100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Evolution Is it Compatible With THE BIBLE? | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 02/09/09 10:26 AM
|
|
I have not watched this video so I cant speak directly to it but there is no other animal that human shares this degree of similarity with on a genetic level. We are indeed bi-pedal primates. I showed a photo of a rat to prove this point. A rat's front paws are nearly identical to human phalanges in shape and structure. Rats adapted in this manner to be able to access their food which requires a great deal of diligence and coordination.Anyone who has ever owned a pet rat has seen this in action. Yet they do not share a direct genetic link with humans other than being mammals. A structural similarity or a specific adaptation is not the same thing nor can it be treated in the same manner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A passage of the Gospel of John (John 3:22-30) explicitly states that Jesus did baptize. According to the The Cambridge Companion to Jesus, this passage confirms the central place of baptism in Jesus' message. The Cambridge Companion further states that the initiatory baptism of Jesus and the requirement to "repent and accept baptism" in earliest Christianity were further evidence of baptism's central place in the "good news". A passage in the next chapter of the Gospel of John (John 4:1-4) mentions both that Jesus baptized and did not baptize. Many scholars consider the statement that Jesus did not baptize, but rather his disciples baptized (John 4:2), to be a later editorial insertion. Of course you know that there are two kinds of Baptism's in the New Testament, do you know which one Jesus used? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 02/09/09 11:19 AM
|
|
He could have done 16 different types of baptismal procedure. You can only go by what is actually stated and in this case, it was contradictory yet most scholars seem to feel that the contradiction was caused by a later insertion. That would be the only way to explain it to my satisfaction.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
He could have done 16 different types of baptismal procedure. You can only go by what is actually stated and in this case, it was contradictory yet most scholars seem to feel that the contradiction was caused by a later insertion. That would be the only way to explain it to my satisfaction. I didn't say anything about "procedures". Procedures are just different ways of exevuting one type of Baptism - there are two different and distinct types of baptism's in the bible. (Not manners in which it was done - types.) Again - do you know which one Jesus did. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 02/09/09 03:11 PM
|
|
Whats exevuting ? Ive never heard that word. Jesus used water to baptize in many circumstances. That is my understanding. Can you explain why it says that he did baptize and then it says that he did not?
Here are the versus in question. John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. John 4:2 Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. It is this one that is understood to be a later addition, thus creating the contradiction in the bible today. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whats exevuting ? Ive never heard that word. Jesus used water to baptize in many circumstances. That is my understanding. Can you explain why it says that he did baptize and then it says that he did not? Here are the versus in question. John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. John 4:2 Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. It is this one that is understood to be a later addition, thus creating the contradiction in the bible today. In verse 3 it says Jesus and his disciples... baptised. Later it says, Jesus himself deas not the one baptizing - but the disciples. What's the problem here? It is not explicit in chapter 3 that Jesus baptised. Interpreting it this way is contradicted by chapter 4 - meaning, it is the reader who is wrong, not the account. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whats exevuting ? Ive never heard that word. Jesus used water to baptize in many circumstances. That is my understanding. Can you explain why it says that he did baptize and then it says that he did not? Here are the versus in question. John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. John 4:2 Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. It is this one that is understood to be a later addition, thus creating the contradiction in the bible today. In verse 3 it says Jesus and his disciples... baptised. Later it says, Jesus himself deas not the one baptizing - but the disciples. What's the problem here? It is not explicit in chapter 3 that Jesus baptised. Interpreting it this way is contradicted by chapter 4 - meaning, it is the reader who is wrong, not the account. The problem is it clearly states that "he (Jesus) tarried with them and baptized And then Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. So later on for whatever reason they added in this verse. Im not sure who added it or why but then they decided that Jesus was not baptizing but instead only disciples were. Maybe he was such a rock star by then and he was too hot and heavy with MM. Who knows. Im not going to lose any sleep over it. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Whats exevuting ? Ive never heard that word. Jesus used water to baptize in many circumstances. That is my understanding. Can you explain why it says that he did baptize and then it says that he did not? Here are the versus in question. John 3:22 After these things came Jesus and his disciples into the land of Judaea; and there he tarried with them, and baptized. John 4:2 Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. It is this one that is understood to be a later addition, thus creating the contradiction in the bible today. In verse 3 it says Jesus and his disciples... baptised. Later it says, Jesus himself deas not the one baptizing - but the disciples. What's the problem here? It is not explicit in chapter 3 that Jesus baptised. Interpreting it this way is contradicted by chapter 4 - meaning, it is the reader who is wrong, not the account. The problem is it clearly states that "he (Jesus) tarried with them and baptized And then Though Jesus himself baptized not, but his disciples. So later on for whatever reason they added in this verse. Im not sure who added it or why but then they decided that Jesus was not baptizing but instead only disciples were. Maybe he was such a rock star by then and he was too hot and heavy with MM. Who knows. Im not going to lose any sleep over it.
