to believe or not to believe...

[VamPyroX]

Which would instead support that EVOLUTION is possible, and therefore extremely likely that humans in the past are not like the humans of today; therefore, we are not made "in his image" and thus contradicting the bible as it stands.

Yep, that supports evolution!

Ever seen mules? Ever seen ligers? Ever seen albino boa constrictors? Yep, that's evolution. Heh!

 

[Askjo]

In the 6,000 years range.

Agree! We are in 5,000 (?) years near to 6,000 years. The earth's age (time) from the beginning to the end is 7,000 years.

 

[Askjo]

I thought some Biblical scholars said about 10,000? I've seen citations of articles from the Journal of Biblical Research before that pointed out that number before.

Most scholars said least 10,000. I agree with Reba's comment.

 

[Reba]

Yep, that supports evolution!

Ever seen mules? Ever seen ligers? Ever seen albino boa constrictors? Yep, that's evolution. Heh!

How do those examples support evolution? Please explain each one.

Mules:
"Under conditions of domestication it is possible to obtain hybrids between equid species. There are records of onager/ass, onager/horse and zebra/horse (zebroids) crosses, but the cross that has been most significant in human history is one between horses and donkeys. Breeding a male donkey to a female horse results in a mule; breeding a male horse to a female donkey produces a hinny.

Offspring from either cross, although fully developed as males or females, are almost always sterile. Hence, a line of horses and a line of domestic asses must be maintained to perpetuate mule or hinny production."
http://www.imh.org/imh/bw/mule.html#term

No evolution there.

Ligors:

A good way to start an argument among biologists is to ask them what seems a simple question: "What is a species?"

To evolutionary theorists, a species is a fundamental unit, and transitions between species mark the flow of evolution. But in fact, scientists and philosophers have debated for centuries the precise definition of a species.

In high school biology we are told that species are communities of individuals that can interbreed successfully. Two creatures that cannot interbreed, even if they resemble each other, must belong to different species.

As is often the case in evolution, the rules of speciation are by no means ironclad.

Lions and tigers are two different species. They look different, they have different lifestyles, they vocalize differently, and they generally live on different continents. Yet when they are brought together artificially, they can interbreed. Such hybrids are called tions and ligers.

Do they challenge the definition of species? Not really. The key words are "interbreed successfully"; tigons and ligers generally are sterile and short-lived -- an evolutionary dead end.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/library/05/2/l_052_02.html
(Whoa, did you catch that link--PBS!)


As for the albino boas, there was an overabundance of sites to check out. I will have to get back to that one later, unless you can direct me to a reputable source. As far as I can tell though, a boa of any color or pattern is still a snake, so I don't really see any evolution there.

 

[deafdyke]

That is, the people on earth today have lower IQs, weaker bodies, and more disability and disease than earlier generations

Errmmm, no that's inaccurate. Kids today are SMARTER then kids in the 1920's.....Average IQ then was 100, whereas today IQ averages 110! Also, disabilty isn't nessarily a sign of weaker bodies. I cannot hear yes, but my eyesight is pretty much that of an eagle's. Disabilty isn't a bad thing......Disabilty just IS!!!!!! It's a different way of being that's all. Why about thirty or forty years ago they classified homosexuality as a mental illness.......Now it's not! We GLB people can even get MARRIED!

 

[Dennis S.]

Yes, I do.

That's nice. And you base this solely off the bible, right? Nothing to do with history and facts, correct? Just pure faith. You believe that pretty much anyone after this generation, IN GENERAL, will simply be more dumb, more sick, and have the shortest lifetimes in history. But, of course, since we somehow were smart enough to get modern medical advances, modern teaching methods, and the ability to think for ourselves instead of relying upon some church to tell us what to do with our lives, we won't DRASTICALLY be dumber or have shorter lifespans, unlike the reduction of living for thousands of years to living until our 30's or 40's.

I don't understand your conclusion. Just because I stated that human bodies have degenerated since Adam and Eve were created, doesn't mean that people are less valuable now. A person's physical or mental capability has nothing to do with their value as a human being.

Your statement was that there are "more diseases and disabilities" than ever before. My conclusion is of course there is, because there's now a choice for those people to live, instead of simply dying. More people equals more genetics which equals more opportunities for mutations. Instead of simply believing that "God cursed us and we're slowly becoming more stupid and further from him," we're fighting that ignorance.

