/christian/ - Christian Discussion and Fellowship

>>771394

Evolution is guided by natural law.

>https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/17660714/

>Universal genome in the origin of metazoa: thoughts about evolution

>According to this model, (a) the Universal Genome that encodes all major developmental programs essential for various phyla of Metazoa emerged in a unicellular or a primitive multicellular organism shortly before the Cambrian period; (b) The Metazoan phyla, all having similar genomes, are nonetheless so distinct because they utilize specific combinations of developmental programs

>This model has two major predictions, first that a significant fraction of genetic information in lower taxons must be functionally useless but becomes useful in higher taxons, and second that one should be able to turn on in lower taxons some of the complex latent developmental programs, e.g., a program of eye development or antibody synthesis in sea urchin. An example of natural turning on of a complex latent program in a lower taxon is discussed.

Lower animals are not less complex than higher animals. In other words, the evolution of apes to humans - according to science - didn't involve any increase in complexity.

It's almost as if metazoa appears with all it's complexity in the fossil record - all modern metazoa's Cambrian ancestors shared a common ancestor that gifted them, 550mil years ago, with 100% of their modern genetic complexity.

In other words, the genes for a pelvis existed in the common ancestor of snakes and humans. Snakes don't have a vestigial pelvis - they re-evolved the pelvis-less state of their spineless ancestors.

A geneticist designed a single metazoan genome, and then modified it as required. This geneticist was God;

>http://starlarvae.org/

^A Pagan site, but the arguments can be used to support any religion.

So has anyone created a full animal from a bunch of chemicals yet? Or are you guys still saying "you gotta trust us on this one", because if you cant provide any evidence then you have less proof than we do of your "theory"

>>771403

Im sure they will eventually maybe a small microscopic animal. Prehaps in both our lifetimes.

>>771405

Ken Jopp - he wrote the Star Larvae Hypothesis;

>http://starlarvae.org/

I became a theist because of him. I even sent him an email years ago thanking him for teaching me all this.

>>771394

>Why do dandy lions produce pollen?

>Evolutionist asking why a process which would diversify a flower exist

eke

>Why do snakes have a pelvis?

Because the snake lied to Eve about never dying

>An why do humans have a tail bone?

Try to remove it, soon you'll realize how more difficult it is to sit down without it.

See, denialist, your questions can be answered, but the changes of personal presuppositions of absolute naturalism to reality, which includes the supernatural, is on you.

>>771409

My GF broke her tail bone as a child she didn’t know it became infected and they removed much of it. She sits just fine.

>>771398

Repent from these kike lies. Death is not a part of nature, it's because of Sin.

Please repent from Death, or you'll hate Eternal Life.

Kabalistic sources hint at an older universe in terms of "Divine years", whether they be in physical or spiritual terms. Seemingly paradoxical Biblical and scientific positions like these are not contradictions, but rather, on the contrary, are reconcilable through modern science. 

The Midrash says that each divine day is a thousand years, basing this on the verse, "A thousand years in Your sight are as but yesterday", Psalm 90:4 (Bereshit Rabbah 8:2, Zohar 2: 145b, Sanhedrin 97a). 

Since each year contains 365.25 days, a divine year would be 365,250 years long. According to this, each cycle of seven thousand divine years would consist of 2,556,750,000 earthly years. This figure of 2.5 billion years is close to the scientific estimate as to the length of time that life has existed on earth. 

If we assume that the seventh cycle began with the Biblical account of creation, then this would have occurred when the universe was 15,340,500,000 years old. This is very close to the scientific estimate that the expansion of the universe began some 15 billion years ago." 

(Taken from Sefer Yetzirah: Rabbi Kaplan, page 186).

>>771394

You can’t just make a thread for something that already has a thread.

>>771394

All came from the same designer

Thus the similarities

>>771394

To spread that which makes the plant grow; to assist in reproduction; what are your details? I will personally pay for the surgery to remove your tailbone.

>>771708

>When you spot a non-argument

Biblical fact: death is not a natural part of God's original design. Death entered the world through Adam.

>>771724

death might be natural for non-humans tho

>>771706

That site answers every single scientific objection to creation. It argues that evolution is real and God designed later forms like layers of an onion which could be revealed in the future.

