Evolution & Christiany as one??

Originally posted by Matrix1111
Here's an interesting tidbit:

1400 years ago it was stated in the Quran that angels travel in one day the same distance that the moon travels in 1000 lunar years, that is, 12000 Lunar Orbits / Earth Day. Outside the gravitational field of the sun 1200 lunar orbits / Earth Day turned out to be our local speed of light!!!

www.speed-light.info...

very interesting, Matrix. Thank you for sharing this.

the "Rate of a moving clock in general relativity" always bothered me though.

Food for thought . . . If you are traveling at the speed of light, outside of space would you avoid the theoretical time drag of GR?

Originally posted by JPhish

Food for thought . . . If you are traveling at the speed of light, outside of space would you avoid the theoretical time drag of GR?

I guess since mass can't travel faster than the speed of light (theoretically), we'd have to transmute ourselves into photons of light or some other quantum particle and then rearrange ourselves once we reach our distination.

Originally posted by Matrix1111

Originally posted by doctorex
The days mentioned in the beginning of genesis are literal 24 hour periods...


GENESIS 1:3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the light from the darkness.
5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he called Night. And the evening and the morning were the first day.

With the Lord a day is like a thousand years, and a thousand years are like a day. ~II Peter 3:8



God exists beyond time and space.

Yet here it mentions a morning and an evening, day and night. The events described here are within the physical realm, not outside time/space.

Originally posted by Matrix1111

Consider the theory of relativity. A person who leaves earth at the speed of light for one year and returns within one year, he will only be one year older but the people on earth will have long ago died from old age. (don't know the exact passage of time)

The events described are all centred around the earth, so relativity doesn't come into play.

Originally posted by Matrix1111
Time is relative to something. Genesis is vague about what time is being measured against. It says, "Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters." If it was formless and empty, how big was it? The size of the universe? What if God was viewing earth through a blackhole? How would time be affected? Silly questions? Who knows?

That is only how it is translated in the english. the Hebrew word translated as "formless" (tohuw) has many meanings, most of them having to do with desolation, waste, desert wilderness, it doesn't have to do with size.

Originally posted by Matrix1111
God called the light "Day," and the darkness he called "Night." So how long was the first few 'Days" before earth was clearly defined (water and land separated)? These are questions that can't be answered based on the information provided in Genesis. But it does leave open the possibility that God is not speaking in the same sense of time that we measure it today.

The earth itself was already created before day 1 of the genesis week even began...

GENESIS 1
1 In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth.
2 And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.
3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.

as I have already explained, the Hebrew word translated as "was" at the beginning of verse 2 means became, meaning something happened to it to make it become this way, a state of chaos, confusion, waste, empty. The 6 days of genesis is a renewal of the face of the earth. The size of the earth was already defined, and since these events are within the physical realm around the earth, then gravity is still the same, and time is therefore the same as it was back then. The answers can be taken from the information in genesis, if you only look into what is written, and believe it.

Originally posted by JPhish

Really? Ask yourself this question; can these two creatures produce viable offspring?

If you’re not a dog person, it’s a Chihuahua and Great Dane.

How do you argue with someone who doesn't know what they're talking about?

If a species separates into two groups and becomes unable to mate due to genetic changes, they are no longer the same species.

Those two creatures you presented can produce viable offspring because they happen to be the same species. Isn't that funny?


ANYWAY, back on topic. If you accept that the world was created by God in 7 actual days, that only leaves you with a few options. Either God doesn't exist, the writers of Genesis wrote an embellished oral history, or God made an already complete Earth filled with dino bones and all.

I really have no idea. I personally am going to stick with the idea that the 7 days weren't 7 actual days as presented in 2 Peter 3:8-10.



[edit on 26-7-2008 by alkali]

reply to post by alkali



i said to ask yourself. I didn't want to hear you respond with an answer i already knew. But that's OK . . . And yes, i think it's funny. Too bad they can't reproduce by themselves because of their size difference. It'd be hilarious to have a mixed pup so you could tell neighbors "this is my Great Chihuahua!"

the whole understated point i was trying to make with these two dogs, is that they are drastically different physically, yet still close enough to the same kind of creature that they can produce offspring.

reply to post by alkali


what I believe him to be saying is that the two dogs decend from the wolf as the two breads of your squirl decend from a squirl, ergo the two breads could produce offspring as the great dane and chihula dog would be able to.

dont know how to spell that name sorry

and to the post before you the sun and moon also effect time to a degree on earth so before he placed them there time would still be different than todays time.

reply to post by JPhish


They're not unable to mate due to genetic reasons, they're unable to mate due to physical reasons. We were talking about genetics. What point were you trying to make?

