/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

You see how that if you don't believe in YEC the religion doesn't make any sense.

I lean towards YEC myself, or at least against evolution, I don't care much about how long space rocks floated around with no life or death on them. I honestly will not acknowledge as an acceptable belief any evolutionary framework in which man is a product of evolution. The Bible clearly explains how man was created from non-living matter and God breathed life into him, instilling in our species the image of God. It's important to note that we are not the only species with souls though, animals have souls which are inferior to ours, and plants have souls inferior to theirs. Matter doesn't just go around doing things for no reason, all living matter, whether human, animal, or plant, has a soul which animates it

>>564252

>It's important to note that we are not the only species with souls though, animals have souls which are inferior to ours, and plants have souls inferior to theirs. Matter doesn't just go around doing things for no reason, all living matter, whether human, animal, or plant, has a soul which animates it

Could you elaborate on this? I thought the thing that separates us from plants and animals is that we have a soul, and therefore, free will. Am I thinking about this the wrong way?

>>564253

>I thought the thing that separates us from plants and animals is that we have a soul, and therefore, free will.

No, we have the image of God and therefore freewill.

Here's a pretty relevant link from Latin Answers:

https://www.catholic.com/qa/do-animals-have-souls-like-human-beings

>>564249

>>564247

My mind has been sufficiently warped to the point that I could entertain YEC at this point.

I don't trust scientists in the same way that I used to. The peer review crisis shows us that they can find whatever they want to find. Tabula rasa is legit, didn't you know? It reaches conclusions which are quite comparable to creationist logic… except their conclusions are based on Science(tm). If you disagree with the idea that girls can be raised to be NFL players, it's because you're not anti-intellectual, dawg.

They're obviously lying about most social sciences stuff, but that begs the question: How can we be sure that people who rail against Genesis in the same way that feminists rail against patriarchy are being honest with us? Maybe everything you know is a lie. Maybe the world is flat and 6,000 years old, and all evidence to the contrary was conceived by people who secretly hate God.

>>564267

>Maybe the world is flat

I want to believe

No. Ensoulment of any being is mystery that science have no answer for, nor ever will have for it is not empirically provable. Salomon wrote about it in book of Kohelet.

>>564267

>My mind has been sufficiently warped to the point that I could entertain YEC at this point.

Don't demean yourself, Baptistbro. This position does not require a warped mind at all.

>>564267

YEC + Gap theory is the way to go on this. The Earth as we know it was ordered about 6,000 years ago. How much time passed between Genesis 1:1 and 1:2 is not important for us.

science is a conspiracy

>>564278

exactly 0 seconds passed between Genesis 1:1 and Genesis 1:2

>>564288

Someone should put together an Anderson vids Summa

>>564277

How can it not though? I want to believe, does this mean I have to accept evolutionary biology as a discipline is entirely the work of the devil?

>>564297

>If I were fully biological determinist, the concept of a soul would seem almost laughable because it seems to imply man is anything more than the physical/chemical make-up of parts.

God called forth the animals from the earth. To me, that brings to mind evolution.

Also, think about Adam and Eve eating the apple. Before they ate, they didn't understand right and wrong. Why not? That's always been peculiar to me. It's like they were animals before they ate the apple. The serpent tricked us, and now we have to work all of the time. (Prior to gaining sentience, work as not work. Why would it be as we don't have any capacity to understand what 'work' is?) Much of our sorrow comes from that.

I'm likely a heretic amongst all other Baptists for entertaining such ideas, but oh well. Remember that the normalfag in his heart understands nothing. We should not seek to discourage people from believing Genesis, even if we do not ourselves.

>>564323

Also, if I were younger and not as slothful, I could present you a model for Christianity in purely materialistic terms. The Raelians did it pretty well. Look that up sometime.

>>564288

Yeah but I don't get this from Scofield's yiddish Bible whatsoever.

>>564297

Evolutionary biology is just irrational; there is no need to follow faith to understand why evolution is retarded. The body is so mindbogglingly complex that mere mutation can't explain it. That, in itself, already assumes that mutation isn't always detrimental. There is no real way to explain to someone how DNA works. Our body is a great machine, and as a machine any kind of defect can lead to total destruction of the intended product. It's really a miracle by itself that any mutation doesn't completely destroy life, a testament to the extreme redundancy needed to keep even the simplest of processes going. Genes work together with other genes. The creation of new genetic code is impossible (there only exists jumbled abominations of already existent code) and even it were it would require the new thing to work in bond with the rest of the system. A person can't overstate how complex life is. Our very conscious is a miracle.

