/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

[-]

>>652529

Muscle attachment you goob.

>>652534

Then why all the essential muscle attachment to other bones and why can it be removed with no consequence? More importantly, why would God add vestigial limbs, bones, and other bits exist in the animal kingdom at all?

I imagine some Christians have cucked out to the world in every generation

>>652527

Compromising as hard as possible with the same jews that want to destroy us

>what is omphalos hypothesis

>>652527

Better question:

Why compromise the teachings of God with the political world of man?

>>652594

>Christianity doesn't have a concept of "creationism"

THOU FOOL

I don't faoloow what the church fathers say but I'm prettybsure they all believed creationism besides origien.

Also this is probs b8

Evolution is compatible with Christianity.

God creates everything that exists, and can make small changes to His creations over time if He wants to. Why is this an unchristian statement? Where can I educate myself if I'm wrong? Yes I read the Bible

>>652614

We're talking about the pagan cosmology which was designed as an alternative to the biblical worldview, not the scientific fact of microevolution.

>>652614

>God creates everything that exists,

Yes

>and can make small changes to His creations over time if He wants to.

But he didn't

>Why is this an unchristian statement?

Because it contradicts the Bible

>Where can I educate myself if I'm wrong?

Read the Bible or watch the playist in the OP post

>Yes I read the Bible

You sure?

>>652617

>>652619

>speaking for God instead of letting the evidence He left behind speak for itself

Repent

>>652620

And the evvidence he left in the Bible and in the world show closer to YEC than Evolutionism

>>652620

>bible isn't God speaking, listen to the pagan priests instead

>>652623

>>652624

>God's only evidence in the World is the Bible

>the rest of creation doesn't matter

>>652626

>I'm going to disregard the bible for worldly wisdom and pretend I'm the one following God's word

>>652626

>inironically not ever watching a Kent Hovind creation seminar

Fool

>denting the creation and flood

Pual warned us about thee

2 Peter 3

4 And saying, Where is the promise of his coming? for since the fathers fell asleep, all things continue as they were from the beginning of the creation.

5 For this they willingly are ignorant of, that by the word of God the heavens were of old, and the earth standing out of the water and in the water:

6 Whereby the world that then was, being overflowed with water, perished:

>>652627

>God's creation is worldly wisdom

>>652629

>implying I haven't

He's a pre-trib rapture retard so he obviously has never read the Bible anything else he says is instantly disregarded. Trying to pretend he's any sort of authority on scripture is laughable

>>652619

Jesus spoke in parables. Why would we take something like Genesis literally when it's meant to be poetic? It's not too bizarre to think God would teach with symbolism.

Are you aware of the hundreds of DNA strands we have in common with mice and such that a virtually useless?

I recommend the book The Language of God. I'd probably give it an 8/10 overall but 10/10 on explaining evolution and DNA without contradicting the Bible. Written by one of the world's top biologists who worked on the human genome project. He started out an atheist but then converted as he studied more about DNA.

>>652633

>taught pre-trib for 40+ years

Damage is done

>>652635

>Jesus spoke in parables

Larables don't give names of people or referenced 200 times or by the narrator or literally in the freaking 10 commandments

>>652636

pretrib isn't that bad of doctrine compared to the complete heresy and comrimisng to evolutionism

>>652641

>pretrib misleads the flock in one of the worst times for it to happen

>not so bad

>God created the World

>heretical

Someone post that webm of how Genesis literally matches up with science's understanding of the creation of the World then delete this shit thread.

>>652645

We may not even live up to the tribulation and post trib is gaining some traction

And you're completely denying what the Bible says hundreds of times and actual science

>how Genesis literally matches up with science's understanding of the creation of the World

I already did here >>652527

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d4EaWPIlNYY

>>652648

>>652647

>and post trib is gaining some traction

Not among heretical evangelicals who fell for the Satanic (((Schofield))) translation.

>>652650

>tax evading new age jew lover vs. actual scientist Christian who actually understand scripture

I think I know which one I'll agree with.

>>652653

>I think I know which one I'll agree with.

Hovind?

>>652654

Is this your first time baiting on /christian/? You made a solid go at it tbh

>>652625

>Evolution

>8. Land mammals before marine ammals [sic]

excuse me what?

>>652608

Actually no, St. Augustine also said effectively that God created a series of potentials which unfolded into the universe as we know it.

