snakeblitz33
Well-Known Member
Some Snake's, still do. I think, I tought I saw one slithering around here a little bit ago.
:laughing:
Evolution vs. Intelligent Design
- Thread starter snakeblitz33
- Start date
Some Snake's, still do. I think, I tought I saw one slithering around here a little bit ago.
:laughing:
reefraff
Active Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490776
You could say that Genesis paved the way for the modern theory of evolution by letting us know that snakes once had arms and legs, right? LOL
You sure the serpent mentioned in the bible is the same as a snake?
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490776
You could say that Genesis paved the way for the modern theory of evolution by letting us know that snakes once had arms and legs, right? LOL
You sure the serpent mentioned in the bible is the same as a snake?
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490803
You sure the serpent mentioned in the bible is the same as a snake?
Nope...nobody knows for sure but HaShem himself.
Originally Posted by reefraff http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490803
You sure the serpent mentioned in the bible is the same as a snake?
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/120#post_3490704
i am going to stir the pot myself and pose another question.
Doesn't the bible indicate man was made in God's image? If this were the case...how does this tie in with the change from cro magnun man to present day man. No change should be required one would think.
I don't know how serious you are with your question...I didn't see this question addressed so.....Who knows what God's image is? Maybe it's a cell (with a nucleus) and all the cells combined make the image of man, but the origianl image was a cell...If thats the case, than no matter how much man changes over the years, the cells remain as the bobies building blocks unchanged....or maybe it's an emonional imprint as some preachers think...since love, anger, hate, frustration and so on doesn't change either.
Originally Posted by Darthtang AW http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/120#post_3490704
i am going to stir the pot myself and pose another question.
Doesn't the bible indicate man was made in God's image? If this were the case...how does this tie in with the change from cro magnun man to present day man. No change should be required one would think.
I don't know how serious you are with your question...I didn't see this question addressed so.....Who knows what God's image is? Maybe it's a cell (with a nucleus) and all the cells combined make the image of man, but the origianl image was a cell...If thats the case, than no matter how much man changes over the years, the cells remain as the bobies building blocks unchanged....or maybe it's an emonional imprint as some preachers think...since love, anger, hate, frustration and so on doesn't change either.
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490731
People who embrace evolution are not going to change any mind that embraces creationism. The literal meaning of the Bible creation story is ingrained in their faith. Faith is a belief systems not based on facts. You can't argue science vs faith.
Also, the cartoon on the missing link was right on. Looking for that missing link always uncovers yet another human-like species. Truthfully, finding a missing link will not satisfy creationist either because that link will be so ape like; they would say it was just another extinct species of ape. We have evidence of many ape-human like species with a steady progression in their erect statue, height, abilities to survive in a changing environment, and intelligence going back 2 million years. What missing link are we looking for exactly? The only missing link that some one who believes in creation will believe is if a ape fissile is found with a human skeleton fetus in it.
There is hard evidence that Neanderthals and Cro Magnums had contact with one another, even lived together, perhaps even interbred. Doesn't that prove at least a more modern missing link if two separate species are similar enough to bred? Relative to their smaller size, Neanderthals actually had larger brains.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans
Can humans and chimps mate and have children? Chimps are very close in DNA...somehow that just doesn't seem right.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490731
People who embrace evolution are not going to change any mind that embraces creationism. The literal meaning of the Bible creation story is ingrained in their faith. Faith is a belief systems not based on facts. You can't argue science vs faith.
Also, the cartoon on the missing link was right on. Looking for that missing link always uncovers yet another human-like species. Truthfully, finding a missing link will not satisfy creationist either because that link will be so ape like; they would say it was just another extinct species of ape. We have evidence of many ape-human like species with a steady progression in their erect statue, height, abilities to survive in a changing environment, and intelligence going back 2 million years. What missing link are we looking for exactly? The only missing link that some one who believes in creation will believe is if a ape fissile is found with a human skeleton fetus in it.