Originally posted by Reneau
reply to post by alkali

 

what I believe him to be saying is that the two dogs decend from the wolf as the two breads of your squirl decend from a squirl, ergo the two breads could produce offspring as the great dane and chihula dog would be able to.

That makes sense. But assuming you gave them a long time to evolve, you'd get the same deal as a horse and a donkey. If you only gave the species a short time to evolve, as we have domesticated dogs, they'd still be able to produce viable offspring.

Now it's back to my earlier question of how many micro evolutions does it take to make a macro. And JPish, before you make the same duface comment you made earlier about this question, this is the same as "how make licks does it take to get to the center of a tootsie pop". Of course, no one actually has a specific number, but it is obviously possible to get to the center of a tootsie pop.



[edit on 26-7-2008 by alkali]

reply to post by Matrix1111


perhaps, i really have no idea though. I just wanted to see what others thought about it.

I think the key to faster than light speed travel is gravity. Gravity moves faster than light, and influences everything that has mass. (which ends up including light) If we ever unlock gravities secrets i believe we'll be capable of faster than light travel. Still, the odds of this being realized are incredibly low.

ah but we can dream . . .

reply to post by alkali


Reneau summed up one of my points fairly well.

How many micros to make a macro? I still think the question is kind of silly. You can have an infinite amount of environmental adaptations occur, and an animal could still be relatively the same.

But if there was a "number", it would be as many micro evolutions it takes, so that two creatures could no longer procreate. Not exactly a number. But a conceptual understanding of the terms.

[edit on 7/26/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish
reply to post by alkali

 

You can have an infinite amount of environmental adaptations occur, and an animal could still be relatively the same.

Of course, in a perfect world an infinite number of micro evolutions could occur with relatively no change, but what are the odds? I'd say it's totally impossible with changing environmental conditions, predators, food sources, ect.

But if there was a "number", it would be as many micro evolutions it takes, so that two creatures could no longer procreate. Not exactly a number. But a conceptual understanding of the terms.

This is what I was saying from the beginning, you just seemed to say it better than "how many micro evolutions does it take to make a macro". It could be 2 or a trillion, but it'll happen eventually.

Are you partially agreeing with me?

mabey a better question is how great of an environmental change has to happen for micro to become macro and how long in this environment does one stay (genorations) to take effect (I know more numbers). The end of the question of how many micros is on its last leg, new doors need to be opened.

also the squirl thing take a squirl from russia and one from appalachia and see if they breed.

reply to post by Reneau


I can get more in depth than the micro/macro example. I just figured that'd be the easiest to understand for the non-bio people. If you want to keep the debate on evolution going, u2u me. I really enjoy topics like this, they're fun.

This thread is a bit derailed.

Originally posted by Reneau
I am a christian and believe in micro-evolution but not so much macro

Same. It is obvious how species can adapt to changes in their environment, but it's quite a stretch to think that they can become entirely different species.

Originally posted by JPhish
A Christian is simply one that follows the Teachings of Jesus Christ.

Not so. A Christian is someone who has voluntarily submitted his will to Christ's Will, accepting Him as Lord.

You might live between Canada to the north and Mexico to the south, but that don't automatically make you an American.

Similarly, you can follow the teachings of Christ all you want to, but that doesn't necessarily make you a Christian. Remember, "NO man comes to the Father but by Me."

Bold teaching, there. Kinda hard to follow that one without making Him your Lord, wouldn't ya say?

Originally posted by alkali
For example, I don't think the Sampson actually took out an army with the jawbone of a donkey.

Why not? During the Six-Day War in 1967, Israel fought with outdated and/or shoddy weaponry, and still defended itself successfully against an army that had them outnumbered six to one! How much more of a stretch is it to think that an army cannot kill a single man? Think surface area! No matter how many soldiers they had, they could only still face him six to eight to one at a time, and even less if he had good cover to his back, forcing the army into a "fatal funnel".

Improbable? Yes, but not impossible.

Originally posted by WyrdeOne
What most Christians object to is the theory or abiogenesis, or life springing forth from nothing. It doesn't make sense to them, and frankly, it doesn't make sense to me either.