Also the Church Fathers for the last time weren't winnie the pooh scientists so analyzing Bible stories from a scientific accuracy perspective is idiotic. You first have to think like the people of the period before you can understand it. Like how the tree of the knowledge of Good and Evil furnished the beams of the cross (Apocrypha).

In short it's not all literal, the divinely inspired writers were speaking in an idiom that has to be comprehended on its own terms.

>>652635

>doesn't contradict the bible

>death entered the world not by the sin of man but by the design of God

wow that is some big brain nibba shiz right there

>>652674

>he thinks are leg bones and don't realize it actually helps move his willy around

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/promiscuous-whales-make-good-use-pelvises-180952620/

>>652809

>Because evolutionism teaches that whales cane for cows

No, it says they both came from a small digigrade animal.

Your example is like saying americans came from New Zealand.

>>652821

>Prior studies have indicated that whales, along with dolphins and porpoises, are rather closely related to hoofed mammals with an even number of toes. That group includes pigs, hippos, camels, cows, deer, giraffes and sheep. The previous studies implied that a cow is more closely related to a whale than to a horse.

I guess whale noises kinda sound like mooing.

God BTFO

>>652940

>durr cows are more related to whales than horses

>this what catholics actually believe

>>652954

>it's counterintuitive therefore it's false

Got any proof of that reasoning?

>>652527

I don't. Any time somebody asks me about evolution, I explain to them that I don't understand how radiation from the Sun causing mutations in life forms on Earth could add information to the genome in order to make an extremely simplistic organism like bacteria into more complicated multi-cellular organisms

>>653325

You're asking the wrong question.

>>652527

Evolution and Christianity are compatible. Only if you are 100% literalist then not.

>>652527

0/10

>>653324

>Got any proof of that reasoning?

God made whales the 5th day and cows the sixth

>>653325

>extremely simplistic organism like bacteria

>bacteria

>simple

>>653347

Ha no

>>652622

>>652625

>>653351

>the only proof of papal infallibility is because the Pope Said so

>>653413

Proabably the sixth since they can't fly

evolution has lots of 'circumstantial evidence' since animals share so many traits and genetics and it has materialist explanatory power. It's not a bad theory on paper, actually pretty convincing. Add to this fact that the schools and pop-culture all push it as a default "fact" and it shouldn't be hard to see why Christians believe it and try to reconcile the bible with it.

Genesis is poetic and has very little "science" to it so some Christians want to use evolution to fill in the gaps that Genesis doesn't even begin to address

>>653530

So some birds were created on the sixth day, despite the day prior being entirely devoted to birds and fish?

>>653553

Okay maybe he did make them the 5th day then.

>>653555

But if that's the case, then they'd have to have been capable of flight in order to "fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven" (Gen 1:20)

The ratites are a very confounding group of birds. Same with penguins

>>653559

Okay then he made them the 6th day, and doesn't count them as birds since they can't fly.

>>653566

Then why make them like the birds if they're separate?

>>653572

Both are rodents, and are by definition "creeping creatures," which puts them on the same day. With ratites, you have animals seem to belong to either day depending on how one looks at ir.

>>653584

>give it every possible characteristic of a bird save for flight

<don't consider it a bird

>>653591

>>give it every possible characteristic of a bird save for flight

Besides the ability to fly.

>>653650

Flight is thing that makes a bird a bird

>>653362

>God made whales the 5th day and cows the sixth

And whales are older than cattle, taxonomically, anyway.

Your argument is retarded, and is being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse.

Whales come from cows just as much as irish comes from siberian dialects of russian.

>>653697

>Whales come from cows

Then how are whales one day older?

21 And God created great whales,

23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle,

31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day.

Oh for crying out loud.

>>652529

The "tailbone" is an essential part of our bodies and has nothing to do with tails.

>>652622

>>652625

If you take so simplistic completely literal view. I don't respect that, I don't agree with it.

>>653821

>Evolitionism is compatible with Christianity as long as you don't actually believe what Christianity teaches

>>652594

>Mate

Daily reminder that questioning the Official Narrative is basically illegal outside of the United States of America. The second I hear a disgusting British or European accent, I know I'm listening to a damn fool.

So uh this was shown off a few months ago. Single skeleton, at least 90% complete, resembles the standard bipedal australopithecine that creationists have denied for years. Saw some AIG/CMI articles mocking the discovery decades ago, yet have fallen silent now that it's been unveiled to the public.