Once reason has proven God, Biblical literalism becomes an intelectual possibility. That's how it worked for me at least.

>>771729

>Biblical literalism becomes an intelectual possibility.

yeah, but then you say the song of solomon is literal and you're preaching 100% heresy

>>771409

>>771411

As a child a dropped a wood chisel o my foot and cut a ligament. I still stand just fine.

Doesn't mean it doesn't help.

>>771410

there are many exceptions to nested hierarchies. pigeons produce milk. Mammals in the ocean. all primates have nails, except a few with claws.

mammals that lay eggs. I'm not a biologist but these are the ones that I was able to remember on the spot. I'm sure exceptions like these occur in almost every branch. not that it proves anything though.

>>771727

Look at the definition of "death" in scripture, instead of applying your head-canon to it.

>>771808

so when Christ defeated death and guaranteed Resurrection for all sinners, does this mean animals shall also merit Resurrection? do animals sin?

I'm actually not really for evolution, but it does seem like a pertinent question worth asking

>>771810

Animals can't sin because animals don't have souls. Think of them like squishy automatons, enslaved by their nature (or programming). They only do what God programmed them to do.

It would be like getting mad at a shark for eating your friend. Tragic that it happened, but it is not the shark's fault it was hungry and couldn't tell the difference between a human and a seal.

Or, going back to the automaton analogy, it would be like if a human was maimed on a factory floor because he accidentally put his hand where the robot normally shoots a rivit in steel. The robot can't make the distinction between steel and human flesh. It just shoot rivits in accordance with it's programming.

>so do animals get Resurrection or go to heaven

Probably, probably not. My guess is they just go back into this material world adding back to the cycle of life. Its a mystery that only God knows the answer to. No real reason to ponder over it too much.

>>771823

my actual point was that judging by the metrics of Christ's redemption and His defeat of death for all time, "death entered the world" may actually be read as "death entering human existence", with animals already living and dying during all of the Earth's existence

then again, there is also the promise of a New Earth, so that could potentially be a counter-reading of the argument I just related

>>771828

that's uncharitable

>>771830

>Once you fall into their gnostic hole, not losing your mind will be the most charitable thing you can wish for.

100000% fact

>>771804

I honestly can't tell if this is bait

The crop milk some birds produce is quite different from mammalian milk in a number of ways, it is just also able to be produced by parents to feed their young

Being on land isn't some trait. Dolphins & whales are most closely related to hippos and you can see this in a number of ways. This is about the same level of logic of bats being birds as they both fly.

Mammals aren't defined by live birth, rather, the mammal literally comes from the latin for breast. They all have mammaries to feed their young, have fur or hair, and a couple other things.

I honestly can't tell if this whole thread is bait, I'd expect something more theological on a christian board, but I guess this is what happens when you get americans posting.

>Still waiting for an ape to become human.

>Still waiting for low-iq populations to breed high iq one just by "natural selection"

>Still waiting to see an animal to be cultivated on a petri dish

My question is: How the evolutionist stand on Ape/Human question as far as the soul is concerned.

Surely the ape does not have soul. What happened in between? Or is your stance materialistic that the soul is "part of the brain" on a biological basis?

To be honest I do not believe in evolution. Feel free to pick fun at me for it I also did it in the former days when I believed it to be true because I read "clever books".

My question is obvious: Why is there not a tendency among low iq peoples to breed high iq offspring, other than by mixing with higher iq stock? I am not trying to be "racist" to anyone. My question still stands. IQ and technological level of a country go hand in hand. Some countries are plundered by war etc. but they also do not produce technology and recover well simply because there are less individuals of higher intelligence to produce it.

I am not putting down any standards to call anyone "inferior". Hell no. God forbid me doing that. But according to evolution those countries should be improving, not? Even our countries should be improving. I just do not see it, if by "improvement" we do not mean the arrogant "all knowing" attitude that stupid people with petty morals have nowadays because "enlightenment" and "evolution".

I just do not see apes evolving into humans and I do not see any trend of improvement of nations based simply on "biology" Sorry.

How does Evolution explain humans being the image of God, possessing the eternal soul.

Apes are not that.

What exactly separates us?

