and brought her unto the man.

That is as strait forward as it gets. If you don't believe what the Bible says regarding the creation of Eve, then you don't believe the Bible. God Created Eve. She did not evolve.

Nathan responded with this:

Or is the whole "Adam and Eve" thing an etiological myth?

Do any Christians here (faith gardian, Mr. Dave, or any other Christian) agree with Nathan?

 

[TheReasoner]

Lets try and keep things on track. No need for everyone to attack Research1's post.

He's bearing false witness. Accusing a VERY large group of people of a position which it seems he's pulling out of a proverbial hat. A position I cannot see any support for. But I suppose you're right. Hopefully he won't keep making false accusations.

BTW: If I make a similar mistake I do hope it will be pointed out.

Now I posted this the other day to faith gardian, without a response thus far

Been a little too busy

It is a wonderful way to tell us of the intention God had of us being man and wife. Of sharing life with one mate. Much like the parables of Christ it's a beautiful picture of a greater truth. To say that the story's value lies in an interpretation stating the chronological process of creation is something I think devalues it rather significantly. That's like saying Jesus' parable of the mustard seed is a discussion of the biological nature of mustard trees.
That is to say that I do believe your interpretation is extremely far off the mark.

 

[Mr Dave]

Do any Christians here (faith gardian, Mr. Dave, or any other Christian) agree with Nathan?

Forgive the lack of response, sometimes posts just pass you by.

Also forgive me, I had to look up aetiology in the dictionary

But on the whole, aye, I don't view Adam and Eve as being historical characters, and see no reason to doing so doesn't stop you reading from the depths of the passages.

 

[Doveaman]

Do any Christians here (faith gardian, Mr. Dave, or any other Christian) agree with Nathan?

Nathan is unbelievable.

Evolution Theory Can Take A Hike

 

[dad]

..

Nathan responded with this:




Do any Christians here (faith gardian, Mr. Dave, or any other Christian) agree with Nathan?

No.

 

[Hespera]

Hespera, teach me about Buddhism. I'm thinking some meditation might help right about now.

That said, ask yourself the following:
Do these people who so loudly proclaim their Christanity reflect the behavior, mindset and actions of Christ?
I do not think they do.

Aww... You are actually asking the wrong person. My back ground is Buddhist, tho my mom wasnt at all serious about it. So i guess its more my mind set than Christianity is.

If there were a symbol for "Jack-Buddhist" I'd use that. Its what my husband calls me He calls himself a recovering Episcopalian.

A lot of christians are that in name only, dont seem very serious about it. I can understand that!

As for those whose behaviour doesnt seem to fit with that of Christ, i think the problem for Christians is that they dont really know what they are, or what to do, its all "lo here", and "lo there". Sects go after eachother savagely, and there is no way to figure out who is "right".

And of course, some few may be manipulative, cynics and liars, morally weak, or simply insane. But its not fair to count those, unless they command a big following.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Nathan is unbelievable.

Evolution Theory Can Take A Hike

And yet the science works better than the mythology. Go figure.

 

[Nathan Poe]

No.

I think we're going to have to classify dadology as a very small and insignificant (statistically and otherwise) sect of Christianity. therefore, you can't speak on behalf of all Christians.

 

[Research1]

What's that got to do with the topic
What an out of the blue false stereotyping of a massive group of people.

Because Genesis explains the origin of the different sexes, evolution doesn't.

There is a huge hole in the theory of evolution on this issue because if evolution really is true - there should be no sexes.

 

[TheReasoner]

Because Genesis explains the origin of the different sexes, evolution doesn't.

There is a huge hole in the theory of evolution on this issue because if evolution really is true - there should be no sexes.

Oh dear. Research1, how many degrees do you have in biology?
Can you REALLY make such a claim?

No, you cannot. Don't claim to be absolutely certain about something which you are not an expert in. And even then leave room for being wrong, because you are human! And all humans have one trait in common: Their ability to fail.
Sex makes perfect sense from an evolutionary viewpoint when one is describing larger creatures. It even makes sense on a cellular level, and guess what? Even single cell organisms can have "sex". There's a protein on the cell wall of some cells which enable them to interact with other cells, sometimes even across species, and share DNA. Specifically plasmids. This way certain traits can pass on between individuals and evolution can speed up. Of course sometimes this can be annoying as immunities in bacteria can be spread from one bacteria to another extremely quickly once such has evolved.

The benefits for larger creatures is much the same. Breeding ensures that more traits can merge and helps maintain a good gene pool with healthy DNA. Something mitosis would not easily accomplish with DNA from only one organism.

It''s a wonderful setup. And it has evolved.

Genesis outlines the sexual roles. The benefits of a stable union, and God's intensions in such regard. It is not a literal transcription of events as they unfolded.

 

[Hespera]

Because Genesis explains the origin of the different sexes, evolution doesn't.

There is a huge hole in the theory of evolution on this issue because if evolution really is true - there should be no sexes.

These are misconceptions about the ToE.

Its a fairly typical example of how creationists always argue against straw men.

I guess its one thing that keeps me trying, the belief that perhaps if they actually knew what the ToE is about, maybe they could accept it as being real.

 

[CaliforniaSun]

Because Genesis explains the origin of the different sexes, evolution doesn't.

There is a huge hole in the theory of evolution on this issue because if evolution really is true - there should be no sexes.

Really? Please explain.

 

[Nathan Poe]

Because Genesis explains the origin of the different sexes, evolution doesn't.

Explain how? God pulled a rib out of a man and made it into a woman?

That really counts as a explanation? really?

There is a huge hole in the theory of evolution on this issue because if evolution really is true - there should be no sexes.

And oddly enough, in most of the smaller and "simpler" life forms, there aren't. The sexes don't really come into play until you start getting multicellular.

Does Genesis have an explanation for that?

 

[Nathan Poe]

These are misconceptions about the ToE.

Its a fairly typical example of how creationists always argue against straw men.

A "misconception" implies an honest mistake -- this could be more like flat-out lying for Jesus.

 

[AV1611VET]

Explain how? God pulled a rib out of a man and made it into a woman?

That really counts as a explanation? really?

Yes, really.

And oddly enough, in most of the smaller and "simpler" life forms, there aren't. The sexes don't really come into play until you start getting multicellular.

Does Genesis have an explanation for that?

Should it?

 

[AV1611VET]

A "misconception" implies an honest mistake -- this could be more like flat-out lying for Jesus.

In your opinion, did Jesus ever lie?