Any thoughts?

>>653937

>>653982

So you're saying it's a fraud then? No other evidence than a man too stuck in his ways to listen to anyone else?

>>653986

Not saying for sure that it's fake but a lot have been so throwing out your religion for what may be fake is retarded as hell. Also how would that prove that we came from it? People used to be 900 years old, they would look quite different

>>654000

>provide reasoning for that claim that doesn't fall flat under scrutiny

How about the fact it's taught in the bible?

>>654005

So the bible says old people look like neanderthals? I wasn't challenging you on the age, I was challenging you on your assertion that neanderthals are extremely old people. It seems like a rather large leap in logic.

>>654006

>mistakes are considered frauds now

Mistakes were made, and quickly corrected. Archeraptor was a good lesson in how not to fossil hunt.

>Homology doesn't prove they're related. Can just prove a common designer.

You can claim anything you wish, but unless it can be verified, it won't be taken seriously. Also Hovind seems to have a very horrid grasp of how certain structures work together in organisms, and tries to make it seem as a fabricated as possible.

>canopy theory

I'm not even gonna try to touch that. Others (including other creationists) have done so already

>>653937

>Any thoughts?

Sure, this is an easy one. This can be classified as a beast of the field.

>>654068

Oh sorry was that bigoted?

>>654075

Nah it's just bullshit it all.

>>654172

I'm serious, you need to listen to someone other than Hovind, this is getting old. Repeating something like this only demonstrates your reliance on him as an authority on the subject, with no regard for its validity.

>hurr durr, it just shows an animal died

And considering that fossils are relatively hard to find, and since many creatures tend to live in groups, it can stand to reason that when one fossil is found somewhere, that there are most likely others nearby. But of course at this point, I'm guessing you're just being willfully ignorant.

>>654251

>it can stand to reason that when one fossil is found somewhere, that there are most likely others nearby.

And it doesn't show who he's related to

>>654260

By this same logic, I can't tell who is related to whom in a family photo by comparing their features. This is just getting ridiculous.

>>654262

So you think comparing alive humans to dead animals is the same thing? And if you found skeletons you won't be able to

>>654276

Also the fact the people in the photo are all human, not some human and others less/more evolved

>>652529

Why did God give us Thyroids? We don't need them? Or appendixes for the health of the bacterial ecosystem?

There is a use for the tailbone.

>>654276

>And if you found skeletons you won't be able to

You can, for the most part, tell someone's race and gender(which are memes, by comparison, anatomically) from a bone.

I dont see why you can't expand this to animals, given we already use them to say, determine that aurochs shrank towards the end of their existence, and determine if cattle bones are aurochs, domestic cows, or various degrees of mixing.

>>654289

>why did God give us thyroids? Are they useful?

The thyroid gland secretes hormones that regulates your metabolism and protein synthesis. That means it is absolutely useful….who yold you it wasn't? Surely it wasn't a doctor.

>>654288

Ok but first tell me what is the practical application of accurately identifying bone fragments? If I saw a fossilized hand and accidentally misidentified it, does that prove anything? Will you say "gotcha" at the end?

>>654341

It's not Paul I don't think. Try Augustine, I'm pretty sure that was him.

>>654336

>We're not comparing fragments, now are we?

Yes actually we are. See your own chart.

>skulls are more recognizable in identification.

Even if you give me a complete skeleton, that isn't the same as having a living being in front of me to verify what it is. So what good is accurately identifying a bunch of bones for me? What problem does that solve, and how do you even verify its accuracy? Isn't it just some arbitrary guy at the end of the day deciding?

>What I'm saying is that these fossils cannot be separated into two rigid categories

Well first of all, yes they can. I could categorize them however I want. You may not like it but I can categorize on any basis I please. The question is how do you tie any of this back to reality. Isn't it just some guy deciding how to categorize as what, without any real way to verify? Or is this guy able to bring the bones back to life to check his theory?

>And through comparing and contrasting several people's views,

What if it's just a bad sample because it's already dead and we only have the bones to hypothesize what it was?

When it comes to bone fragments, is there such a thing as unidentifiable? Does every single little bone fragment we find fit into some objective, mathematically proven category that everyone agrees on? You're acting like all of the above is the case when it clearly isn't.

>>654345

I'm not implying everything fits into certain categories, that's the point I'm working againt.