There is hard evidence that Neanderthals and Cro Magnums had contact with one another, even lived together, perhaps even interbred. Doesn't that prove at least a more modern missing link if two separate species are similar enough to bred? Relative to their smaller size, Neanderthals actually had larger brains.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans
Can humans and chimps mate and have children? Chimps are very close in DNA...somehow that just doesn't seem right.
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490785
It's like the branches of a tree. All of the modern organisms are leaves and ancient ancestors can be represented by the forks of the tree. You start with the trunk (the original organism from which all life came-if that's how it happened) branches into two limbs, the limbs turn into branches, the branches turn into sticks, the sticks turn into twigs, etc. So chimpanzees and humans are leaves that branch from the same twig. See, it isn't linear. So the organism that spawned chimps and humans likely did not look like a chimp/human hybrid. Perhaps it looked more like a chimpanzee, but that's irrelevant. So to find the common ancestor of a snake and a human you have to find the two leaves and trace them down the tree until they meet. The common ancestor of a snake and a human probably doesn't look like a snake or a human and it definitely doesn't look like a snake/human hybrid. This is a commonly misunderstood concept (google kirk cameron crockoduck and you'll see what I'm talking about). That's because it is incredibly hard to explain (as you can see with my horrible attempt at making an analogy). It is not hard to understand, but it takes a little effort and intuition.
Pez...the leaves of a tree and all the branches indeed come from a single trunk. The problem with the example you used does not answer evolution. If the tree is an Elm, then no matter how far it grows, it's still an elm tree. It won't produce Berch or palm branches. A root makes whatever stems from it to always stay true to what it started out as. Which is my point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490776
You could say that Genesis paved the way for the modern theory of evolution by letting us know that snakes once had arms and legs, right? LOL
LOL...I don't know how long folks belived the Earth was flat and square. I know Columbus showed the world that it was round...However in the book of Enoch (a book rejected by Christians as part of the writtings) spoke of the circumference of the Earth.
It really doesn't matter if the book was indeed written by the 7th from Adam (why it was rejected)....it writings were much older than Columbus.
Originally Posted by PEZenfuego http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490785
It's like the branches of a tree. All of the modern organisms are leaves and ancient ancestors can be represented by the forks of the tree. You start with the trunk (the original organism from which all life came-if that's how it happened) branches into two limbs, the limbs turn into branches, the branches turn into sticks, the sticks turn into twigs, etc. So chimpanzees and humans are leaves that branch from the same twig. See, it isn't linear. So the organism that spawned chimps and humans likely did not look like a chimp/human hybrid. Perhaps it looked more like a chimpanzee, but that's irrelevant. So to find the common ancestor of a snake and a human you have to find the two leaves and trace them down the tree until they meet. The common ancestor of a snake and a human probably doesn't look like a snake or a human and it definitely doesn't look like a snake/human hybrid. This is a commonly misunderstood concept (google kirk cameron crockoduck and you'll see what I'm talking about). That's because it is incredibly hard to explain (as you can see with my horrible attempt at making an analogy). It is not hard to understand, but it takes a little effort and intuition.
Pez...the leaves of a tree and all the branches indeed come from a single trunk. The problem with the example you used does not answer evolution. If the tree is an Elm, then no matter how far it grows, it's still an elm tree. It won't produce Berch or palm branches. A root makes whatever stems from it to always stay true to what it started out as. Which is my point of view.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490776
You could say that Genesis paved the way for the modern theory of evolution by letting us know that snakes once had arms and legs, right? LOL
LOL...I don't know how long folks belived the Earth was flat and square. I know Columbus showed the world that it was round...However in the book of Enoch (a book rejected by Christians as part of the writtings) spoke of the circumference of the Earth.
It really doesn't matter if the book was indeed written by the 7th from Adam (why it was rejected)....it writings were much older than Columbus.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490731
People who embrace evolution are not going to change any mind that embraces creationism. The literal meaning of the Bible creation story is ingrained in their faith. Faith is a belief systems not based on facts. You can't argue science vs faith.