How did God do it, if he simply used "evolution" through mutations to create human?

Is soul a mutation?

>>775041

Countries with a low average IQ still have high IQ individuals, but they have them at a much lower frequency than countries with a high IQ. It would be possible to raise the IQ of low average IQ countries by only allowing their high IQ people to reproduce, but the low IQ people would be pissed that they couldn't reproduce.

>>775061

/leftypol/ needs to scram first.

>>775105

Unironically this

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fFoXKLCpq2g

>>775123

>telling someone to commit sudoku

And that, my friends, is how we know this anon isn't a Christian.

>>771727

>>771808

we don't know how different a metaphysical state the world was in before the fall and in Eden (and by extension in the new heaven and new earth after the ressurection), however I think it would be sensible to assume that death for animals and plants was still part of reality then, and will be in the new heaven and new earth, maybe. Creation and it's ecosystem's are clearly beautifully and meticously designed and ordered, and although our activity and other natural events have the potential to catastrophically disorder them and impact those systems for the worse (i.e. loss of life, suffering, extinction of species) on the whole it looks as though the cycles of birth, life, death, decomposition and ecological benefits thereof were clearly designed as a regulative thing which is supposed to be in a delicate balance.

Much like our bodies (and more generally lives), which require appropriate balance (nutritional, physical as in excercise and rest, spiritual, labour and play/recreation, etc.etc) which naturally see cells die and replaced continuously, and which benefit from strain and suffering (like tearing muscle tissue during excercise only for them to grow bigger and stronger when provided with enough nutrients) I think it's sensible to assume death, with the exception of man as a whole body and soul, incurred by the fall, otherwise is not an inherently bad or evil thing and that, like I said, flora and fauna have death inherent in their existence by virtue of the nature of, well, nature, and ecosystems, biomes, etc. etc. which have all been meticulousy designed and miraculously bought forth by God as creator.

>>775042

I'm not particularly well read on either side and have generally always been more leaning to the tradional non-theistic-evolution understanding of creation and reading of scripture but, if it were through theistic evolution, why couldn't God plant a human soul in the first adam, who was born of parents who were animals who came on the scene through the evolutionary process which otherwise looked like what we know as humans (or something close to it)? There's nothing wrong with, or contradiction in, the idea of God droppping a 'image bearing' soul into, well, whoever he wants, theoretically, including any human-looking animals who first came about by evolution, as set in motion and ultimately planned by God.

I don't think any Christian really holds the materialist of the soul being part of our material biology, in our brain, a genetic mutaiton etc. etc. and even if they believe in evolution still believe that humans are embued with a God-given soul as a spiritual entity and part of total reality outside of the material, and are made 'in the image of God.' That's my understanding anyway, I would be very surprised if there were Christian materialists who had a materialist view of the 'soul.' That would be very weird.

>>775163

>>775163

>death of flora and fauna is natural and a mechanism instituted by God to reguate creation since creation's inception including prior to the fall and in the new heaven and new earth to come

I should mention that when I was writing this Rom 18:22-24 did pop into mind

> 22 For we know that the whole creation has been groaning together in the pains of childbirth until now. 23 And not only the creation, but we ourselves, who have the firstfruits of the Spirit, groan inwardly as we wait eagerly for adoption as sons, the redemption of our bodies. 24 For in this hope we were saved. Now hope that is seen is not hope. For who hopes for what he sees?

and made me question what Paul was actually getting at, if his use of 'creation groaning' is metaphorical, or if it really does imply that literally, death of animals, plants, desctruction of ecosystems by natural disasters and the resultant suffering etc. (groaning) really is part of the result of 'the fall' and an 'unatural' state which is awaiting reversal to how it was in Eden before the fall, where creation did not groan, i.e. there was not all the death and suffering of flora and fauna, in which case all my schpeil about balanced ecosystems etc. is bunk and thrown out the window and the metaphysical state of creation prior to the fall was wholly and completely different in this regard as well as many other dimensions

>>771842

> I'd expect something more theological on a christian board, but I guess this is what happens when you get americans posting.

Not even a burger but wholly unecessary and rude, if you'd said this tongue in cheek and as a joke then fine but as it is and came across, you just sound like a right twat

>>775186

You first, stoneman.