>>564247

God made us as we are with special act of creation. weather you lean to YEC or Evolution, Humans are special case in entire existence

>>564323

>Also, think about Adam and Eve eating the apple. Before they ate, they didn't understand right and wrong. Why not? That's always been peculiar to me. It's like they were animals before they ate the apple. The serpent tricked us, and now we have to work all of the time. (Prior to gaining sentience, work as not work. Why would it be as we don't have any capacity to understand what 'work' is?) Much of our sorrow comes from that.

this is just stupid

God made Adam as master of His creation in His own IMAGE and LIKENESS, he sent forth the animals, so that Adam would NAME them. And Adam and Eve KNEW what was good and what was not, since God already told them NOT to Eat the forbidden fruit (that is actually disobedience) so they already knew what was a "big no no". Eating a fruit only made them to acknowledge it PRACTICALLY. If we take your theory as true, then Lucifer is actually our friend, since he helped us to gain sentience.

>>564350

This. Science is the beautiful mystery of Creation. We'll never fully understand but to shun it would be borderline blasphemy

Recently I've been reading a book called Faith, Reason, and Earth History the 3rd edition, and I'd like to post the history of evolutionary thinking and how it basically started. This took me thirty minutes to type from the book so please bear with me.

"For centuries, people thought that species did not change after they were created by God. This belief in fixity of species, which originated primarily from Greek science, began to unravel at least as early as the mid-1700s. A number of individuals developed concepts that later contributed to Charles Darwin's theory of evolution.

Compte de Buffon (1707-1788) recognized the evidence for variability of organic forms. He suggested that organisms have changed through the operation of a system of laws, without divine action, to produce the great variety that we see in nature. He said that weaker species die out, and he anticipated, at least partially, the concepts of natural selection and the struggly for survival. William Charles Wells (1757-1817) s uggested that new forms arise by chance variations and even applied natural selection to humans. Jean-Baptiste Lamarck (1744-1829) had a strictly materialistic view of nature. He had learned that change occurs in the geological structure of the earth, so he thought it likely that animals would also change since they depended on their enviorment. He postulated an evolution theory (called his development hypothesis) with evolution of new species and evolutionary progression from the simplest forms of life to humanity. He discussed the evolution of humankind explicitly.

His mechanism for this process was quite different from modern evolutionary thinking. He said that as animals and plants interact with their enviorment, changes are cause by (1) felt needs, (2) use and disuse, and (3) the inheritance of acquired characters. In other words, if an ancient protogiraffe felt the need to reach higher to get more food, its neck would get longer because of stretching to reach new heights. This acquired characteristic would be inherited by the next generation.

Erasmus Darwin (1731-1802), the grandfather of Charles Darwin, also proposed a theory of evolution. Thomas Robert Malthus (1766-1834) was an economist who wrote 'Essay on the Principle of Population', a study of the nature of the growth of human populations. Insights gained from reading his book laid the foundation for Charles Darwin's understanding of the concept of survival of the fittest - many excess individuals are produced but will not survive.

By the early 1800's, these ideas were present in the scientific world, but they had not been put together in one coherent theory. Edward Blyth, a man about the same age as Charles Darwin, probably made a significant contribution to Darwin's understanding of natural selection, though Darwin never gave him credit. Blyth wrote articles on natural selection in the 'The Magazine of Natural History' in 1835 and 1837. "The leading tenets of Darwin's work - the struggly for existence, variation, natural selection and sexual selection - are all fully expressed in Blyth's paper of 1835." However, Blyth was not an evolutionist; he viewed natural selection as a conserving rather than a creative force, mainting kinds of animals by eliminating the weak individuals. Patrick Matthew, a fruit grower, also published the principle of natural selection over two decades before Darwin's book.

In

In October of 1844, Robert Chambers published 'Vestiges of the Natural History of Creation', a book that is credited with being the strongest influence preparing th way for acceptance of Darwin's theory. It was a fully evolutionary was of life but without a mechanism to explain evolution.

