Posted on 03/20/2009 7:59:40 PM PDT by GodGunsGuts
Ditto.
Ridiculous.
According to the Bible, Adam and Eve had more sons and
daughters,...if the account is taken literally, then
the sons and daughters had to mate (unless there were other
created humans). At that time there was no recorded Biblical
proscription about mating with a sibling (and there would not have been
enough time for lots of accumulated mutations) so the
kids wouldn’t have been “genetically challenged”, which is
certainly one of the bases for not mating with a familial
sibling nowadays.
But think of the problems with an evolutionary viewpoint.
E.g...when the first “man” or “woman” shows up, who do they
mate with? If they mate with someone who is not yet human,
just close enough wouldn’t their offspring be less human?
How could they ever get to the “human genetic complement” if
they keep on mating with lesser than humans?
Also, wouldn’t they develop lethal mutations also???
You could also apply this analogy to the animal world,
i.e. when the first sexually reproducing organism shows up,
what does it mate with?
A famous conundrum is altered to become this; what came first, the rooster,
the hen, or the egg, and who did the newly arrived organism
mate with?
With either viewpoint the obvious conclusion, would be that
they had to mate with close siblings.
What takes more “faith”?, that God made males and females at close
to the same time which allows them to mate?,
...or that when the first Male or female of reproductive species arrives,
it has a mate coming out a that same time, or it goes around
searching for a suitable compatible mutation and they are
able to “hook” up and continue perpetrating their new
genome and move from their predecessors?
You make no sense here.
I just love how freaky Christians want to make others believe that science doesn’t exist. And, I really like how so called Christians turn everything around and skew the Bible to their beliefs, lol.
Fortunately, not all of us think your version of Christianity, and Science, is the truth. You’re probably the least “Christian” and seriously the least “science” knowledgeable on this forum.
I won’t argue “science” with you, there’s many here more informed to do that, but I will argue “Christianity” with you.
Heh, I just love how so called Christians like you carry the flag for Christianity.
“We won’t have all the answers until we make it to Heaven, ourselves.”
And until this time the enemy satan will do everything to obscure the truth. One way he will do this is to have people convincing themselves that they know better than God and that His word, the Holy Bible isn’t the truth.
And a way to accomnplish THAT is by getting into outsmarting themselves over semantics, the Bible isn’t literal or it’s all allegory, and so forth and so on.
Robert Tilton, is that you? Jimmy Swaggart, perhaps? Or maybe Jim Bakker or Benny Hinn!
Evolution is not at odds with Christianity. Science is not at odds with Christianity. Anyone who posts such is knowledgeable in neither.
It’s at odds, and to be more accurate about the second part, science itself isn’t at odds, but those that have hi-jacked it are indeed at odds with Christianity:
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-bloggers/2210701/posts
No Bucky but we see you still know next to nothing about Christianity.
What is it this week, being nice to puppies?
Twinkie, are you able to define Christianity?
Not so. I am a devout Christian. However, you remain among the masters at the practice of Christian fascism.
Perhaps you should address your question more broadly to the vast majority of Christian denominations who can clearly see the compatability of evolution with their own faith. Fortunately, the minority of literalist Christians aren’t going to get their point of view taught in science classes.
**********************************************************
How many more times will you spread these lies, even though they’ve been exposed time and time again?
http://www.evolutionnews.org/2006/03/americans_overwhelmingly_suppo.html
Headline: “Americans Overwhelmingly Support Teaching Scientific Challenges to Darwinian Evolution, Zogby Poll Shows” From March 2006.
http://www.discovery.org/scripts/viewDB/filesDB-download.php?command=download&id=719
**********************************************************
Free Republic Poll on Evolution
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-backroom/1706571/posts?page=63#63
**********************************************************
Creationism makes a comeback in US
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1856224/posts
***********************************************************
Teaching creation and evolution in schools
Solid research reveals American beliefs
http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v13/i2/teaching.asp
************************************************************
Survey Finds Support Is Strong For Teaching 2 Origin Theories
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9B07E4D9143BF932A25750C0A9669C8B63
************************************************************
Public Divided on Origins of Life
http://people-press.org/report/254/religion-a-strength-and-weakness-for-both-parties
************************************************************
Americans Believe in Jesus, Poll Says (creation poll results included)
http://derekgulbranson.com/2005/01/17/americans-believe-in-jesus/
Well, sometimes these debates can be fun.
However, I reject the radical darwinists and the radical creationists as both sides have much that they can not explain -—
Which, I believe, is EXACTLY what God intended.