>you can't judge a living creature by its bones

Tell that to your contemporaries, who hastily try to place them into their rigid categories.

>>654346

>Tell that to your contemporaries,

What contemporaries?

>who hastily try to place them into their rigid categories.

Yeah people can try all they want. Unless they have a live specimen, you have to expect some level of uncertainty. Because obviously some information is lost. Yes, we know every detail about the bone that we have, but why would you try to imply a bone gives us 100% absolute accuracy in every case regarding what it originally came from? And demanding 100% accuracy and certainty is therefore absurd, which is what you are trying to do.

>>654347

I know there's a level of uncertainty, my point is people placing them into rigid categories isn't very useful. However, uncertainty doesn't mean we're completely in the dark, and can make some inferences based upon location and associated flora and fauna. Is it entirely accurate? No, but it certainly holds more water than your "oh I can categorize them all willy-nilly"

>What contemporaries?

Other creationists, ones who hold similar view to you. Yet some seem to work in absolutes rather than trying to work towards a better understanding of these lifeforms.

>>654353

>Yet some seem to work in absolutes rather than trying to work towards a better understanding of these lifeforms.

Maybe they are just as caught up in the pointless minutia and posturing of being completely knowledgable as the guys they are debating. Besides, I don't believe in "flood geology" for a second. So there's nothing I feel the need to defend there.

>>654356

Well it's good to see we worked that whole thing out. Wish you luck with the rest of this thread.

>>652617

> confusing natural disaster with evil

Come. On.

I would like to read his piece in the flood though. What book is that?

>>654405

>>654406

>trying to pick a fight with such flimsy half-assed claims

>>652625

>>652622

> Claiming the concept of evolution has a stance on cosmology and religion

So what are some good documentaries/videos about the lie of evolution? I have this one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7IHO-QkmomY

>>665736

>>Genesis also says the earth is flat

No it doesn't you fricking retard. Stop listening to retarded atheists tell you what it says

>>652527

FRIENDLY REMINDER THAT EVOLUTION REJECTS THE BIBLICAL ACCOUNT OF THE FALL OF MAN. WITHOUT THE FALL, THERE IS NO PRECEDENT FOR CHRIST'S COMING AND RESURRECTION, WHICH THE FALL NECESSITATED. THE GENESIS ACCOUNT IS INSEPARABLE FROM CHRISTIANITY, AND THE WHOLE FAITH BECOMES INCOHERENT WITHOUT IT.

>>665736

>Genesis also says the earth is flat

It doesn't and whoever told you it that is trying to mislead you.

I find the evolution debacle to be a very confusing matter. The only solution I can find to it is that both the current YEC and evolutionist accounts are flawed.

The Fathers are clear that the Genesis creation narrative shouldn't be interpreted as metaphorical, yet biological evidence heavily leans towards some type of evolution. There has to be some piece that both sides are missing.

>>665736

no it doesn't you idiot

>>665736

It doesnt say earth is flat but it does say there's a firmament above earth.

Sigh, oh look: another anti-science winny the poo on /christian/.

Ask yourself two questions: what are the basic axioms of science and the Christian faith; how can science incorporate Biblical stories of creation into their models? Quit treating the Bible as if it were a science book, because

IT’S NOT, IT NEVER HAS BEEN, AND IT NEVER WILL BE

>>670608

>getting triggered by God creating life miraculously

epic faith

>>670614

it doesn't have to be a "science book" to explain true events, a history book can explain the emergence of cars or weapons without having to specialize in "engineering".

If evolution was true it would be included in the genesis account, it's not, the opposite is stated. Creatures are made according to their kind, a man is a man, a turkey is a turkey, they don't mutate into each other, plus there was no death — neither spiritual nor physical — prior to the Fall.

this is a /christian/ board, why are you mocking Genesis??

mathematician shows that evolution is bad science

>>670622

>God creating all life from star-dust isn't epic enough

>Since I'm too dense to comprehend poetry, I'll believe everything was made in a literal week

epic idiocy

People like you give the Church a bad name.

>>670626

>day means something else

Even if we take "day" to mean months or years it doesn't give evolution any credence or viability, since genesis doesn't mention fish transforming into people, instead it says man was created out of dust.

"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."

Watch this when you have time, evolution is bad science >>670623

>>670631

Sorry anon. I just can't take people like you seriously anymore.

>>670622

>plus there was no death — neither spiritual nor physical — prior to the Fall.

