What Christ says about Evolution

Originally posted by Hydroman
Why aren't those laws good for us all the time, not just a certain time? 1000 years from now, will our laws not be good for the people of that time?

In this sense, I'm not referring to God's law, but commands that were given at the time. Exceptions, such as during a particular battle or something. God's Law, however, remains unchanged - the ten commandments, if you will, for all eternity. I'll try to find some examples though.

Having to submit to anyone, whether physically or spiritually, shows inequality. Next, you haven't addressed the husband being the head, not the wife. Why is that? Aren't they equal?

Uh, no it doesn't. Christ submits to God, yet they are still equal. The head of the household is to be the man, if one interprets that as the wife being sexually obedient to their husband no matter what, that's their problem. The idea is that women shouldn't oppose their husband's beliefs, ie, in God.

You know, you've still ignored the verse RIGHT before the one you quoted:
Ephesians 5:20 - Submit to one another out of reverence for Christ.
One another, i.e., both man and woman, because;

Ephesians 5:33 - "For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh."

Man and woman, when they get married, become one in flesh.

The same with Children;
Ephesians 6:1 - Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right.

Note, in the Lord.

..or some kind of evidence. You don't have any proof that this is what happened, not even in the bible. I assume you're either getting this idea from Genesis 6 or The Book of Enoch. Which is it?

No, of course I cannot provide you with 'tangible' evidence. It's only a theory, after all. If you take Genesis 6 for what it is, then it's simply the Nephilim came as their own form and reproduced with women on Earth, bringing forth the men with the "demonic DNA" you mentioned.

Personally, I don't really care about them in particular, so I've not put any thought into it beyond what I've discussed here today. I could be completely wrong in my theory, if so, then I'm wrong.

Yes, I know what it means. Now explain how Jesus is in heaven one moment, then he is in Mary's womb as an embryo the next. Did he disappear from heaven when he did this?

I don't know why you used that word then, because that implies sexual intercourse, which didn't happen.

As far as Jesus goes, I don't see the relevance of it, but it would seem Jesus, (in the sense that him and God are one), has existed for all time, since the beginning. Was he with God when God spoke in Genesis, saying, "We shall make man in our image", it's likely. Perhaps his spirit had existed, with God, in unity, (not his physical appearance), and when he came to Earth, he left Heaven and was born as a man.

That's just a theory and there's no scriptures that speak of how that all works, as far as I know.

And what if one does nothing wrong?

It's quite impossible, really.

I thought Jesus was good. Not even one would include him.

If I were to be specific, no man or woman is good. Jesus, being part man, part God, doesn't fall into that category.

Yes, but how do you explain things like the events at Fatima where a massive group experienced the same phenomenon. Only the catholic church has first class miracles.

reply to post by 547000
Sorry to say friend, but only JESUS has first class miracles.
May I respectfully suggest that you trace the history of the Roman Catholic church. Perhaps once you learn the truth, you may question your commitment to their beliefs and rituals.

(Disclaimer - there are many Bible believing Christian Catholics who love and worship the GOD of the Bible - Jesus Christ. I am merely addressing the OP and his/her dedication and faith in things that are contradictory to the inspired Word of GOD.)

Okay guys, I am a geologist who has worked extensively with fossils, and I also have a university degree in anthropology where I concentrated mainly on evolutionary anthropology (i.e. ape to man).

Now I am not going wade through and answer 6 pages of misinformation from both sides, as I simply do not have the time. But if you want real answers to your questions, or if you want specific 'evidence' addressed I am happy to look at it and explain you through it in a respectful and courteous manner using layman's terms so everyone can understand.

However if you would prefer the answers obtained from websites with an agenda to uphold, then feel free to continue on espousing your lies and half truths.

We went through 3 million+ years of evolution.
I guess turning a man into a monkey would be easy to do overnight though...

What a fictional charater stated has no importance in my mind

reply to post by mikesk8s247


The facts are all around you. It's just that whenever someone points them out you plug your ears and go "LALALALALA - BIBLE! BIBLE!!!! LALALALA"

As for what Christ said ACTUALLY about Evolution..
(Dramatic Pause)
Oh.. Well he actually didn't say anything.
It was common belief during his time to think that certain wild creatures spontaneously appeared. For instance, people though that piles of trash literally spawned flies on it's own.