Who said that only "perfect" genes should survive? That sounds more like evoluntionary "survival of the fittest" philosophy. Christians don't believe in that. In fact, most organizations that support charitable support for "handicapped" people were established by Christian individuals and organizations. Humanists are more likely to support the abortion of "imperfect" babies, and euthanasia for "defective" or "outlived-their-usefulness" people.

I'm going to maintain that the reason that happens is because there's money and power in it for them. I've gotta run.

 

[darkangel8603]

oh wow, i didnt expect 3 pages for my question. I guess that what i get for not lurking all over AD and just staying with the most popular thread. I gotta start checking all over lol.

Will read all later, rightn ow i am getting off the net.

 

[Endymion]

Yep, that supports evolution!

Ever seen mules? Ever seen ligers? Ever seen albino boa constrictors? Yep, that's evolution. Heh!

Actually, those aren't clear examples. If you want support for Evolution, I'd use examples like the transitionary fossil Archaeopteryx Lithographica, the Black Peppered Moth in industrial England (Biston Betularia, though some creationists contest that one), and the Myxomatosis evolution that destroyed many pets in Australia relatively recently. Hell, I'd even use the numerous examples of evolution recreated in the laboratory with the fruit fly Drosophilia Melanogaster.

Microevolution isn't the problem. We have plenty of laboratory evidence proving microevolution. If you were in the medical sciences and you denied macroevolution, you would be laughed out of the field in a flash. It's like becoming a physicist and then saying that if you throw an apple forward, it will turn into a toilet. If that was true, all of physics would undergo a shocking revolution. Microevolution is fundamental to our understanding of medicine and health and is used all the time when we make new medicine to treat diseases.

The problem is macroevolution. Macroevolution (or the major evolution from one state to a significantly different state for a full species) takes SO long, that we haven't actually been able to witness it during our brief time on Earth. To support macroevolution, we use transitionary fossils, which demonstrate a "transition" between two states. The Archaeopteryx Lithographica example I mentioned above is a transitionary fossil with dinosaur and avian features.

Macroevolution is what we're arguing about in this thread.

 

[Maria]

Trustin' commitment of one person to another, particularly of a person to God; central concept of Christianity. One may be called a Christian only if one has faith.
Faith is the acceptance of Christ's lordship ( His God-given, absolute authority ). It is one's removal from sin and from all other religious allegiances ( 1 Thess. 1:9 ). Faith is a personal relationship with God that determines the priorities of one's life. This relationship is one of love built on trust and dependence. We receive it by trustin' the savin' work of Jesus.
Faith includes a certain amount of "belief" and may denote the content of what is believed. In this sense faith is the conviction that God acted in the history of Israel and "that God was in Christ, reconcilin' the world unto himself" ( 2 Cor. 5:19 ).
Faith is related to salvation ( Eph. 2:8-9 ), sanctification ( Acts 26:18 ), purification ( Acts 15:9 ), justification or imputed righteousness ( Rom. 4:5; 5:1; Gal. 3:24 ), adoption as children of God ( Gal. 3:26 ). Each of these comes by faith. Faith is an attitude toward and relationship with God's gift of righteousness in Christ rather than seekin' to achieve righteousness alone.
Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit ( Gal. 5:22 ) -- somethin' God creates in a person. "Faith" is also a gift of the Holy Spirit given to some but not to others ( 1 Cor. 12:8-9 ). Apparently such special gifts of faith refer to the ability to do great acts for God, what Jesus called movin' mountains ( Matt. 17:20; 1 Cor.13:2 ).
Faith is also Christianity in action : "We walk by faith, not by sight" ( 2 Cor. 5:7 ). Faith changes the standards and priorities of life. Similarly, faith is a shield against sin and evil in our lives ( Eph. 6:16; 1 Thess. 5:8 ).
The personal conviction of faith encourage the Christian to continue hopin' for the fulfillment of the promises of God. Faith is then meant as a sort of foretaste of the hoped for things ( Hebrews 11:1 ).
Faith is what we believe : It is Christianity itself, but primarily it is the relationship we have with God through what Jesus accomplished in His death and resurrection.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Each of Noah's sons had a wife with her own set of DNA. Therefore, the children of each of Noah's sons and daughter-in-laws would have a unique set of DNA, and then those would pass down to their descendants. As their families multiplied, and moved to different locations, the DNA of their gene pools would become more concentrated within each "tribe".

Excuse me for not response your post an earlier... since I was not on the online at home computer much since I am on X-mas and New Year vacation wiht family. I´m going to read further since my last post here.

Here is my one question:

As you claimed that we have different blood groups due after Noah Ark time but where the humans comes from? Is the humans come from creation of first human couple thousands years before Noah Ark began. Am I mistake or what?