Not quite. What we tend to reject is the fact that abiogenesis means "hands off" as far as God is concerned, which would go against the "hands on" approach described in Genesis. So the theory presents a choice---either unchangable scripture is right, or ever-changing science (as it is CURRENTLY understood) is right.

I think that most Christians object to the theory of evolution without understanding it.

I'd probably agree with this, except I fall under the "not most Christians" category hehe I understand the theory just fine. It's the implications that I object to.

[edit on 26-7-2008 by nashdude]

reply to post by alkali


ha, yes! I wasn't really disagreeing with you in regards to your rhetorical question. It was your word choice that irked me. It just seemed to me you were oversimplifying things.

Originally posted by nashdude

Not so. A Christian is someone who has voluntarily submitted his will to Christ's Will, accepting Him as Lord.

I don’t believe that to be true.

You might live between Canada to the north and Mexico to the south, but that don't automatically make you an American.

As long as you’re longitudinally lined up with Canada and land bound, it does actually. An American is supposed to be anyone who lives on an American Continent. If you live in South America you are an American. Citizens of the United Sates of America is a different story.

Similarly, you can follow the teachings of Christ all you want to, but that doesn't necessarily make you a Christian. Remember, "NO man comes to the Father but by Me."

Bold teaching, there. Kinda hard to follow that one without making Him your Lord, wouldn't ya say?

I think you’re slightly misinterpreting the quote. Then again, I think that 99% of the people on this planet do.


[edit on 7/26/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish

Originally posted by nashdude

Not so. A Christian is someone who has voluntarily submitted his will to Christ's Will, accepting Him as Lord.

I don’t believe that to be true.

A doctor knows what it takes to be a doctor. An auto mechanic knows what it takes to be an auto mechanic. A Christian knows what it takes to be a Christian.

A name is just a name. If you are unable to encompass everything that the name entails, then the name cannot apply to you, no matter that you feel it should.

You might live between Canada to the north and Mexico to the south, but that don't automatically make you an American.

As long as you’re longitudinally lined up with Canada and land bound, it does actually. An American is supposed to be anyone who lives on an American Continent. If you live in South America you are an American. Citizens of the United Sates of America is a different story.

Splitting hairs there. But for the sake of clarification, I'll go with it.

Consider that you're an illegal alien. You cross the border into the US and find a job. You evade ICE for a few years and carve out a life for yourself. You do not participate in the social security system, do not pay your taxes as you should. In short, you receive all the benefits of living in the States, but pay none of the dues.

While you may live in the US, you cannot truly call yourself a citizen. Likewise, a Christian is more than someone that thinks Jesus was a good person, and a swell teacher. He is God come in the flesh, as was prophesied. If you believe this, and accept His authority over your life---and all that said authority entails---THEN you're a Christian. If you do not bow to His authority, then you truly cannot claim to follow His teachings, because the bulk of His teachings were not "how you interact with others", but "how you interact with others BECAUSE OF GOD".

If God---and His absolute authority---is left out of it, then Jesus' teachings are of no more value than George Lucas' or Tim Burton's.

Similarly, you can follow the teachings of Christ all you want to, but that doesn't necessarily make you a Christian. Remember, "NO man comes to the Father but by Me."

Bold teaching, there. Kinda hard to follow that one without making Him your Lord, wouldn't ya say?

I think you’re slightly misinterpreting the quote. Then again, I think that 99% of the people on this planet do.

And how would YOU interpret that? "No man" doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room. Neither does "but by Me".

Again, I am a Christian, seeing Christianity from the inside. To true Christians, Christ is more than a pass time, more than a curiosity. Just as you wouldn't tell a doctor how to practice his craft, don't assume that you know more about Christ than those that make a life out of trying to be like Him.

Originally posted by nashdude
A doctor knows what it takes to be a doctor. An auto mechanic knows what it takes to be an auto mechanic. A Christian knows what it takes to be a Christian.

Saying that a doctor knows what it takes to be doctor is a bad example for someone (myself) whose brother has been misdiagnosed for 2 years by more than 10 doctors. Most doctors have absolutely no idea what they are doing. But regardless, your analogy makes your point and I understand what you’re saying.

A name is just a name. If you are unable to encompass everything that the name entails, then the name cannot apply to you, no matter that you feel it should.

Agreed, those 10 “doctors” who misdiagnosed my brother are not doctors. They are people with phd’s.

Splitting hairs there. But for the sake of clarification, I'll go with it.