Originally posted by randomname
i don't put faith in the ramblings of darwin, a senile hermit whose only scientific tools he brought on his expeditions were a pencil and paper.

even know with all the scientific and genetic techniques and technology there is absolutely no evidence that man and monkeys have a common ancestor or that man descended from apes.

there isn't any because it isn't true. not because of lack of evidence or lack of technology. it's a scientific fact man did not come from a monkey.

if we can match a sample of dna from a strand of hair and come up with 1 in 100 billion odds that it came from you, or can prove with 99.99% certainty that you are a genetic match to your parents then proving this would be simple.

if man and monkey came from the same ancestors then we'd find human dna in monkey's. that's not the case.
dna doesn't evolve. its a blueprint. any tapering or changing of it is like tampering with a skyscraper blueprint.
the whole thing can come crashing down.

the fact is the theory of evolution is to deny God. it's only real purpose.

Actually the way stem cells react to their environment suggest evolution could be a reality, where the same blueprint(stemcell) in different environments behaves differently. And at the same time that is a remarkable piece of engineering the way DNA and Genes work. Which not only suggests a creator or "intelligent design" but also suggests evolution by environmental changes can also be a possibility. Stop arguing over this stupid debate. One fact that is true, the bible is a creation of man, its inconsistencies prove that to be true, but the creation of the universe and life is by design, or so the science suggests.

reply to post by mikesk8s247


Gee whiz - Now you have Jesus telling us he knew Darwin!
He could not have known Darwin, because that man had not even been born and there would have been many Darwins before the famous one.
An absurd supposition.

Originally posted by 1littlewolf
Okay guys, I am a geologist who has worked extensively with fossils, and I also have a university degree in anthropology where I concentrated mainly on evolutionary anthropology (i.e. ape to man).

Now I am not going wade through and answer 6 pages of misinformation from both sides, as I simply do not have the time. But if you want real answers to your questions, or if you want specific 'evidence' addressed I am happy to look at it and explain you through it in a respectful and courteous manner using layman's terms so everyone can understand.

However if you would prefer the answers obtained from websites with an agenda to uphold, then feel free to continue on espousing your lies and half truths.

edit on 20/11/2011 by 1littlewolf because: (no reason given)

Nah..

I'm just going to go ahead and assume since you concentrated mainly on evolutionary anthropology (i.e. ape to man) and not Christian anthropology (i.e. thin air to man) that you're going to say people evolved from "lesser" creatures.

Originally posted by Sailor Sam
reply to post by mikesk8s247

 

Gee whiz - Now you have Jesus telling us he knew Darwin!
He could not have known Darwin, because that man had not even been born and there would have been many Darwins before the famous one.
An absurd supposition.

He knows Darwin now.
(he's dead)

Christ's teaching had nothing to do with evolution. It's about compassion, love, forgiveness and speaking truth to power. Whether evolution is true or not has nothing to do with Christianity or God. These religious arguments on evolution are a waste of time. You should be spending your time on learning how to love one another. Regardless of how we got here or if we were created by God or evolved from monkeys we still need to learn how to love and do what's right in the eyes of God.

Also constantly telling people how they should think or what they should do or believe is not going to change anything. Your actions and how you treat other people will speak louder than words. If you have real wisdom and understanding you will know when to speak and when to listen. Actually it is better to be counseled than to counsel. It is better to understand than to be understood. God works in mysterious ways and if he chooses to use evolution to create mankind that is not your concern. Live by the teachings of the Sermon on the Mount and you'll have everything you need. Why complicate life more than it needs to be?

reply to post by 1littlewolf


Hi Littlewolf, nice to have an expert in the forum. I have a pretty good idea on the subject through various reading over time, but I have one question for you that may help to put this thread in perspective for others.

How old is the current species of human?

I've read 30,000 years under one classification, 50,000 years in another paper, and 150,000 for the current collection of subspecies that we fall under. Could you clarify the timelines and the classifications leading to our current species?