Also, the cartoon on the missing link was right on. Looking for that missing link always uncovers yet another human-like species. Truthfully, finding a missing link will not satisfy creationist either because that link will be so ape like; they would say it was just another extinct species of ape. We have evidence of many ape-human like species with a steady progression in their erect statue, height, abilities to survive in a changing environment, and intelligence going back 2 million years. What missing link are we looking for exactly? The only missing link that some one who believes in creation will believe is if a ape fissile is found with a human skeleton fetus in it.
There is hard evidence that Neanderthals and Cro Magnums had contact with one another, even lived together, perhaps even interbred. Doesn't that prove at least a more modern missing link if two separate species are similar enough to bred? Relative to their smaller size, Neanderthals actually had larger brains.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans
Can humans and chimps mate and have children? Chimps are very close in DNA...somehow that just doesn't seem right.
Chimps were never humans, Flower, so the likelihood of successful breeding is next to none. Chimps have evolved separately from humans for over 4 million years.
The point was that there is substantial evidence that Neanderthals and Cro Magnums interbred. These were two distinct human species living only 30,000 years ago. Neanderthals and modern humans share 99.7% DNA. Close enough to breed.
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490840
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/140#post_3490731
People who embrace evolution are not going to change any mind that embraces creationism. The literal meaning of the Bible creation story is ingrained in their faith. Faith is a belief systems not based on facts. You can't argue science vs faith.
Also, the cartoon on the missing link was right on. Looking for that missing link always uncovers yet another human-like species. Truthfully, finding a missing link will not satisfy creationist either because that link will be so ape like; they would say it was just another extinct species of ape. We have evidence of many ape-human like species with a steady progression in their erect statue, height, abilities to survive in a changing environment, and intelligence going back 2 million years. What missing link are we looking for exactly? The only missing link that some one who believes in creation will believe is if a ape fissile is found with a human skeleton fetus in it.
There is hard evidence that Neanderthals and Cro Magnums had contact with one another, even lived together, perhaps even interbred. Doesn't that prove at least a more modern missing link if two separate species are similar enough to bred? Relative to their smaller size, Neanderthals actually had larger brains.
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/58936/title/Neandertal_genome_yields_evidence_of_interbreeding_with_humans
Can humans and chimps mate and have children? Chimps are very close in DNA...somehow that just doesn't seem right.
Chimps were never humans, Flower, so the likelihood of successful breeding is next to none. Chimps have evolved separately from humans for over 4 million years.
The point was that there is substantial evidence that Neanderthals and Cro Magnums interbred. These were two distinct human species living only 30,000 years ago. Neanderthals and modern humans share 99.7% DNA. Close enough to breed.
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490842
Chimps were never humans, Flower, so the likelihood of successful breeding is next to none. Chimps have evolved separately from humans for over 4 million years.
The point was that there is substantial evidence that Neanderthals and Cro Magnums interbred. These were two distinct human species living only 30,000 years ago. Neanderthals and modern humans share 99.7% DNA. Close enough to breed.
Okay..whew. I can't tell you how relieved I am chimps and people can't mix.
LOL...anyway... What I find interesting about your statement is that as a teen I once toyed with the thought that Eve instead of being the only female was a certain humaniod and Adam was another, that one came from the other. That's the best I can explain it. (the mind of a teenager and LOL, that was a long time ago) The Bible says he created Eve from Adam. It mentions a deep sleep and a rib which by the way in Hebrew means...A DOOR, the word is mistranslated. So an opening was made from Adam and from it God made a door and created Eve. The human line began from there. The words "made" or "took" are interjected by the translater, since in Hebrew the verbs don't exist.