Humility is the proper course here.
We don’t know.
To me, the “Tree of Knowledge” represented the fact that Adam and Eve did not remain humble, and tried to be like God.
There are those on both sides of this debate, IMHO, who should be careful NOT to follow the example of Adam and Eve.
Admit what we don’t know and move on.
The one thing I keep noticing is meanwhile one side pretends to be gracious in admitting they don’t have all the answers, and even though they admit it, they get really fearful that someone else might, to the point they have to sue the other side into silence when threatened.
Hard to move on with all that kind of insecurity going on!
If you’re going to pretend to be “devout” it would be helpful if you had at least a working knowledge of what the term Christianity actually means....deja-vu...
And understanding the Bible would also go a really long way in helping convince others you know the least bit of what you’re talking about, you know...
while judging others, by having the audacity to call Christians that actually are capable of defining the term as well as demonstrating they understand the Bible are fascists.
You’ve consistently demonstrated nothing of the sort, day in and day out Bucky.
“Twinkie?”
LMAO.
Fortunately, your crap doesn’t intimidate me.
Are you able to define Christianity? Waiting with bated breath here. Can’t wait to read this.
I don’t give a damn what you and your crew think so I ain’t going to be silenced there.
I’m a practicing Catholic, tpanther. Go up against that and let’s see how well you do there. ;)
Oh wait, you can’t argue facts. Or faith.
“If you’re going to pretend to be “devout”...”
No further reading necessary. Spoken like a true Christian fascist brownshirt. You demean Christianity.
Fortunately, me and millions of others don’t adhere to your definition of faith or science.
Evolution is not at odds with Christianity. Science is not at odds with Christianity. Only those on the extreme sides have a problem with either, both. IMO of course.
I'm not sure how you, or anyone else, can hold this argument as tenable given the fact that the Hebrews were exposed to a culture, for quite some time mind you, that was immersed in human/animal hybrids, and that such exposure would have made them very receptive to the idea of common descent. It would have been a very simple matter for God to state that we were related to other animals.
I recently had some correspondence with a friend on this subject. He asked for the Catholic perspective, so I sent him these excerpts:
Pope John Paul II, address to the Pontifical Academy of Sciences (10/22/96) - “Truth Cannot Contradict Truth”:
“... Taking into account the state of scientific research at the time as well as of the requirements of theology, the encyclical Humani Generis (1950) considered the doctrine of “evolutionism” a serious hypothesis, worthy of investigation and in-depth study equal to that of the opposing hypothesis. Pius XII added two methodological conditions: that this opinion should not be adopted as though it were a certain, proven doctrine and as though one could totally prescind from revelation with regard to the questions it raises. He also spelled out the condition on which this opinion would be compatible with the Christian faith, a point to which I will return. Today, almost half a century after the publication of the encyclical, new knowledge has led to the recognition of the theory of evolution as more than a hypothesis. [Aujourdhui, près dun demi-siècle après la parution de l’encyclique, de nouvelles connaissances conduisent à reconnaitre dans la théorie de l’évolution plus qu’une hypothèse.] It is indeed remarkable that this theory has been progressively accepted by researchers, following a series of discoveries in various fields of knowledge. The convergence, neither sought nor fabricated, of the results of work that was conducted independently is in itself a significant argument in favor of this theory...”
In the same address, Pope John Paul II rejected any theory of evolution that provides a materialistic explanation for the human soul:
“... theories of evolution which, in accordance with the philosophies inspiring them, consider the spirit as emerging from the forces of living matter or as a mere epiphenomenon of this matter, are incompatible with the truth about man.”
For the latest Church discussions on the issue, this book might be helpful: “Creation and Evolution, A Conference with Pope Benedict XVI.” The book is compiled from the conference that the Pope held at Castel Gandolfo in 2006, during which the greatest Catholic minds of our day got together and discussed the issue. Here is a quote from the Pope during the conference:
“Ultimately it comes down to the alternative: What came first? Creative Reason, the Creator Spirit who makes all things and gives them growth, or Unreason, which, lacking any meaning, strangely enough brings forth a mathematically ordered cosmos, as well as man and his reason. The latter, however, would then be nothing more than a chance result of evolution and thus, in the end, equally meaningless. As Christians, we say: I believe in God the Father, the Creator of heaven and earth. I believe in the Creator Spirit. We believe that at the beginning of everything is the eternal Word, with Reason and not Unreason.”
- Pope Benedict XVI
Even still, they had more children......hmmmm.......
If asking you a question is taunting you must be lots of fun...
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.