So, the thread started out "discussing" Evolution, now whether or not Jesus did something is being discussed. How soon until we get to everybody's "favorite" person?  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Krimsa
on
Mon 02/09/09 04:32 PM
|
|
I apologize. I cant even remember who brought up this contradiction but they did and then feral and Eljay jumped in. Someone needs to just start a separate biblical contradiction thread. I agree it has no place and this one in particular is stupid. All that happened was either whoever wrote this was drunk at the wheel or someone inserted a contradictory verse later because they didnt read John 3.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I apologize. I cant even remember who brought up this contradiction but they did and then feral and Eljay jumped in. Someone needs to just start a separate biblical contradiction thread. I agree it has no place and this one in particular is stupid. All that happened was either whoever wrote this was drunk at the wheel or someone inserted a contradictory verse later because they didnt read John 3. Looking at Krisma's pic leads me to believe we evolved from cats. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Mon 02/09/09 06:02 PM
|
|
Eljay wrote:
"I know that science is not about the why, but science also tells us that we SHARE LOTS of things with other animals. Similarities are - two eyes, two arms, two legs, ears, a nose, a heart, lungs... the list goes on. I would be suprised to see that we don't have NUMEROUS similarities with everything that walks on the planet - including those that don't (those that crawl - plant's - single celled whatever's) Yet - it would seem that just a single difference is enough to indicate that every "like kind" is unique unto itself through the generations, and nothing is definitive in the reverse extrapolation into the past - unless it can be demonstrated by repeating it - something that the science of Evolution (and I use that term science loosley) has YET to demonstrate, and likely never will." Now..why can't we ALL use our noodle now.... and THINK ALSO...like Eljay? 
I mean.....God DID give us ALL INTELLIGENCE...YES? |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Mon 02/09/09 06:29 PM
|
|
Also FYI the horse still has always been a horse....a donkey a donkey and put the two together and you get a mule....but they are all still within the same species....You have a wolf, who created all the dog species we know....but never did they come from a elephant or a cat.