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Your son made a very good point. According to most religious fanatics, incest is wrong. What is incest? That is when you have sex with a relative. According to the Bible, we are all brothers and sisters under God's eyes. Also, according to the Bible... Adam and Eve were the first and only human beings created on Earth. We all came from Adam and Eve. You and I could be long lost cousins. You could probably be my 133rd cousin!

Anyway, here's something weird to look at. Adam and Eve had two sons at first... Cain and Abel. Cain killed Abel and was banished from Eden. He escaped to the Land of Nod. Adam and Eve had more kids afterwards. So, how did they continue? Did Adam have sex with his daughters? Did Eve have sex with her sons? Did their sons and daughters have sex with each other? That obviously had to be the case... and that is incest.

Yes, that´s what I´m wondering about. My son´s word hit my head with hammer real hard.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Also, since the great Flood, we are all descendants from Noah's sons.

Hard to beleive.

Remember, Noah´s sons are also come from Eve and Adam´s creation, too. They are human like us.

The children of Adam and Eve married their siblings and their cousins.

Hard to beleive because most abnormal children born to Incest relationships.

That would be illegal in most countries today.

Yes and the bible also says, too.

 

[Liebling:-)))]

Rose Immortal and Reba, thank you for answer on my son´s question. I will try to explain him and let him what he think...

 

[Reba]

... Do you have any possible treatments to this difficulty?

1 Timothy 2:11-15 (KJV)

First, the general context of the passage.

Paul, a "senior" apostle, was writing to Timothy, a younger, less experienced pastor. Paul was addressing in particular the order and doctrine of the local church. The setting of that church was in a time and place of many pagan religions that were led by women who used prostitution as their center of "worship." Many of the new Christian church members came from that kind of religious background and practice. This is what Paul was confronting in that passage.

[11] Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection.
[12] But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.

In the church setting, God puts men in charge of preaching and teaching doctrine. Women can serve in many other capacities but not as preachers or teachers of men in church. Women can teach other women and children at church. They can also discuss Bible issues with other people outside of church. They just can't preach in church, or teach Bible classes to men, or be spiritual leaders over men.

[13] For Adam was first formed, then Eve.

God established the priority by creating Adam first. Then, God created Eve to help Adam.

[14] And Adam was not deceived, but the woman being deceived was in the transgression.

Eve was actually deceived by the serpent to eat the fruit. Satan was able to trick her because her spiritual understanding was weak.
Adam was not deceived. He knew that he was doing wrong but did it anyway.
They were both wrong, and both sinned but in different ways.

[15] Notwithstanding she shall be saved in childbearing, if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety.

When Eve bore her children, they were born into the world as sinners. As each woman bears her children, they are born into the world as sinners. BUT thru Eve's children (and each generation) until Mary, those mothers made it possible for the birth of our Savior Jesus Christ. Thru Mary's childbearing (of Jesus) the Savior was brought into the world.

"...if they continue in faith and charity and holiness with sobriety."
This "if" is not the if of condition but the if meaning "since" or "because". That is, (paraphrase) "Because they continued to live in faith and charity (love) and holiness with sobriety, they continued to bear their children with the faith that God would, thru the generations of women, provide a Savior."

I am not a preacher, so this is just my personal understanding thru my reading and study, and thru the teaching and preaching I have received.

According to the above, and especially #12, it seems that many of my teachers (who were wonderful, caring people I will always admire) have done wrong.

I don't know what the circumstances were of your experiences, so I wouldn't say if they were "right" or "wrong".

This is one of my biggest problems with the tradition of masculine dominance to which modern religion is heir. In fact, this really disturbs me.

The roles of Christian men and women in church, and in their marriage relationships are not based on "tradition" but from God's Word. Each role is different but equally important.

Only man can preach but only woman can bear a Savior.

 

[Dennis S.]

Of course, all this was not God's perspective that women are inferior (2nd to men) and incapable of leading spiritually, but really Paul's own opinion and perspective on this subject.

None of this has anything to do with the fact that men wrote pretty much all the books in the bible, and the culture of the time was that men were in charge, no questions asked. The circumstances of how the bible was compiled has a huge reason on why it continues to be interpreted that "women ought to be subjects, not leaders."

Men are no less spiritually corrupt than women. The bible blames the downfall of humanity on the women, not on Satan. You notice how the bible only mentions Satan as a way to get you to do what they want you to do, so you're afraid of the boogeyman.

