|
Post by Joan Omnipresent on Jun 18, 2005 21:10:46 GMT -5
Are you saying this is unlikely?
Right. That could mean that what we have is the actual remains of a human being, and not any type of "ancestor" in the sense that you are supposing.
I'm not familiar with Otzi...could you fill me in? How are you suggesting this fits in? How is he different/similar to humans today? Sorry to pester you with questions...but I don't want to jump on something without the information necessary.
And, just so we have this straight, we can all see the evidences of microevolution...that's not in question here.
|
|
|
Post by Joan Omnipresent on Jun 18, 2005 21:21:52 GMT -5
Excuse the double post! I just saw Kaiya's post when I brought up the fresh page...
That's exactly right. If God had chosen to develp His creation through evolution, then He absolutely could have done so. Only, His Word says that's not what He did.
As for faith versus fact, I understand what you mean now. I thought you meant faith as in a set of beliefs. In that case, faith could be fact, in a way.
Nothing in the Bible is minor enough to make little difference. If you doubt this, then check out Jesus' defense against the Pharisees. He got pretty specific with His quoting of the Scriptures, even basing His arguement on the tense of a verb. In the end, it doesn't matter whether or not parts of the Scripture are important to you; it doesn't change the fact that those parts are the truth. Since I know that the Bible is Truth, I'm willing to discount (not ignore...that would be foolish) any human guesses that come along when they conflict with the Truth. How can you say that you believe the Bible if you are willing to throw it out over a scientist's guess? What makes you think that there won't someday be "evidence" that Jesus is not the Son of God? That God does not exist? That there is no Heaven or Hell? Who will you side with then, God or man?
|
|
|
Post by SilverSergyon13 on Jun 18, 2005 21:22:05 GMT -5
Very well said Kaiya. Better said than I could do.
"Quote:So your saying that maybe there was this dead being and then another dead being that was really a human just happened to fall right beside it?
Are you saying this is unlikely?"
I am saying that is is fairly unlikey, but even if it did happen, all the bones would have shown the same DNA patterns, thus making the bones all have to belong to the same being. That is evidence you cannot deny.
"Right. That could mean that what we have is the actual remains of a human being, and not any type of "ancestor" in the sense that you are supposing."
The bones may not be arranged the right way, but the shape of the bones are an entirely different thing. The skull shape was different, the spine was different, even the pelvis was different. When gene pairs and DNA match up, yet the bones are shaped differently it can only mean one thing: Evolution.
If you look up "Otzi the Iceman" in google, there should be a ton of info on him. He was a mummy found back awhile ago. He is what we consider the "cavemen" of the past. Anthropoligists were very lucky to find this intact body. Not much can survive thousands and thousands of years without the exact conditions for mummification. I believe Otzi was alive way before the Egyptians. Like I said before, he is what we consider "cavemen".
|
|
|
Post by SilverSergyon13 on Jun 18, 2005 21:25:34 GMT -5
"How can you say that you believe the Bible if you are willing to throw it out over a scientist's guess?"
I can throw out parts of the bible for the simple fact that they are not practical. The bible tells us not to eat at certain times and for me that is impossible. I cannot fast for medical reasons. I cannot always follow through with not eating an hour before recieving the eucharist because I am diabetic. I don't think that is wrong if following exactly what the bible says to do will kill you.
|
|
|
Post by Joan Omnipresent on Jun 18, 2005 21:28:24 GMT -5
A bold statement considering that the hypothesis of evolution is still in scientific infancy. What new revelations might come about? Am I going to have to remind you to be less rigid and absolute with your statements? ; )
About Otzi...I briefly looked over some information. It said that the mummy is apparently like a modern man...so...where't the arguement here?
Ummm...how does that effect anything? Fasting in the New Testament is given no set times that I am aware of.
|
|
Kaiya
Agent of Gondor
"No one is beneath redemption..."
Posts: 185
|
Post by Kaiya on Jun 18, 2005 21:51:40 GMT -5
Once again, this all comes down to whether or not someone takes the Bible word for word and interprets it 100% literally. Whether the earth was created in six days or six billion years doesn't matter to me. What matters to me is that God created the earth and all life on it. That is what the first part of Genesis all comes down to. God created everything on our world and in our universe. I'll debate the specifics of it if someone wants me to, but in the grand scheme of things, it doesn't matter much to me.
Once again, I don't go with scientific guesses. I certainly don't throw out the Bible because of a man's guess that contradicts it in some way. My faith is far too strong to sway with a guess. I look at physical proof and evidence NOT guesses. When something is right there in front of your face and you KNOW it's real, you can't just "discount" it. I'm not guessing that we are somehow related to ancient primates. I know it. I know it because the bones are there, the DNA is there, and I can see the resemblance. I can't look at something so close to humans and say that it has no relation whatsoever, just because the Bible doesn't mention it.