The process that led to the development and acceptance of Charles Darwin's theory of evolution was a fascinating saga. As a young man, Darwin (1809-1882) became convinced that animals and plants change through time, and he began working on a theory to explain that change. He was not he first to develop a theory of evolution, but he achieved a truly creative leap with insights that went beyond the ideas of others. The theory did not come together easily in Darwin's mind. As bowler puts it, "Although scientific hypotheses must be tested by observation and experiment, it is obvious that all the great scientific theories arose from major leaps of the imaginations, from new ideas about how nature 'might' work, which were only subsequently shown to have some factual validity." This is evidenced by the fact that Darwin's theory was more widely believed by scientists after about 1940 than it was in his lifetime.

Darwin based his theory not on any scientific measurements but on subjective reasoning. Early in his career, he had decided that the Bible was not reliable, and he determined to develop a theory explaining life forms by natural processes. 'The Origin of Species' was one of a long argument that interpreted evidence in a way to fit his theory, and he well knew that some of the evidence did not support his theory. For example, he went to some length to explain why the fossil record did not contain the evidence expected by his theory. For Darwin, in many instances, theory took precedence over evidence.

Charles Darwin tried the study of medicine and theology before his famous voyage around the word (1831-1836) on the Beagle as a gentleman guest of the captain. He read Lyell's book during the trip and made many observations and collections. He came back to England and studied his collections and also studied variations in domestic animals. From these and other sources, he got the idea that variation and selection were the cause of biological change over time. From reading Malthus's book on population growth, he recognized that far too many individuals are produced, and thus natural selection is needed to eliminate the less fit individuals.

During his trip on the Beagle, Darwin spent his time in study of biology and geology. On his return to England, he began publishing his findings, developing hi scientific credibility initially with his geological work, and becoming very involved int eh Geological Society of London. His published descriptions of biological discoveries in such places as the Galapagos Islands further enhanced his scientific standing, and these contacts with the leading scientists of his time assured that his later theorizing would come to the attention of the scientific world.

Darwin was well aware of strongly antagonistic reactions to earlier evolution theories proposed by Lamarck, Chambers, and Erasmus Darwin, and he planned his strategy carefully to surmount this problem. he moved away from London so that his work would not attract public attention. While working on his evolution theory, he corresponded with many other scientists and attended scientific gatherings in London. Once he was well acquainted with someone whom he believed could be trusted, he invited that person to his home and introduced his theory. it was his plan to gather a select group of trusted, influential scientists whose support would help introduce his theory to a hostile public. This plan was quite effective. According to Bowler, "there can be little doubt that Darwin's initiative (where it could very easily have failed) because he had already planted the seeds of a political revolution within the scientific community."

Darwin's theory of natural selection was not accepted by the majority of biologists until about 1940. Many of the biologists of Darwin's time were skeptical of natural selection as a mechanism of evolution, but they supported Darwin for philosophical reasons. Darwin's evidence for biological change through time convinced them that a naturalistic explanation for biology was possible and offered them a substitute for belief in a Creator. Ultimately Darwin's success rested on "the exploitation of evolutionism by those who were determined to establish science as a new source of authority in Western civilizations, in place of theology." The result of all this is summarized by Bowler: "It hardly seems to matter whether you lover Darwin's message or hate it; you cannot escape the fact that it helped to overturn the traditional Christian world view."

This time of philosophical transition occurred while the beginning of fields like genetics and molecular biology were still decades away. Biologists were ignorant of the complexity of life and thought that living protoplasm was quite simply. it was easy fot hem to envision life arising and evolving by itself. had a naturalistic theory of evolution been first proposed at the end of the twentieth century, when knowledge of the intricacies of molecular biology was rapidly growing, it is not likely that it would have been so readily accepted.

In 1844, Darwin wrote an essay on his theory but was too cautious to publish it then. he was startled out of his caution when another biologist, Alfred Russel Wallace (1823-1913), developed the same theory. In 1858, papers by Darwin and Wallace were presented to the Linnaean society, and in 1859, Darwin's book, 'The Origin of Species', was published.

A number of biologists in Darwin's era, including Linnaeaus had proposed that considerable change has occurred within the created groups of organisms. Acceptance of this concept could have retained belief in a Creator while recognizing the evidence for biological change. Darwin was unaware of this movement, and it was not in harmony with the prevailing intellectual trend toward naturalistic thinking.