The point is, we really don't understand the Holy books as well as we think. I do still believe science will someday explain what the Bible already said. It is the darkness of mans mind that creates the friction between evolution and creation. We don't understand everything yet, from both standpoints. I am of the opinion that Darwin was close, but I don't buy into one thing becoming another down the line...I feel pretty confident that the line stays true to it's created start point...like the trunk of the tree and it's branches, I'm convinced each creatures line has a start point and branched from there....so humans were always humans.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490842
Chimps were never humans, Flower, so the likelihood of successful breeding is next to none. Chimps have evolved separately from humans for over 4 million years.
The point was that there is substantial evidence that Neanderthals and Cro Magnums interbred. These were two distinct human species living only 30,000 years ago. Neanderthals and modern humans share 99.7% DNA. Close enough to breed.
Okay..whew. I can't tell you how relieved I am chimps and people can't mix.
LOL...anyway... What I find interesting about your statement is that as a teen I once toyed with the thought that Eve instead of being the only female was a certain humaniod and Adam was another, that one came from the other. That's the best I can explain it. (the mind of a teenager and LOL, that was a long time ago) The Bible says he created Eve from Adam. It mentions a deep sleep and a rib which by the way in Hebrew means...A DOOR, the word is mistranslated. So an opening was made from Adam and from it God made a door and created Eve. The human line began from there. The words "made" or "took" are interjected by the translater, since in Hebrew the verbs don't exist.
The point is, we really don't understand the Holy books as well as we think. I do still believe science will someday explain what the Bible already said. It is the darkness of mans mind that creates the friction between evolution and creation. We don't understand everything yet, from both standpoints. I am of the opinion that Darwin was close, but I don't buy into one thing becoming another down the line...I feel pretty confident that the line stays true to it's created start point...like the trunk of the tree and it's branches, I'm convinced each creatures line has a start point and branched from there....so humans were always humans.
S
saltymac2012
Guest
I feel like Clint Eastwood talking to Obama the other night.
S
saltymac2012
Guest
What? No I cant do that to myself.........
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by saltymac2012 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490851
What? No I cant do that to myself.........
Are you bored? My late brother in law use to say..".I had one too but the wheel fell off"...when he didn't understand something.
Originally Posted by saltymac2012 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490851
What? No I cant do that to myself.........
Are you bored? My late brother in law use to say..".I had one too but the wheel fell off"...when he didn't understand something.
snakeblitz33
Well-Known Member
In Genesis, doesnt it mention something about "the others" ? Refering to other people besides the decendants of adam and eve? Genesis 4:14
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490841
Pez...the leaves of a tree and all the branches indeed come from a single trunk. The problem with the example you used does not answer evolution. If the tree is an Elm, then no matter how far it grows, it's still an elm tree. It won't produce Berch or palm branches. A root makes whatever stems from it to always stay true to what it started out as. Which is my point of view.
Flower: I think you are actually close to "getting it". All you have to do is make the breakthrough realization that there is only one "Tree of Life", and the common kind that you seek is not humanity, or whaleness, or whatever, but life itself. Live things to indeed always beget, when successful, live things. Beginning from the first, most common, live thing, all other life can be traced to that, having diverged during billions of years in many characteristics through evolution, but still remaining faithful to their origin, that is, being alive.
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490841
Pez...the leaves of a tree and all the branches indeed come from a single trunk. The problem with the example you used does not answer evolution. If the tree is an Elm, then no matter how far it grows, it's still an elm tree. It won't produce Berch or palm branches. A root makes whatever stems from it to always stay true to what it started out as. Which is my point of view.
Flower: I think you are actually close to "getting it". All you have to do is make the breakthrough realization that there is only one "Tree of Life", and the common kind that you seek is not humanity, or whaleness, or whatever, but life itself. Live things to indeed always beget, when successful, live things. Beginning from the first, most common, live thing, all other life can be traced to that, having diverged during billions of years in many characteristics through evolution, but still remaining faithful to their origin, that is, being alive.
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490855
In Genesis, doesnt it mention something about "the others" ? Refering to other people besides the decendants of adam and eve? Genesis 4:14
No...you misunderstand. Remember I am sharing a thought that I had as a teenager. also I am reading from Bereishis (Genesis) of the Hebrew Torah. I don't have a King James (Christian Bible) handy right now. However the books are basically the same for Genesis.