Consider that you're an illegal alien. You cross the border into the US and find a job. You evade ICE for a few years and carve out a life for yourself. You do not participate in the social security system, do not pay your taxes as you should. In short, you receive all the benefits of living in the States, but pay none of the dues.

While you may live in the US, you cannot truly call yourself a citizen. Likewise, a Christian is more than someone that thinks Jesus was a good person, and a swell teacher. He is God come in the flesh, as was prophesied. If you believe this, and accept His authority over your life---and all that said authority entails---THEN you're a Christian. If you do not bow to His authority, then you truly cannot claim to follow His teachings, because the bulk of His teachings were not "how you interact with others", but "how you interact with others BECAUSE OF GOD".

I understand what you are saying. But that is your interpretation of what it means to be a Christian. Some “Christians” also believe that you need to go to church every Sunday, and that Sunday is the day of rest. all of these people are mistaken, and trust me, there are a lot. Don’t be so sure that you are not one of them.

If God---and His absolute authority---is left out of it, then Jesus' teachings are of no more value than George Lucas' or Tim Burton's.

You believe that Jesus was G*d. That’s where our views differ. I also never claimed to be a Christian . . . If Tim Burton was G*d, Jesus would be Jonny Depp. ;big grin;

Similarly, you can follow the teachings of Christ all you want to, but that doesn't necessarily make you a Christian. Remember, "NO man comes to the Father but by Me."
Bold teaching, there. Kinda hard to follow that one without making Him your Lord, wouldn't ya say?

Not really . . . especially if Christ was “speaking” someone else’s words.

And how would YOU interpret that? "No man" doesn't leave a whole lot of wiggle room. Neither does "but by Me".

We have varying views on who “Me” actually is. I don’t believe that Christ was referring to himself.

Again, I am a Christian, seeing Christianity from the inside. To true Christians, Christ is more than a pass time, more than a curiosity. Just as you wouldn't tell a doctor how to practice his craft, don't assume that you know more about Christ than those that make a life out of trying to be like Him.

90% of the "Christians" I encounter are hypocrites and have no idea what they are talking about to begin with. Although I respect what you are saying, and you are making valid points . . . the fact that you consider yourself one, does not add weight to anything you say.


[edit on 7/27/2008 by JPhish]

Originally posted by JPhish

If God---and His absolute authority---is left out of it, then Jesus' teachings are of no more value than George Lucas' or Tim Burton's.

You believe that Jesus was G*d. That’s where our views differ. I also never claimed to be a Christian . . . If Tim Burton was G*d, Jesus would be Jonny Depp. ;big grin;

"IS" God, but yes, I do. I feel the prophecies of the Tanakh led straight to Him, and that it is virtually impossible that they could have been fulfilled so completely by a mere man.

BTW, concerning Tim and Johnny... I like your sense of humor

We have varying views on who “Me” actually is. I don’t believe that Christ was referring to himself.

Who else could "Me" be? Unless we're considering schizophrenia, me can only mean me.

90% of the "Christians" I encounter are hypocrites and have no idea what they are talking about to begin with.

Actually, I'm in complete agreement with you on the above. Most "Christians" don't truly follow Christ, but instead follow their own version of Christ. They accept the parts of Him that they agree with, but discard the parts that don't. I personally find that approach nauseating. I'm a very "in for a penny, in for a pound" kinda guy. He's not someone you parade around when He's in season, then stuff in a closet when you're done. A Christian relationship is indeed a relationship---good times and bad. To reject the parts of Christ that don't suit you is like rejecting the parts of your spouse that don't suit you. "I love your eyes, but I hate your gimpy leg. You're gonna have to do something about that."

Hypocritical doesn't even begin to describe that form of "Christianity". Arrogance is more like it---to think your "master" should line up with what YOU think He should be, rather than the other way around. Sickening.

I can respect that you don't take my words at face value. You have no reason to. The point I was making, though, is that if you are not a Christian---which by your typing, I take you to be a Jew or a Messianic?---then you might not be the best judge of who IS a Christian or what Christianity entails. Just as with anything else, you ask a person who specializes in the area. You want to know about art? Ask an artist, not a house painter. You want to know about Outer Space? Ask an astronaut, not a Sci-Fi writer. You want to know about Christianity? Ask a Christian.

...a REAL one

Originally posted by nashdude
Who else could "Me" be? Unless we're considering schizophrenia, me can only mean me.

if Christ was possessed by another force, it makes sense to me.

Evolution says we are millions of years old

Christiany says we are 6000 years old

which do you choose