That's about humans. Animals were never immortal. Also, you forget that people ate things pre fall, so there was death for plants at least. But again, death was, is and will always be concern about humans.

>>670631

Dust here means matter. As John of Damascus says, God made immaterial world and its inhabitants (angels), then made material world and its inhabitants (animals) and lastly He made us, unification of two, both material and immaterial.

>>670641

>>670642

>Dust here means matter

Sure, we come from inanimate matter, miraculously constructed by God, not the flesh of pigs or monkeys.

Whatever you think of Genesis there's still no evidence for evolution, neither for animals nor for man, it's bad science.

>>670659

>no evidence for evolution

>what is dog breeds

>he made us from special super dust, not the same filth that pigs and monkeys are made of

>>670659

It would still be miracle and our bodies are made of same matter as they are made of. Also I don't care about genesis because it doesn't play role in our salvation (though I have disdain for evolution regarding humans) and yet these retarded threads clog the catalog. We could discuss anything more nourishing from Eucharist to Thesis and yet there are 5 active retarded threads about pointless discussion with some massive mental gymnastics. Well, now you have contamination thread and I hope that you won't leave it and keep opening these idiotic threads anymore.

>>670663

*From Eucharist to Theosis

Ihate phoneposting

>>670660

>>what is dog breeds

A rottweiler can still breed with a wolf, they aren't different kinds/species, just variants of the same one.

>>670663

> Also I don't care about genesis because it doesn't play role in our salvation

that's a bad attitude, if it causes you doubt it will affect your self-understanding and relation to the bible…who knows, it might one day affect your salvation indirectly

>>670671

It doesn't. AT ALL. Because I'm not an American prottie. Your attitude, on the other hand has been destructive to Christianity and it's image.

>>670685

>It doesn't. AT ALL.

who knows? thinking the bible is unreliable is a crack in your foundation

> Your attitude, on the other hand has been destructive to Christianity and it's image.

why the personal attacks…I'm being respectful to you

>>670702

so it's correct about humans not evolving, but regarding animals its poetic and metaphorical and we can't know how animals actually came to be….

why do you hold this position?

>>652527

If your Biblical views contradict with correct science and history there’s something wrong because either your religious views are wrong or thousands of scholars are wrong, which is entirely possible but unless there’s something (((sinister))) going on you’re likely just misinterpreting something in the Bible.

>>670702

Yeah, i'm also disgusted by it. I hate the fact that God made us from primates. I hate primates and monkeys. I find the idea of special creation much more appealing, but hey, facts don't care about feelings.

>>670714

>special creation

We are that in any case, be it creationist or evolutionist path. God took special part in creating mankind, be it from literal mud or some already existing bodies of animals. Us not being special creation and supreme, crown of creation with immortal soul breathed directly by God is OUT OF QUESTION.

>>670714

>I hate the fact that God made us from primates

why do you think this?

>>670715

Yeah i also believe that, i just prefer creation from dust more appealing, it's prefer to think that we were created instantly than to think that we're a product of millions of long, arduous and painful years.

>>670717

First, i don't like monkeys, they're filthy animals to me and the very idea that we're related to them is disgusting to me. I wish we were a truly special species, but we're just another animal with a more developed brain, and of course a soul ( I'm talking more about biology, not theology btw )

>>670725

>. I wish we were a truly special species, but we're just another animal with a more developed brain

so you're a troll.

>>670727

No, i said in the biological sense. I believe that we are a special "creation" in the theological sense, but science says that we are animals just like any other, we just have more developed brains and distinct appearence ( Again, speaking in the biological point of view )

>>670728

>science says that we are animals just like any other

because science is myopic and it can't give an accurate description of man.

> we just have more developed brains and distinct appearence ( Again, speaking in the biological point of view )

man is a complete unit of body, soul and spirit. You can't compare us to animals only in the "biological" sense, and even then we are far superior to any animal given our mind's access to transcendental truths like mathematics/logic/ethics, our creative powers and linguistic…And even our appearance is godlike compared to them.

>>670732

You're right..But i still have a problem accepting that we are animals/primates though. It justs "feels" better to know you're a direct descendant of Adam than to see yourself as an ape and a animal. That's just me though, not saying God was wrong or anything like that.

>>670743

we are a direct descendant of Adam. debates about evolution is just about in WHICH way Adam was made. But Adam as historical person is accepted by both sides