Get out your book. It says Let us make man (single) in our (talking to his angels) likeness. After he made the man, he sacnctified the 7th day and rested. Then it moves on to say the Earth had no need for rain, there was a mist that watered the planet at that time. Man was alone in the beginning, in a garden and HaShem placed in it the man he had formed. Then he caused the creatures of the Earth to pass before him and whatever he named them, that was the name God accepted. Now man can also mean mankind not a single human, but a single type of human.
The man was alone. and this part has given us women lots of laughs during Torah study...God saw it was not good to leave the man alone, like he was some kind of idiot and he was looking real hard for a mate among the animals. So he caused a deep sleep to come over the man. He opened one of his sides (door) and built up from the (door) side and made it into a woman. Then God presented her to the man and he said THIS TIME IT IS BONE OF MY BONE.....this shall be called woman.
What if it is mankind and not a single human man, and someplace mankind split or develpoped a woman....the combination creating Cain and Abel, and Seth because Abel was killed off by Cain. The reason my thoughts went there is because Cain knew his wife....what wife? Where did she come from? If the book is referring to a people and not an individual, it would make more sense.
Originally Posted by SnakeBlitz33 http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490855
In Genesis, doesnt it mention something about "the others" ? Refering to other people besides the decendants of adam and eve? Genesis 4:14
No...you misunderstand. Remember I am sharing a thought that I had as a teenager. also I am reading from Bereishis (Genesis) of the Hebrew Torah. I don't have a King James (Christian Bible) handy right now. However the books are basically the same for Genesis.
Get out your book. It says Let us make man (single) in our (talking to his angels) likeness. After he made the man, he sacnctified the 7th day and rested. Then it moves on to say the Earth had no need for rain, there was a mist that watered the planet at that time. Man was alone in the beginning, in a garden and HaShem placed in it the man he had formed. Then he caused the creatures of the Earth to pass before him and whatever he named them, that was the name God accepted. Now man can also mean mankind not a single human, but a single type of human.
The man was alone. and this part has given us women lots of laughs during Torah study...God saw it was not good to leave the man alone, like he was some kind of idiot and he was looking real hard for a mate among the animals. So he caused a deep sleep to come over the man. He opened one of his sides (door) and built up from the (door) side and made it into a woman. Then God presented her to the man and he said THIS TIME IT IS BONE OF MY BONE.....this shall be called woman.
What if it is mankind and not a single human man, and someplace mankind split or develpoped a woman....the combination creating Cain and Abel, and Seth because Abel was killed off by Cain. The reason my thoughts went there is because Cain knew his wife....what wife? Where did she come from? If the book is referring to a people and not an individual, it would make more sense.
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490856
Flower: I think you are actually close to "getting it". All you have to do is make the breakthrough realization that there is only one "Tree of Life", and the common kind that you seek is not humanity, or whaleness, or whatever, but life itself. Live things to indeed always beget, when successful, live things. Beginning from the first, most common, live thing, all other life can be traced to that, having diverged during billions of years in many characteristics through evolution, but still remaining faithful to their origin, that is, being alive.
LOL...I agree all life came from one thing...God Almighty himself. Everything alive except insects and plants has red blood. From the sea-bugs (shrimp and crabs) to the grasshopper. So there is no way that all life came from a single source of DNA as evolution claims. While you can connect in thought the red blooded creatures, you can't connect the goo blooded and the sap blooded living creatures to the same line.
God created each separately...the plants, the bugs, the mammals and then mankind. In that order.
The tree of life:
The tree of Life was in the center of the garden and it's fruit was forbidden to eat. That tree if eaten will cause you to live forever and be as the Angels, so God placed a barrier so mankind can never approach it again. Where is the tree of Life? It is still in the garden, Jesus spoke of that garden....where it is remains a secret, and we won't know until we enter it after death. Life did not stem from the tree, God breathed and spoke and the tree was created, just like everyting else alive. It was a separate thing and mankind was forbidden to even touch it....she did, he did because she gave it to him... and now we get to die.