As for proof about whether or not Jesus is really God's son, there will never be any. To prove such a thing would require finding the remains of both Jesus Christ and another human whose DNA indicates that he is the father of Jesus Christ. Such a thing won't ever happen. Jesus Christ supposedly has no remains so we can't look at his DNA. Even if he did have remains, finding remains of a relative would be nearly impossible. So no one will prove that God is not the father of Jesus. There will never be evidence that God does not exist. How do you find proof of something so large and so powerful that it can conquer and overcome any obstacle? And then how do you find proof against it? God already defies all human understanding, so we can't find anything to prove that he does or does not exist. If you can come up with an example of how someone can prove that God does not exist, share it with me so I can think about it. No one can prove that there is no heaven or hell either. That would require raising someone from the dead who has already been to either place. Raising someone from the dead after a long period of time is impossible, as proved by many attempts to do so without any successes. So none of your examples will ever come to pass because they're already impossible.
Also, well said, Silver.
|
|
|
Post by Joan Omnipresent on Jun 18, 2005 21:57:44 GMT -5
Fair enough. But "evidence" can be interpreted any number of ways, depending on what your premise is, and what you are looking for. There is no substantial proof that the hypothesis of evolution is true. This fact ties directly with the next area concerning proving/disproving other Biblical truths. I realize there isn't a one-to-one correlation, but it is the same fact. We can never prove evolution true, because none of us was there to witness it. We can only know what has been told us in God's Word, since He was there!
|
|
|
Post by Trinity on Jun 18, 2005 22:32:17 GMT -5
So, basically, if something in the Bible conflicts your opinion and what you think is right, you think it's okay to just get rid of it?
As far as I've been able to figure out, fasting was something you did out of personnal choice, NOT because the Bible commands you to.
Here you go.
And the Holy Spirit descended in bodily form like a dove upon Him, and a voice came from heaven, which said, "You are My beloved Son; in You I am well pleased." Luke 3:22
The Son being talked about here was Jesus.
And I am going to stop there for now...
|
|
|
Post by SilverSergyon13 on Jun 18, 2005 22:37:04 GMT -5
"So, basically, if something in the Bible conflicts your opinion and what you think is right, you think it's okay to just get rid of it?"
I gave my reasons for not being able to follow the bible in it's entirely. I think I would rather live than die by fasting or not eating. This is for specific medical reasons, NOT because I don't want to fast. Fasting in any way would put me into a diabetic coma, as I'm sure maybe another one or two people on the site could tell you (I know there is at least one other person on the site who is diabetic) Fasting is supposed to be done an hour before you take the communion so that your stomach is clear, however I cannot always follow this. The bible does tell us to fast at certain times or on certain days. I am too tired to look this up right now though.
|
|
|
Post by Trinity on Jun 18, 2005 22:43:10 GMT -5
Yeah, I can perfectly understand it for medical reasons. THAT makes perfect sense, because I don't want you to go into a coma or anything like that. But I'm talking about other things in general. Like, do you apply that to other stuff. Just curious... But I didn't mean it in terms of being diabetic. I'll try to find where it says that, though, because I know there isn't anything saying you HAD to fast. But, like I said, I'll find out.
|
|
|
Post by Dun on Jun 19, 2005 0:01:06 GMT -5
Aye, fasting. I understand where you're coming from, as I technically am not supposed to go without eating (or sometimes I'm actually not supposed to eat) for certain amounts of time. So, for people with hyperglycemia or type 1 diabetes, it's definitely not a safe thing to go without food for indefinite periods of time. So, I don't think God really minds that I'm not starving myself. Instead of fasting from food, for instance, I starve myself from other things. Say, for a week or two, I won't watch TV or go on the 'net -- just to refresh myself, keep my mind on God.
The point of fasting is to take the mind off of earthly needs or desires, and to focus on God, which is important, but not necessarily limited to food. The Bible never once says "To follow God and be saved, you must starve yourself for forty days." It just doesn't work that way. In the minor Prophets, God accuses the people of Israel of fasting without meaning, just doing it for the sake of religion. It's not the fasting that is important to Him -- it's what's in a persons heart.
|
|
|
Post by Trinity on Jun 19, 2005 13:49:37 GMT -5
Exactly, Dun! Exactly.
|
|
|
Post by jareth on Jun 19, 2005 16:53:40 GMT -5
If God is all powerful, then He can choose any method He wants over any length of time He wants. None of us understands God's motives or ways of thinking. To say that we fully understand everything that God does and knows is ridiculous. you're right, we can speculate and guess, but we can know that God did not make evolution. Kaiya: point out exactly in in the Bible where they say humans changed and mutated. I'm looking for an exact quote. and also, about all that stuff about Lucy and all that, people have also found "evidence" that Big Foot and the Loc Ness monster is real. evidence is not the same thing as proof.
