im not saying that what i am posting is fact
not at all

just saying that it is interesting
pointing out what different christians believe and why

and what i posted does not change the six thousand years for man thing

I'm going to play dirty pool.

I provided the link of who calculated them originally, and where the belief system came from. Man is 6,000 years old from Adam. Adam was created at the same time as all other animals according to the statements in Genesis (I can start providing exact chapter and verses if you need?)

So, 6,000 years to create the earth, and then an extra 6,000 years from the quoted prior calculations. 12,000.

Like Joe said, there's no conflict in Christianity and evolution. The only conflict arises from what he defines as Young Earth Creationism.

i apologize
i did a poor job of proof reading post number eighteen

it has been edited to say exactly what i was trying to say

Ah.

Well, what you are saying does not oppose evolution then.

It's only a very specific belief that contradicts evolution Jared. As Joe has said, if you do not take every word as the bible as literal (I.e., do not subscribe to what Joe referred to it as Young Earth Creationism), nothing in it prohibits evolution.

Natural selection is a real thing. Anyone who argues otherwise is flat wrong as it's completely beyond doubt. Just as sure as the sky is blue.

Natural selection drives evolution.

Creationism is a theory concocted by an ancient civilisation which did not understand the world it lived in. This is no different than the Mayans, Aztecs, Egyptians, etc. Anyone pray to Ra lately? Perform a ritual sacrifice?

There is nothing to argue in this thread.

did anyone here deny natural selection?

this thread was started because i didn't think that specitation to the point of not being able to reproduce with its parents had been observed therefore i said it was a nice theory but not a fact.

the thread is now off track and will probably stay off track til i finish reading on specitation observations

though i like it being off track
what i really wanna discuss if how far off track mainstream christianity is from the bible

and how some thing christianity is the problem with politicians trying to impose beliefs when it is not. those who impose beliefs are heritics

I didn't read the thread after the first few posts.

That's what I get for injecting my $.02 without reading, lol.

Someone will probably come in here and smack me upside the head for forgetting much of my Bible Studies, but...

IIRC, the only thing that prohibits speciation from within the Bible is a literal reading of Genesis. And I do mean literal, on the level of "The earth is 6000 years/10k/whatever old".

Joe did an excellent write up explaining it. Ultimately, it comes down to a minority (What Joe termed Young Earth Creationists) convincing other people to get up in arms over something that only exists for the YEC's cause.

aliens did genetic experiments on apes and made us

/thread

Unfortunately, it's much easier to argue in absolutes about sound bytes than to have serious discourse.

Person A (presumably wearing a large belt buckle) says "Look, it says right here, six days plus x,000 years. That's it." Person B (presumably wearing an artificially distressed T-shirt with a picture of Carl Sagan on it) hears this, and replies "You're a damned fool. How can you possibly ignore the panoply of physical evidence which directly proves otherwise?" Person C, a television anchor, grabs hold of this and turns it into a two hour documentary special, and that pretty much shuts the door on logic and reason. Viewpoints A and B are stretched to their most extreme and absolute, and those who might posit a centrist point of view become lost in the noise.

It's reductio ad absurdum, but it seems to be the way of things.



The original post here wasn't actually about the age of the universe (or the earth) per se, however it's an important point which one must resolve in order to have discourse on the acceptance of an evolutionary model within the framework of a Judeo-Christian faith system. If the earth really is only 6,000-12,000 years old, that's not really enough time for any meaningful evolutionary processes to take place. It's also not enough time for dinosaurs to have roamed the planet, and I mention that only to raise a question: Why is it that, having blindly accepted a relatively fanciful premise, based on one interpretation of a small, vague, and self-contradictory account which is in conflict with all observable evidence, must some people go on to fabricate one excuse after another, completely absent logic or reason, to dismiss those arguments which weaken their premise rather than to consider said arguments as grounds for re-shaping their original assumption?

Example:

Person A: "The earth is x,000 years old, not x,000,000,000 years."

Person B: "But we have physical evidence here in our hands, in the form of fossilized plant and animal remains, which proves otherwise. It would have taken millions of years for all of this to form."

Person A: "Well, God just laid down the whole fossil record intact when He created the earth."

Person B: "We can also deduce the age of the universe by the fact that all of the galaxies which we can observe are clearly expanding outwards from a single point. For them to have reached their current positions, given their speed, would have taken billions of years."

Person A: "Well, God spread all of the galaxies into a specific starting point and then assigned each of them a velocity and direction to make it appear that they all originated at a single point in space billions of years ago."

Ok, so given an omnipotent Creator, these assertions are certainly not easily refuted, but why would this have happened? Is Person A claiming that God is a jerk?

Or could it be that Person A simply took far too literal and absolute an interpretation of a story which, regardless of its fundamental validity, was written several thousand years ago by men with a relatively finite and primitive understanding of the world around them, in a series of languages from which it is not especially easy to make unambiguous translations of meaning into Latin / English / etc., and which, at best, are revelatory rather than observational in nature.


I would posit, to anyone who interprets Genesis 1 as laying out a literal six-day timeframe for the creation of the universe, that they refute the following assertion: "God revealed the creation of the universe to someone in the form of a vision which lasted six days. Each day, a different phase of the operation was depicted. That person then wrote down what had been revealed to him each day. This process would be analogous to my watching a six-part miniseries about the Vietnam War on television, where each part in the series explores a different phase of the operation, and is aired over the course of six nights. It would be improper for me to claim that the Vietnam War lasted only six days, despite the fact that it was shown to me over a six day period."




I want this:

Attachment 240134

lmao
i used to know a guy that sincerely believed that

he said we were created as a slave race to mine gold
and that satan was the alien in charge and his time is coming to an end and he wont give up without a fight
and the aliens are coming back and will be war

it was very difficult not to laugh at him

Originally Posted by JasonC SBB
"The Greatest Show on Earth" is a great book...

Do you have a link explaining what's incorrect?

Neg, but what I was referring to was where Dawkins began speculation in areas where we already had research done or being done, i.e., group selection, or math involving what planets can have life. Wasting pages on speculation when research is being done or was already done seems silly to me. So, I was incorrect in that I had termed his speculation inaccurate as it was speculation, although it wasn't accurate to the extent that other data existed that didn't 100% confirm it.

Not saying I believe it, but it does conveniently explain why no missing link exists. Also, some world renowned geneticists claim our DNA can all be traced back to one mother. Which implies there was an "Eve"... and she was probably a -----. All of our ----- of a mother...

*edit... forgot about censoring here... Eve was probably very promiscuous... All of our very promiscuous mother...

This is not exactly what the geneticists say. A link to the theory, which has nothing to do with being a harlot ;)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve

The claim is specific to mitochondria, and interestingly there's also a scientific basis for an Adam as well as an Eve.

reading through that, they weren't the only humans alive at the time... and actually lived 10ks years apart... how the hell did they get it on?

Obviously, time travel sex!

and there is the part in there bible where it says god created man in his image


imho believing in that would be like believing in god without supporting text

not saying it is not possible
anything is possible

Actually that there is "no missing link" is a myth.
IIRC There have been continually more discoveries of "links".
And also a lot of "dead-end" branches.

Don't have the energy to do an extensive analysis or even one, but...

http://www.nature.com/news/yeast-sug...ar-life-1.9810