Originally Posted by GeriDoc http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490856
Flower: I think you are actually close to "getting it". All you have to do is make the breakthrough realization that there is only one "Tree of Life", and the common kind that you seek is not humanity, or whaleness, or whatever, but life itself. Live things to indeed always beget, when successful, live things. Beginning from the first, most common, live thing, all other life can be traced to that, having diverged during billions of years in many characteristics through evolution, but still remaining faithful to their origin, that is, being alive.
LOL...I agree all life came from one thing...God Almighty himself. Everything alive except insects and plants has red blood. From the sea-bugs (shrimp and crabs) to the grasshopper. So there is no way that all life came from a single source of DNA as evolution claims. While you can connect in thought the red blooded creatures, you can't connect the goo blooded and the sap blooded living creatures to the same line.
God created each separately...the plants, the bugs, the mammals and then mankind. In that order.
The tree of life:
The tree of Life was in the center of the garden and it's fruit was forbidden to eat. That tree if eaten will cause you to live forever and be as the Angels, so God placed a barrier so mankind can never approach it again. Where is the tree of Life? It is still in the garden, Jesus spoke of that garden....where it is remains a secret, and we won't know until we enter it after death. Life did not stem from the tree, God breathed and spoke and the tree was created, just like everyting else alive. It was a separate thing and mankind was forbidden to even touch it....she did, he did because she gave it to him... and now we get to die.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490845
LOL...anyway... What I find interesting about your statement is that as a teen I once toyed with the thought that Eve instead of being the only female was a certain humaniod and Adam was another, that one came from the other. That's the best I can explain it. (the mind of a teenager and LOL, that was a long time ago) The Bible says he created Eve from Adam. It mentions a deep sleep and a rib which by the way in Hebrew means...A DOOR, the word is mistranslated. So an opening was made from Adam and from it God made a door and created Eve. The human line began from there. The words "made" or "took" are interjected by the translater, since in Hebrew the verbs don't exist.
The point is, we really don't understand the Holy books as well as we think. I do still believe science will someday explain what the Bible already said. It is the darkness of mans mind that creates the friction between evolution and creation. We don't understand everything yet, from both standpoints. I am of the opinion that Darwin was close, but I don't buy into one thing becoming another down the line...I feel pretty confident that the line stays true to it's created start point...like the trunk of the tree and it's branches, I'm convinced each creatures line has a start point and branched from there....so humans were always humans.
The cold truth is that the Christian Bible was assembled by religious leaders in the 4th century AD. Not thousands of years ago. Those religious leaders cherry-picked Books of Jewish text that they felt should be in The Bible and, also altered the original Jewish texts to suit developing man-inspired dogma . And they also excluded many books that did not fall in-line with their way of thinking. For instance, Christians conveniently deleted original text of the creation explanation. In the Jewish text God created the first woman, Lilith, who was also created from dust and was also created in Gods image, just as Adam was created from dust and in God's image. (I wonder why Christians deleted that out of the original Jewish texts while they were plagiarizing to create the creation story??? ) Then, God created Eve from Adam's rib. Eve came after Lilith, and was to be subservient to man, not in God's image.
Considering the history of plagiarism and selective editing, mis-translations we find in the Bible, it is incredible that people this day and age can still take the books so literally. Don't get me wrong. The Bible is the foundation of our Christian-Judeo value system which I embrace; but there are a lot of potholes in the multitude of translations made over the years. Given that, it should be accepted as a book of faith and spirituality, not as a scientific blueprint.