 

[Reba]

Errmmm, no that's inaccurate. Kids today are SMARTER then kids in the 1920's.....Average IQ then was 100, whereas today IQ averages 110!

I don't know the source of your figures but you might be interested in this report:

Rising IQ Scores

An individual's IQ score remains relatively constant across their lifespan. Recently researchers have been addressing a different type of stability (or instability) in IQ scores--the fact that IQ scores have been steadily increasing in developed countries over the past 50 or 60 years. The so-called "Flynn effect" provides for an interesting discussion of environmental and cultural impact on IQ. The effect is named after political scientist James Flynn, who has researched this effect extensively. Azar (1996) reports in the APA Monitor on a recent (1996) conference of experts that focused on reasons for the Flynn effect. The APA-sponsored conference was titled "Intelligence on the rise: secular changes in IQ and related measures."

A particularly striking statistic is that the average IQ of a 20-year old in 1996 is approximately 15 points higher than that of a 20-year old 50 years ago. Most suspect that the rising IQ scores do not reflect a change in g, the global intelligence purportedly measured by traditional tests. Rather, escalating scores are thought to be the product of more specific skills that allow people to excel on tasks like those included in these tests, along with improved socioeconomic status, better nutrition, and an increasingly technological society.

According to Azar's (1996) report, the increase in IQ scores differs somewhat, depending on the particular measure used to assess intelligence. On the Raven's Progressive Matrices IQ test, which emphasizes visuo-spatial skills, the increase has been dramatic. The maximum score on this test is 60 points; people (born in 1877) tested in 1942 scored an average 24, while people (born in 1967) tested in 1992 scored an average of 54! Because IQ is based on average score of a population, both were said to have an IQ of 100 in their respective generations. It should also be noted that these two samples were of substantially different ages when they took the test (65 and 25), but this difference is not likely to be the only cause of the IQ score discrepancy.

The increase in average IQ scores has not been as dramatic for traditional intelligence tests such as the Stanford-Binet and the Wechsler Adult Intelligence Scale. These tests, in addition to testing visuo-spatial ability, also test more verbally-acquired, school-taught knowledge such as vocabulary, general knowledge, and arithmetic. The fact that scores on traditional tests of intelligence has not increased as dramatically suggests that the increases are the product of skills that aren't particularly affected by schooling. Also, Ulric Neisser, who organized the conference, argues that the rapidity of the increase argues against a genetic explanation. According to Neisser, the reason must be environmental.

What environmental changes might account for rising IQ scores? The article reports a number of possible factors. First, the technology boom seen since the industrial revolution has made people more adept at skills that are measured on IQ tests. Our society has become increasingly visual ever since the advent of movies in the 1920's. Neisser believes that this experience and practice with visual manipulation has led to an enhancement of these skills, and a corresponding rise in IQ. Some also cite the video game as a possible source of enhanced performance on visuo-spatial components of IQ tests.

Others cite improvements in social conditions as a possible cause of the Flynn effect. Better nutrition in industrialized countries has led to a decrease in low-birth-weight babies, and a decrease in cases of malnutrition and nutrient deficiencies.

Another likely factor driving increases in IQ is the level of parents education. Steven Ceci notes that the more education a parent has, the higher their child's IQ--from the mid-1970's to 1990, the number of parents who had attended college rose 70% for non-minorities, 350% for minorities.

The Monitor article also reports that gaps between achievement test scores of Whites and African- Americans in the U.S. showed a substantial decrease from 1971 to 1990. Researchers Robert Hauser and David Grissmer note that this is a period when the federal government was investing more money in educational programs directed at equalizing opportunity for minority children. Also, the greatest gains in IQ were shown by those with the lowest scores. These findings support the promising conclusion that environmental factors, such as improvements in the educational system, can produce changes in intelligence. The Flynn effect and its probable causes demonstrate that intellectual ability is not an immutable, unchanging characteristic.

Azar, B. (1996, June). People are becoming smarter—why? APA Monitor.
http://psych.wisc.edu/braun/281/Intelligence/RisingIQ.htm

Note that IQ changes could be the result of environment, age of subjects, types of test, etc. Nothing proves that man's innate intelligence ("brain power") has increased.

Also, disabilty isn't nessarily a sign of weaker bodies. I cannot hear yes, but my eyesight is pretty much that of an eagle's. Disabilty isn't a bad thing......Disabilty just IS!!!!!! It's a different way of being that's all.

I'm not making any judgments about whether or not a "disability" is "good" or "bad". I was only explaining that the rate and variety of genetic conditions seems to be increasing. The bodies of the whole world's general population are getting weaker; we require more medical and technilogical "help" to keep our bodies going throughout the years.