Find another animal that shares 96%deoxyribonucleic acid identity with homo sapien. Actually it can now be said that it is 100%. 96% was due to the infamous missing pair of chromosones!!! In the past couple of years, human chromosone #2 was proven to have 'fused': the couple of #2 chromosones fused with the #??? (thought to be until now, missing couple of chromosones). It is now a 'fused' 100% MATCH !!! Voile; I've heard contrary information to that "fact". There are numerous inconsistances with Human DNA and Chimpansee DNA, and despite the fact that we share a large number of Chromo's - the physical structure of those Chroo's is radically different. It's no where near a one to one match - and, there's no way to prove that the "fused" chromo is actually directly compatable to the extra chromo that chimps have, as the genomes are not consistant in structure. At least this is what my research has shown. As to your larger post - which I see no need to repost... I am not in disagreement with the manner in which the scientific community and the church views science or philosophy. I do not see one having much to do with the other - until it comes down to the claim of origin of the species - which is NOT scientifically demonstrable. We can examine DNA and plot the genomes - but I find it difficut to assume there is much "fact" when the observable data of today is extrapolated back into the past with no means to verify it. For this reason I feel that the biblical account of the Bible and the account of Darwin - and what it has transformed into - stands on equal ground - and is only true as a matter of faith - and how this relates to one's world view. I don't see any problem with a qualified scientist mapping out the DNA genome of a fossil if their world view is Atheistic - or Fundamentalist Christian, or if they believe we got here by aliens. What I find difficulty with - is the conclusions drawn that what they observe today has any basis in fact or reality about what occured on the planet 2,000; 4,000 or 4 billion years ago. This is not the purpose of science to determine this as fact - because every scientist knows that we do not exist in a state of uniformitism. So - Creationism and Evolution are mere theories. Their credibility rests solely within one's world view. Until the day that scientists can prove God in a laboratory, or simulate the big bang and get life from a rock or star - it's all a matter of faith.... Is it not? OK 'Eljay', I'm not going to work on this one, I might have you at a disadvantage, and I don't enjoy taking advantage of a friend. Watch this video for starters. It might please you to know that Ken Miller, the guest presenter in front of a Univertsity audience, is a devout christian whom admirably distinguishes the fine line between his faith and religion, and science and his professional scientific and teaching occupations. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs&feature=related In this video, when and where it mattered, ID and any other 'creationist' types had no credible rebuttal whatsoever for the #2 fused chromosone. Maybe they are working on one, but to date, nothing. And that is the point I am trying to make with you here: ... our personal world views matter little in this matter. Neither you nor I invented our 'world views'!!! 'World Views' for all of us, come from those whom sweat bullits at forging 'ORIGINAL THOUGHTS' which contributes to the body of thoughts already accumulated over the ages. Not a popularity contest. Those people must articulate their original thesis' and present them to their respective community peers for accreditation: (publishing, presenting, publishing, presenting, etc.) And that is where you and I don't quite agree here. While you claim all sorts of dissent for the theory of evolution, none of it can be traced back where it might count. The personnal opinion of a scientist, is no more no less then yours or mine. If this scientist has a dissenting opinion on a given acceptied notion or theory, there are very straight forward pocesses for that scientist to have his/hers dissenting arguments accredited officially!!! That's the beauty about science!!! It LOVES dissent!!! But it hates unsupported, hairy fairy dogma. Watch the video, and tell me what you think. There is a lot more about Ken Miller, and lots more about the discover of the fused chromosone #2, should you be interested. I will. I've got classes all weekend - I'll get to it on monday. For now, I'm off. 6:00 am comes WAY too early for me. Okay - I can now operate an aerial lift without killing myself (See Boston Globe for tradgedy of accident on Saturday. Right after my class - this happened less than a ile away) Now... The video. I have two problems with this agrument about #2 Chromosone - one being what was said, the other with what has been conviently not stated. The difficulty with what was said is that it asks the question "IF we shared common ancesters we should be able to solve the cromo' issue". Well, alright - that's a given. Of course there are a lot of other dissimilarities which need to be adressed - but let's just examine "THIS ONE". The explination is almost plausable - except it does not explain why the fusion of the #2C took place, and why it only happened once! Also - how does this now not explain that we are directly discendent from the Ape - for how else can one justify that there was a previous "common" ancester that puts man "side by side" on the evolutionary tree, and not a direct descendant? What are the presumed characteristics of the Genome of this mysterious common anscester that does not indicate that the #2 chromosone SPLIT and that apes are not directly discendant from man? None of this is