|
|
|
Post by jareth on Jun 19, 2005 16:55:05 GMT -5
Yeah, I can perfectly understand it for medical reasons. THAT makes perfect sense, because I don't want you to go into a coma or anything like that. But I'm talking about other things in general. Like, do you apply that to other stuff. Just curious... But I didn't mean it in terms of being diabetic. I'll try to find where it says that, though, because I know there isn't anything saying you HAD to fast. But, like I said, I'll find out. fasting, is not commanded in the Bible, it just helps you concentrate on God and not food and drink.
|
|
|
Post by SilverSergyon13 on Jun 19, 2005 18:25:35 GMT -5
Christians have found "evidence" that their religion exists. There is no fool proof facts, only faith and a book.
|
|
Kaiya
Agent of Gondor
"No one is beneath redemption..."
Posts: 185
|
Post by Kaiya on Jun 19, 2005 19:01:19 GMT -5
As stated in my previous post, the Bible does not list every single step of mankind on every single continent or tell us what happened in every single year since the world was created. Tell me where in the Bible it speaks of the creation of dinosaurs or fungi or bacteria or viruses or protists or insects... And do not compare scientific findings to myths. They are not one and the same. There is no proof that Big Foot or the Loch Ness monster exist. None. Otherwise, it would be a major scientific breakthrough on our television stations. Lucy DOES exist. Lucy is physically there, being studied by scientists. Lucy is not a blurry photograph or a report from an "eyewitness"; it is a skeleton of a primitive, biped primate. It is real, whether you like it or not, and there's no way to deny the creature's existence when you have its skeletal remains right out in the open for everyone to see and know about.
Leviticus 16:31 "That day is to be a very holy day, one on which they fast and do no work at all. These regulations are to be observed for all time to come."
Leviticus 23:27 "On that day, do not eat anything at all; come together for worship, and present a food offering to the Lord."
Numbers 29:7 "Gather for worship on the tenth day of the seventh month; eat no food and do no work."
Joel 2:12 "'But even now,' says the Lord, 'repent sincerely and return to me with fasting and weeping and mourning.'"
Fasting IS commanded in the Bible, as you can see from these quotes. Twice in fact. Once as a ritual to be practiced on the same day every single year, and once as a way for people to show God that they were sorry for their sins. Besides these two commands for fasting, fasting is something done time and time again and (I did plenty of research today to be sure) tons of theology experts who have studied the Bible over and over again say that even Jesus assumed that his followers would be fasting (something evident in Matthew) although he never directly commanded them to do so. He taught them how to fast properly so that they would not be hypocrites or untrue in their worship.
|
|
|
Post by Joan Omnipresent on Jun 20, 2005 9:31:38 GMT -5
There are many such laws that were applicable in the OT, but those rules didn't hold for New Testament Christians. Nor to they apply to us today. I think the passage to focus on is Jesus statement that the Sabbath is made for man, and not man for the Sabbath. Obviously, if fasting distracts from God or is harmful to the person, then we have to say that it doesn't serve its purpose. I cannot go without food; absolutely cannot and remain conscience. So it's not like I'm being insensitive in any way. But I'm not disobeying the Bible, either: those are OT rules, meant for the nation of Israel. We don't have sacrifices. We don't have ritual cleansings. And we don't fast at set times.
Getting back to the topic at hand... ; ) Can anyone tell me what the difference is between a mummy like Otzi and a 'modern' human? Why couldn't they be the *gasp* same thing?
|
|
|
Post by SilverSergyon13 on Jun 20, 2005 9:43:14 GMT -5
(Can't stay on too long. Going horse back riding in a few)
Otzi's skull shape is somewhat different, his height is much shorter than human's nowadays, and there are a few other things too.
Now I think we are forgetting there are two different types of evolution here (and I don't mean macro and micro) I mean physical and mental. Humans have evolved mentally as well as physically. Even though we evolved mentally, I'm not sure if I can say it was for the better. Human beings are a barbaric race, much less civilized than even animals IMO. I think we have strayed so far from our once animalistic thoughts that we just can't ever go back.
|
|
|
Post by Trinity on Jun 20, 2005 11:43:58 GMT -5
(Can't stay long either, I have a job interview. WISH I was going horseback riding!)
I think God made us to be progressive, but I would hardly say our thoughts were ever animalistic. God made man and animal to be different, not similar. We are two different things. And each human is different. We all have similar physical traits, and who isn't to say that Otzi WASN'T human?
And science and technology have progressed with time also. The more that was discovered in the past makes all that we know now possible.
|
|
|
Post by Joan Omnipresent on Jun 20, 2005 12:03:12 GMT -5
Thank you, Trinity! Right on...
I would add that I don't believe humans have necessarily become "better". Just because of the advances in science/technology, don't think that humans are smarter or more capable. Actually, when you study the geniuses of long ago, it seems we may actually have become less intelligent...?
|
|