Thank you

... and for the fun of it, I think Futurama showed the evolution argument well.

reply to post by aorAki

Well of course it does: you can talk to 'bible thumpers' who rely on blind faith and they will say one thing with absolutely no corroborating evidence, or you can talk to geologists who use observation as a tool and they will say another thing based on fact. The evidence is just not there.

And there's no way it could've happened either right ?

Above Top Secret

reply to post by Hydroman

Having to submit to anyone, whether physically or spiritually, shows inequality. Next, you haven't addressed the husband being the head, not the wife. Why is that? Aren't they equal?

No.

It simply implies a difference in role or function - not a difference in intrinsic merit or value.

reply to post by SpeachM1litant


Hang on..!!

How do you explain hill-billies mamed Bubba then..?

Srry I couldn't resist that. but the guy you answered sorta sounded to me, like he was hinting that he's been having sex with monkeys..

Thats pretty F^$#$D-up..!

As soon as a read the title to this thread, it was an instant facepalm. "What Christ says about evolution". Ugh please..

reply to post by mikesk8s247


Well i don't know how Jesus can say that since he doesn't exist. And if he actually does exist than he doesn't deserve any respect or worship for all the crimes he's committed or all the wars and the fact he doesn't care about anyone on this planet besides himself. Also the evolution from monkeys is only one of the many theories out there and sadly for you it even has more evidence backing it up than god or the bible.

reply to post by mikesk8s247


Im quite disturbed that , jesus cant comprehend the theory of evoulution , and also even saddened that he doesnt thinkt that animals have spirits!

Jesus your weak man , I thought you were supposed to be awesome , but that comment makes you come off like a total douche !

Originally posted by thegagefather


Nah..

I'm just going to go ahead and assume since you concentrated mainly on evolutionary anthropology (i.e. ape to man) and not Christian anthropology (i.e. thin air to man) that you're going to say people evolved from "lesser" creatures.

Touche'. I will admit that I missed out on that module. Our lecturer - Kent Hovind - was having some sort of cash issues......... idk something to do with the IRS.......

Originally posted by puzzlesphere
reply to post by 1littlewolf

 

Hi Littlewolf, nice to have an expert in the forum. I have a pretty good idea on the subject through various reading over time, but I have one question for you that may help to put this thread in perspective for others.

How old is the current species of human?

I've read 30,000 years under one classification, 50,000 years in another paper, and 150,000 for the current collection of subspecies that we fall under. Could you clarify the timelines and the classifications leading to our current species?

Thank you

The word 'species' is a tricky one as for any other type of animal when comparing species it means that the two animals could breed (assuming of course they're male and female) and have fertile offspring (Unlike a donkey and a horse for example who have the sterile mule as their offspring). Now if you go by that definition then you are looking back maybe 1/2 a million years at the most. Anything later than this date is merely just a sub-species at best, and a 'race' at worst.

But I'm assuming you mean 'anatomically modern humans' which is more or less humans that looked, and thought and were as intelligent as we are. They may have been dark skinned, and were probably a little hairier than we are, but essentially were more or less equal, sharing just as many genes as you would now to anyone else in the world.

The oldest known fossils of anatomically modern humans were found at Omo river in Ethiopia and date back 150,000 years. So by inference you could assume that anatomically modern humans are probably 200 - 250,000 years old.

What you have to understand is that the human species has been subdivided up more than any other species. This is in part due to the fact that any anthropologist who finds ancient human remains wants it to be a new subspecies for it then is their chance to rewrite the history books. So there is a bias toward splitting up humans based on small difference, rather than accepting that maybe they may simply be a smaller or more 'primitive' version of something that already exists.

Personally I'm a lumper rather than a splitter. But then again i've never found any early human remains before. Probably the most accepted timeline very similar to the wikipedia timeline and can be found here.

Originally posted by randyvs
reply to post by aorAki

 

Well of course it does: you can talk to 'bible thumpers' who rely on blind faith and they will say one thing with absolutely no corroborating evidence, or you can talk to geologists who use observation as a tool and they will say another thing based on fact. The evidence is just not there.

And there's no way it could've happened either right ?

Above Top Secret

edit on 21-11-2011 by randyvs because: (no reason given)

It is one thing to see shells on mountain tops and believe this proves a worldwide flood event. It is quite another to see a galaxy of water 12billion light years away and come to the same conclusion.