even asked - yet, how can I see this as a clear question to ask, yet those in the field who spend their life studying this not? Also - what is not adressed is that there are more than just the difference in the number of Chromo's that need to be adressed... There is an obsevable difference in the size of the end markers as well. What is the explination for this occurance - as there is no effect on the information caused by this difference - yet it is there. Shouldn't this difference be explained by cuasation - rather than occurance. Sorry Voile - I'm not convinced. This video is a clear example of circular reasoning to attempt to explain what occured with no reasoning behind the why. I know that science is not about the why, but science also tells us that we share lots of things with other animals. Similarities are - two eyes, two arms, two legs, ears, a nose, a heart, lungs... the list goes on. I would be suprised to see that we don't have NUMEROUS similarities with everything that walks on the planet - including those that don't (those that crawl - plant's - single celled whatever's) Yet - it would seem that just a single difference is enough to indicate that every "like kind" is unique unto itself through the generations, and nothing is definitive in the reverse extrapolation into the past - unless it can be demonstrated by repeating it - something that the science of Evolution (and I use that term science loosley) has yet to demonstrate, and likely never will. With all due respect 'eljay', I think you completely missed the point of the video. See I would never pass myself as an expert whom could offer an expert opinion on the subject of evolution, or a whole lot of other subjects we could choose to debate on these forums. Likewise, I wouldn't think for one moment that you would dare pass yourself as an 'expert', whose personnal opinion could be offered on these forums, with the authority of a credible 'expert'. If that were the case, we would both be very busy delivering our expert speeches, and presenting our expert opinions in front of numerous court hearings across the country on this hot SOCIAL topic. In short, my personnal opinion, or your personnal opinion matter very little in the realm of moving world concensus. That you or I are convinced or not about an issue, changes absolutely nothing in establishing world concensus. That is why I provided the Ken Miller link. The video explains in great detail, the state of US consensus with respect to 'creationism'. I warned you that it gave a summary of a recent 'down' verdict of a state court (if you wish I'll get it for you, along a long list of other 'down' verdicts from other state courts, as well as the Supreme Court 'down' judgment judging 'creationism' unconstitutional. At that very conference where Ken Miller (a devout christian) spoke, they had been planning a debate between the Evolution side (Ken Miller), and the Creationist side. I can't put names of the creationist guest experts because they never showed up. Worse, they cancelled at the last minute, causing some degree of panick with the organizers, whom had turned to Miller, whom in turn graciously agreed to sum up the results of the hearings he and creationist experts had participated in. Now, your opinion and my opinion do not matter much, as I pointed out earlier. But there are people out, whom are considered creationist experts, whom were invited to present their case AGAINST THE FUSION OF CHROMOSE #2, and THEIR OPINION WOULD HAVE MATTERED. Unfortunately for your side, the creationist experts were at the hearings, they had been informed about the chromose #2 session months ahead, and yet, deliberately chose to present NO COUNTER ARGUMENT. The hearings official offered them more time to provide a rebuttal! They replied that they had 'nothingm of peritnent substance' to add, or to counter with, on that specific topic. That was the point I underlined to you before you viewed the video, and you missed it. Your side's experts had NOTHING TO SAY, OR ADD. That where it MIGHT HAVE MATTERED 'eljay'. Not what you or I are convinced of, or refuse to believe in. The STATE OF THE UNION on creationism, is that every efforts, whether through the scientific community, or the judicial sytem, are being debunked or judged INEPT TO BE TAUGHT IN SCHOOL AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL. So, until the creationists experts come up with a rebuttal, or counter proposition that either the ...SCIENTIFIC COMMUNITY ... or the JUDICIAL can make sense of, THE EVOLUTION ARGUMENT IN THE CASE OF CHROMOSONE #2, AND ANY OTHER EVOLUTION ARGUMENT OF YOUR CHOICE, STAND AS THE CURRENT SCIENTIFIC, AS WELL AS CONSTITUTIONAL REALITY OF THIS COUNTRY. ... and I understand and respect that your personnally are not convinced... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Eljay wrote: "I know that science is not about the why, but science also tells us that we SHARE LOTS of things with other animals. Similarities are - two eyes, two arms, two legs, ears, a nose, a heart, lungs... the list goes on. I would be suprised to see that we don't have NUMEROUS similarities with everything that walks on the planet - including those that don't (those that crawl - plant's - single celled whatever's) Yet - it would seem that just a single difference is enough to indicate that every "like kind" is unique unto itself through the generations, and nothing is definitive in the reverse extrapolation into the past - unless it can be demonstrated by repeating it - something that the science of Evolution (and I use that term science loosley) has YET to demonstrate, and likely never will." Now..why can't we ALL use our noodle now.... and THINK ALSO...like Eljay?