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490845
LOL...anyway... What I find interesting about your statement is that as a teen I once toyed with the thought that Eve instead of being the only female was a certain humaniod and Adam was another, that one came from the other. That's the best I can explain it. (the mind of a teenager and LOL, that was a long time ago) The Bible says he created Eve from Adam. It mentions a deep sleep and a rib which by the way in Hebrew means...A DOOR, the word is mistranslated. So an opening was made from Adam and from it God made a door and created Eve. The human line began from there. The words "made" or "took" are interjected by the translater, since in Hebrew the verbs don't exist.
The point is, we really don't understand the Holy books as well as we think. I do still believe science will someday explain what the Bible already said. It is the darkness of mans mind that creates the friction between evolution and creation. We don't understand everything yet, from both standpoints. I am of the opinion that Darwin was close, but I don't buy into one thing becoming another down the line...I feel pretty confident that the line stays true to it's created start point...like the trunk of the tree and it's branches, I'm convinced each creatures line has a start point and branched from there....so humans were always humans.
The cold truth is that the Christian Bible was assembled by religious leaders in the 4th century AD. Not thousands of years ago. Those religious leaders cherry-picked Books of Jewish text that they felt should be in The Bible and, also altered the original Jewish texts to suit developing man-inspired dogma . And they also excluded many books that did not fall in-line with their way of thinking. For instance, Christians conveniently deleted original text of the creation explanation. In the Jewish text God created the first woman, Lilith, who was also created from dust and was also created in Gods image, just as Adam was created from dust and in God's image. (I wonder why Christians deleted that out of the original Jewish texts while they were plagiarizing to create the creation story??? ) Then, God created Eve from Adam's rib. Eve came after Lilith, and was to be subservient to man, not in God's image.
Considering the history of plagiarism and selective editing, mis-translations we find in the Bible, it is incredible that people this day and age can still take the books so literally. Don't get me wrong. The Bible is the foundation of our Christian-Judeo value system which I embrace; but there are a lot of potholes in the multitude of translations made over the years. Given that, it should be accepted as a book of faith and spirituality, not as a scientific blueprint.
pezenfuego
Active Member
There was a special on television not long ago called Humanzee. It dealt with claims that chimpanzees and humans have interbred. In fact it has been tried. Though unlikely we have not proven that humans and other apes cannot interbreed. It was all very interesting. We can't touch faith, but if you are to claim that evolution is the not the best explanation right now, you are simply wrong. That doesn't mean that it is correct, but there is literally no good argument against it.
flower
Well-Known Member
Quote:
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490862
The cold truth is that the Christian Bible was assembled by religious leaders in the 4th century AD. Not thousands of years ago. Those religious leaders cherry-picked Books of Jewish text that they felt should be in The Bible and, also altered the original Jewish texts to suit developing man-inspired dogma . And they also excluded many books that did not fall in-line with their way of thinking. For instance, Christians conveniently deleted original text of the creation explanation. In the Jewish text God created the first woman, Lilith, who was also created from dust and was also created in Gods image, just as Adam was created from dust and in God's image. (I wonder why Christians deleted that out of the original Jewish texts while they were plagiarizing to create the creation story??? ) Then, God created Eve from Adam's rib. Eve came after Lilith, and was to be subservient to man, not in God's image.
Considering the history of plagiarism and selective editing, mis-translations we find in the Bible, it is incredible that people this day and age can still take the books so literally. Don't get me wrong. The Bible is the foundation of our Christian-Judeo value system which I embrace; but there are a lot of potholes in the multitude of translations made over the years. Given that, it should be accepted as a book of faith and spirituality, not as a scientific blueprint.
Well I must agree with you on this post. It is also considered that Lilith is the goddess that keeps creeping back into worship. Isis and Ashtaroth and now Mary the mother of Jesus (not his true name) and the wiccan junk.
Also it's important to understand that an old "Jewish" text does not mean it is part of the Torah. The story of Lilith is not part of the Torah and never was to my knowledge...just as the writtings of Enoch are not. However Jesus and other Rabbis of his day did indeed have those books to study....and many of his quotes when he says "Have you never read"....are taken from those books.
Sorry I know this is a bit off topic since we are discussing creation vs evolution.