>>771394

Snakes have a pelvis because they used to have legs before God punished them for corrupting Eve and cursed them to crawl on their belly

>>775061

>Not being a leftard is idolatry

You never cease to surprise me, reddit

>>775808

>implying the post you replied to singled out one ideology over another, rather than condemning the worship of all ideologies

>implying the people you call "leftards" would care about God

>implying that your own particular ideology, and any other well-known ideology, couldn't be found on reddit

>invoking the reddit boogeyman in the first place

Please, for the sake of this board, go back to /pol/, or /leftpol/, or 4chan's /pol/, or reddit, or anywhere but here.

>>775978

Nah, he gets to stay

>>775978

Why do you defend that leftist retardation?

>>775985

Repeating "leftist" at him in every post like an autistic retard, when you don't have an argument, means jack shit, anon.

>>771394

The "evolution is an argument against god" talking point is so winnie the pooh retarded. Just because God created the world doesn't mean evolution doesn't or can't exist. Like have these retards ever played dwarf fort? That game pregenerates a world with a large amount of history and artifacts attached to them. What's saying god can't do the same with things like fossils. Sage because I'm not invested in this thread or really even reading it.

>>775055

Fair point I understand what you're saying.

Do you think apes and lower IQ populations….which must have preceded humans necessarily if we evolved from apes….had some eugenic regulations?

I find that very unlikely. I think that if IQ evolved from apes to humans we could be seeing the same thing on a little scale right now. But we see the exact opposite….decrease of an IQ. Presuming that "dumb apes" did not breed while "smart apes" did breed is a far stretch.

>>775163

>who was born of parents who were animals who came on the scene through the evolutionary process which otherwise looked like what we know as humans (or something close to it)?

Was not he created from dust? according to Bible. Why would God say "created from the dust" if he would just give a soul to an ape. My point was that you will not explain the metaphysical soul by evolution since evolution concerns material only. Unless one concedes to pure materialist interpretation of individual, you cannot say "evolution is everything"

>set in motion and ultimately planned by God.

Fair point again. A bit. This is kind of "deism" - the notion that God set in the motion whole universe and just watches. But again we would still see species evolving as well as people. I am sorry but I do not see our species evolving even on a small scale - IQ of populations. I do not see low IQ parts of the world building up technology.

> I would be very surprised if there were Christian materialists who had a materialist view of the 'soul.' That would be very weird.

yes. Most of them will not. But if one believes that God "set in the motion the evolution" and that's all that;s to it…you will eventually face this implication of this particular idea.

I think that Darwinism in itself is a subversive ideology. Evolution is an outcome of it. All myths and traditional views, including the christian one, speak of decline. "Fall". Not about creating order out of chaos. Again if I mention it here we will get into tough debate with people calling me illiterate. Let me just say I know a thing or two about biology and human body and genetics but I do not claim to be an expert on anything…or some kind of enlightened brainiac.

However I think it is highly unlikely for all species to be created by "mutations" and selection. Especially since this idea was invented before we even knew how DNA looks. That's the first thing.. The second is the complexity, the fact that in most cases people get cancer instead of "being more able to survive". Not going to dive into this discussion again.

I will just point out that the odds of this happening are very low, it is merely a theory, which was for political purposes, declared to be the gospel of the late 20th and 21th century. For it to be "true" 100% you would have to prove it by growing human being on a petri dish, or at least some simple animal…out of nothing but chemicals in water.

My next observation is of the apes/people nowadays simply not "evolving", not in those measurable minor aspects.

tl dr I do not believe in evolution and I do not think it makes me "simple minded". If you think so, you're welcome I do not care. I will just say that as a whole, the theory is not in accordance with Christianity. SOME POINTS could perhaps be in accordance. But there still stands the question: Is the theory correct? Which I think is a valid question. Somebody saying "muh mutation" is not really an argument, it is a mere assumption since nobody denies that mutations do occur.

My view would rather be: What occurs is devolution, sometimes mutations carry benefit against diseases but they are mostly negative. The "line of ancestry" which has related species with some missing could also be a product of some species dying out in devolution.

Tbh I do not care very much on personal level about the theory/what people think of me when I say I do not believe it.