I mean.....God DID give us ALL INTELLIGENCE...YES? MS with all due respect to Eljay's intelligence, I’m sure he is a smart man. However I responded to the section that you quoted. You can’t just be so silly as to look at an animal and say gee, they have two eyes just like humans do, and a heart just like a human. That is because they are MAMMALS and give live birth just as we do. Don’t you understand this? I have not watched this video so I cant speak directly to it but there is no other animal that human shares this degree of similarity with on a genetic level. We are indeed bi-pedal primates. I showed a photo of a rat to prove this point. A rat's front paws are nearly identical to human phalanges in shape and structure. Rats adapted in this manner to be able to access their food which requires a great deal of diligence and coordination.Anyone who has ever owned a pet rat has seen this in action. Yet they do not share a direct genetic link with humans other than being mammals. A structural similarity or a specific adaptation is not the same thing nor can it be treated in the same manner. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The creationist experts were at the hearings, they had been briefed about the chromose #2 months ahead, and yet, deliberately chose to present no counter argument.
Its because they dont have a counter argument. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Mon 02/09/09 06:47 PM
|
|
The creationist experts were at the hearings, they had been briefed about the chromose #2 months ahead, and yet, deliberately chose to present no counter argument.
Its because they dont have a counter argument. Well 'Krimsa', the 'they' we are talking about here are the star experts of the creationist side of the debate. So it gets better than just '... they don't have an argument!!!....' When the STAR EXPERTS of a given side of debate do not have a counter argument, while presenting in front of judicial hearing whose mandate it is to make sense of the topic, and render a legal verdict, THAT'S THE END OF THE LINE, so to speak. THERE IS NO SCIENTIFICALLY DEFENDABLE ARGUMENT AGAINST THE FUSION OF CHROMOSONE #2, PERIOD!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I need to watch that video. Was this on TV or a Youtube thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I need to watch that video. Was this on TV or a Youtube thing? 'YouTube', Here are the links : the full version, and the experts: chromose #2. Full http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ty1Bo6GmPqM&feature=related Chromosone #2 excerpt http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BXdQRvSdLAs&feature=related I suspect you would appreciate a good portion of the material from Ken Miller. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
MorningSong
on
Tue 02/10/09 03:18 AM
|
|
On a lighter note....and this is just speculation only:
Picture God creating all the healthy nuts and fruits as food for mankind.....but some of the main fruits and nuts are high up in the treetops.... Now picture God also creating man's little helper called the chimp... who would be able to climb waaayyyyy high up .... and swing wayyy high up in those tree limbs... and retrieve all the goodies up there in those branches.....that man could not easily reach... picture man also swinging on the vines ... and chimps swinging right alongside man..... but the chimp was also able to get to the unreachable parts of the branches, that man couldn't easily reach ...
Today we have dog as man's best friend... Back then man needed a chimp to be man's best friend....yes?
I mean a dog wouldn't have been able to climb those high banana and other fruit and nut trees now, would he....
And of course, I doubt that a lion or a bear or a dino or a giraffe or an elephant , or any of God's other creatures , would have been able to climb and swing up high in those tree tops....much less even RELATER to man, as a chimp could. So viola.....our Wonderful Creator God came up with a brilliant idea..... and made the chimp....with a purpose in mind..... and the purpose was to be man's little helper... (now don't confuse this with God creating a HELPMATE for man, called woman. I am sure woman would not have been able to swing from branch to branch anyway..unless she was Jane of course... )
And also...God made the chimp to be similar to man .... so the two could relate ......and work together...and help each other out....but that's as far as it went....... What do you think....ya like?  
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its very clever and inventive.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Its very clever and inventive.
|
|
|
|
|