The reason I follow Judaism and study the Jewish text and the origianl language is the twisted religion that has stemmed from it all.
Originally Posted by Beth http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490862
The cold truth is that the Christian Bible was assembled by religious leaders in the 4th century AD. Not thousands of years ago. Those religious leaders cherry-picked Books of Jewish text that they felt should be in The Bible and, also altered the original Jewish texts to suit developing man-inspired dogma . And they also excluded many books that did not fall in-line with their way of thinking. For instance, Christians conveniently deleted original text of the creation explanation. In the Jewish text God created the first woman, Lilith, who was also created from dust and was also created in Gods image, just as Adam was created from dust and in God's image. (I wonder why Christians deleted that out of the original Jewish texts while they were plagiarizing to create the creation story??? ) Then, God created Eve from Adam's rib. Eve came after Lilith, and was to be subservient to man, not in God's image.
Considering the history of plagiarism and selective editing, mis-translations we find in the Bible, it is incredible that people this day and age can still take the books so literally. Don't get me wrong. The Bible is the foundation of our Christian-Judeo value system which I embrace; but there are a lot of potholes in the multitude of translations made over the years. Given that, it should be accepted as a book of faith and spirituality, not as a scientific blueprint.
Well I must agree with you on this post. It is also considered that Lilith is the goddess that keeps creeping back into worship. Isis and Ashtaroth and now Mary the mother of Jesus (not his true name) and the wiccan junk.
Also it's important to understand that an old "Jewish" text does not mean it is part of the Torah. The story of Lilith is not part of the Torah and never was to my knowledge...just as the writtings of Enoch are not. However Jesus and other Rabbis of his day did indeed have those books to study....and many of his quotes when he says "Have you never read"....are taken from those books.
Sorry I know this is a bit off topic since we are discussing creation vs evolution.
The reason I follow Judaism and study the Jewish text and the origianl language is the twisted religion that has stemmed from it all.
S
saltymac2012
Guest
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490854
Are you bored? My late brother in law use to say..".I had one too but the wheel fell off"...when he didn't understand something.
I guess, I just dont get it. You and everyone else here is are smart with your back and forth of the same things over and over.....its me.
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490854
Are you bored? My late brother in law use to say..".I had one too but the wheel fell off"...when he didn't understand something.
I guess, I just dont get it. You and everyone else here is are smart with your back and forth of the same things over and over.....its me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490869
The reason I follow Judaism and study the Jewish text and the original language is the twisted religion that has stemmed from it all.
And that is pretty much my point with the bible discussion. So, why trust literally when it comes to science? If God wanted it to be about science it would look totally different. It is a spiritual book. Humanity was given the brain to come up with the science stuff. Are we really supposed to believe that a man was swallowed by a big fish, lived within for 3 days, and then came out and lived on. (Lets not mention how many pagan stories with a similar theme.)
Its telling that many Jews today, including religious Jews and even rabbis, do not deny the science of evolution and do not see a conflict between being devote Jews and acceptance of evolution. The Jewish rabbis also don't limit their spiritual guidance to the Torah, but also draw on other religious text to understand their religion and culture.
Originally Posted by Flower http:///t/392782/evolution-vs-intelligent-design/160#post_3490869
The reason I follow Judaism and study the Jewish text and the original language is the twisted religion that has stemmed from it all.
And that is pretty much my point with the bible discussion. So, why trust literally when it comes to science? If God wanted it to be about science it would look totally different. It is a spiritual book. Humanity was given the brain to come up with the science stuff. Are we really supposed to believe that a man was swallowed by a big fish, lived within for 3 days, and then came out and lived on. (Lets not mention how many pagan stories with a similar theme.)
Its telling that many Jews today, including religious Jews and even rabbis, do not deny the science of evolution and do not see a conflict between being devote Jews and acceptance of evolution. The Jewish rabbis also don't limit their spiritual guidance to the Torah, but also draw on other religious text to understand their religion and culture.