Why about thirty or forty years ago they classified homosexuality as a mental illness.......Now it's not! We GLB people can even get MARRIED!

And that relates to the topic how?

 

[Reba]

That's nice. And you base this solely off the bible, right? Nothing to do with history and facts, correct? Just pure faith.

My Bible beliefs are supported by historical and scientific facts. My Bible beliefs don't depend on outside sources but outside sources can support my beliefs.

But, of course, since we somehow were smart enough to get modern medical advances, modern teaching methods, and the ability to think for ourselves instead of relying upon some church to tell us what to do with our lives, we won't DRASTICALLY be dumber or have shorter lifespans, unlike the reduction of living for thousands of years to living until our 30's or 40's.

Who do you think did the preliminary research, experimenting, and teaching that led up to present technology? Our present generation is building on the advancements of previous generations. Sure, a kid now can solve a long complicated equation in seconds using a programmable calculator. Who invented that calculator? Who devised the laws that make it possible to solve equations? Who figured out the theorms? Who created pi? Who invented zero? Who created number systems? How many college students today could have independently come up with those things without the teachings of previous generations?

You think man a few thousand years ago was "primative"? How many people today could, on their own, invent alphabets, writing, wheels, gears, or celestial navigation? Who figured out the processes for making metal alloys, or even baking bread (how does yeast work)?

One of the first "chores" God gave Adam was to name all the animals. Who could do that today?

I'm going to maintain that the reason that happens is because there's money and power in it for them.

Care to explain what that means? Did you have a bad experience in the past?

I've gotta run.

Interesting choice of words.

 

[jazzy]

Trustin' commitment of one person to another, particularly of a person to God; central concept of Christianity. One may be called a Christian only if one has faith.
Faith is the acceptance of Christ's lordship ( His God-given, absolute authority ). It is one's removal from sin and from all other religious allegiances ( 1 Thess. 1:9 ). Faith is a personal relationship with God that determines the priorities of one's life. This relationship is one of love built on trust and dependence. We receive it by trustin' the savin' work of Jesus.
Faith includes a certain amount of "belief" and may denote the content of what is believed. In this sense faith is the conviction that God acted in the history of Israel and "that God was in Christ, reconcilin' the world unto himself" ( 2 Cor. 5:19 ).
Faith is related to salvation ( Eph. 2:8-9 ), sanctification ( Acts 26:18 ), purification ( Acts 15:9 ), justification or imputed righteousness ( Rom. 4:5; 5:1; Gal. 3:24 ), adoption as children of God ( Gal. 3:26 ). Each of these comes by faith. Faith is an attitude toward and relationship with God's gift of righteousness in Christ rather than seekin' to achieve righteousness alone.
Faith is a fruit of the Holy Spirit ( Gal. 5:22 ) -- somethin' God creates in a person. "Faith" is also a gift of the Holy Spirit given to some but not to others ( 1 Cor. 12:8-9 ). Apparently such special gifts of faith refer to the ability to do great acts for God, what Jesus called movin' mountains ( Matt. 17:20; 1 Cor.13:2 ).
Faith is also Christianity in action : "We walk by faith, not by sight" ( 2 Cor. 5:7 ). Faith changes the standards and priorities of life. Similarly, faith is a shield against sin and evil in our lives ( Eph. 6:16; 1 Thess. 5:8 ).
The personal conviction of faith encourage the Christian to continue hopin' for the fulfillment of the promises of God. Faith is then meant as a sort of foretaste of the hoped for things ( Hebrews 11:1 ).
Faith is what we believe : It is Christianity itself, but primarily it is the relationship we have with God through what Jesus accomplished in His death and resurrection.

Faith in bible itself alone? I have seen too many people have faith in bible itself alone and attack others who have different kind of faith.

 

[jazzy]

In the 6,000 years range.

Where do u come up with this? I do not see God wrote 6,000 years old in the bible.

 

[jazzy]

Each of Noah's sons had a wife with her own set of DNA. Therefore, the children of each of Noah's sons and daughter-in-laws would have a unique set of DNA, and then those would pass down to their descendants. As their families multiplied, and moved to different locations, the DNA of their gene pools would become more concentrated within each "tribe".

Three sons shared same father, then they married three different women. Supposedly each woman came from family but lived in same area where Noah and his sons lived. They may be look similar, in color of skin, hair and eyes? I see only one race here came from Noah's and daughter in laws. It does not explain where we get whiter, blacker, yellower, redder or browner.