An Interesting episode in the relationship between Darwin and Wallace was their difference of opinion over the origin of the human brain. Darwin believed that humanity arose by the same gradual process of change that produced all other life forms. Darwin and his colleagues readily envisioned a natural progression from the apes to some of the "primitive human cultures," which they believed to be only slightly superior to the apes, and finally to the superior races of Western humanity. Wallace, in contrast to Darwin and the other great biologists of that time, had years of experience that these "primitive" cultures were not mentally inferior. Wallace did not see evidence for an evolutionary progression in the human races, and he questioned why people in those simply cultures would have brains so far beyond what was needed for their survival. He also insisted that "artistic, mathematical, an musical abilities could not be explained on the basis of natural selection and struggle for existence." Wallace contended that there must have been divine influence in the origin of the human brain, and Wallace and Darwin differed strongly on this issue.

Darwin's work was the culmination of two hundred years of secular influence on developing ideas. It was important for his trend of thinking that at the time he began to suspect that species could change, he had at his disposal the writings of men such as Hyell, Lamarck, and Erasmus Darwin. Charles Darwin was also influenced by the strong trend toward naturalism in science.

The first coherent theories in geology and much of biologoy developed at a time when the general attitude among learned people was to reject formal and restrictive relgion. Thus belief in creation finally was eroded also. Even a Christian must recognize that it was not wrong for Darwin and others to ask hard questions. truth is not weakened by honest inquiry. The bible does not say that animal species have never changed or that the earth is the center of the univese. The Church insisted on holding these ideas anyway, and many scientists responded by throwing God entirely out of their interpretations of origins."

Done.

Basically, what is taken away from this is that evolution as we know it today, was planned from the start to be without God, and that to apply God to a godless paradigm is a complete disrespect to the story of Genesis and the flood. Modern biologists and geologists don't consider when looking at earth history and the history of genetics that God is the one who made it because they can't, they follow the naturalist world view.

>>564247

It's the only one given by the bible

>>564383

>(2) use and disuse, and (3) the inheritance of acquired characters.

We know that this is the case now. The current conceptualization of evolution is pretty baseless and heavily laced with faith.

>>564347

But sentience has hurt us. It created things like Jack the Ripper and Reddit. If we'd followed God's will, we wouldn't have had to deal with existential depression.

>>564427

>sentience has hurt us

<concupiscence has hurt us

FTFY

>>564353

R

>>564353

E

>>564353

D

>>564353

D

>>564353

I

>>564353

T

>>564459

>>564460

>7 seconds between the two RE posts, and 8 seconds between E and D.

>>564461

>>564462

>But 16 seconds between the two D posts.

>>564463

>>564465

>And back to 7 seconds between posts here.

Is this evolution or intelligent design? Is there a script that has given us two posts with seven second intervals? Does the fact that the first D in Reddit was posted toward the end of a minute have any bearing on the 16 second differential? Or could it be that there's some hidden limit on how many posts can be made in a minute? The 51 second mark doesn't seem to immediately rule out the +7 as possible.

It certainly appears that a script is it a work – one that likely takes into account time to avoid getting the user banned for spam. But maybe not. So too it is with the soul.

>>565320

>Problem is where one draws the line between soulless pre-Adamites and us.

With Adam. Pretty good delineation.

>>565320

With adam, whenever God wanted. We don't draw the line, God does.

>>564323

>It's like they were animals before they ate the apple.

Except that when God created Adam He made him in His own image, then breathed the breath of life into him. He even walked and talked among Adam and Eve before they ate the fruit. I don't see mere animals getting that privilege, particularly the talking with God part.

>posting dinos without feathers.

What is this? 1994?

>>566653

I wish we had velociraptors the chicken sized ones instead of chickens

>>566767

evolution is literally a jewish meme

in the talmud it talks about teaching the goyim that they are descended from apes and not made in God's image

guess the only place where evolution is not taught? israel

>>566856

Looks like a Flash Gordon villain.

>>566835

I would not trust the opinions of Lazar as he claims that transgenderism and homosexuality are moral.

>>566649

I'm personally a fan of them with their fluff.

>>565320

>Problem is where one draws the line between soulless pre-Adamites and us.

That sounds like God's problem, not ours.

>>568256

You don't need skyscraper giants from "Enoch" to know that giants existed. Og of Bashan and Goliath are in the actual Bible.

>>566741

Just wondering, would it be kosher to eat a raptor for old testament faithful?

>>568256

source on these pics?

>>568547

second one has a "worth1000" watermark, which is an image manipulation/photoshop contest site.

>>568551

ah lol, i blew it, thanks anon