|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,914 Year: 4,171/9,624 Month: 1,042/974 Week: 1/368 Day: 1/11 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Apes vs. Man What are your thoughts?? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Punisher Inactive Member |
Bucane, Without going off topic I would like to address some presuppositions because I think they are important to the subject. You stated initially that you were a Christian. As a Christian; what is your view of the Bible?
To all: I am a complete newb on this board but not to boards in general. I have spent the majority of my time on gaming boards trying to debate evolution/creation to little or no avail. After finding this board, I am reminded of the words of Forest Gump: "Mama, I'm home". Hope to get involved in some great discussions in the future.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Punisher Inactive Member |
Joz: I guess I would be described here as a minority YEC. I am certainly a laymen and confess to a non-scientific background. Yes, I get my reading material from AIG, ICR, etc. I would be happy to provide further details if needed but I think you can see where I stand from the brief intro.
To the topic at hand: Although this thread has already started to drift in another direction, my original question to bucane stands. As Christians, our worldview should start with God. I am curious to know his perception of the Bible.As for my opinion, we see similarites between different species because we share the same Creator. As an example; I think we share the same tear duct as a chicken (someone may want to confirm that). However, to draw an evolutionary connection is a stretch. Although we see evidence for variation within a 'kind' of species (dog breeds), there is no evidence to support (today or fossil) change into a completly different kind (ape to human).
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Punisher Inactive Member |
quote: I admit to not being a scientist; not that I am ignorant of the subject. My name is not Richard Petty but I can drive a car. quote: Do you think a chicken and a pig are the same kind? Do you think an ape and a human are the same kind? What criterion would you use?
quote: Perhaps we should define "kind" as those species which can reproduce together. I would say that a dog 'kind' and a cat 'kind' are two different 'kinds' because they cannot produce offspring together. Would you agree? So, apes and humans are different kinds. As stated earlier, although we see great variety within a 'kind' of species, there is no evidence to suggest that there is an evoulution to a different 'kind'. [This message has been edited by Punisher, 02-27-2002]
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Punisher Inactive Member |
quote: I defer to Dr. Jonathan Sarfati: "One common definition of a species is a group of organisms which can interbreed and produce fertile offspring, and cannot mate with other species. However, most of the so-called species (obviously all the extinct ones) have not been tested to see what they can or cannot mate with. In fact, not only are there known crosses between so-called species, but there are many instances of trans-generic matings, so the 'kind' may in some cases be as high as the family. Identifying the 'kind' with the genus is also consistent with Scripture, which spoke of kinds in a way that the Israelites could easily recognize without the need for tests of reproductive isolation. For example, horses, zebras and donkeys are probably descended from an equine (horse-like) kind, since they can interbreed, although the offspring are sterile. Dogs, wolves, coyotes and jackals are probably from a canine (dog-like) kind. All different types of domestic cattle (which are clean animals) are descended from the Aurochs, so there were probably at most seven (or fourteen) domestic cattle aboard. The Aurochs itself may have been descended from a cattle kind including bisons and water buffaloes. We know that tigers and lions can produce hybrids called tigons and ligers, so it is likely that they are descended from the same original kind."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Punisher Inactive Member |
bucane, without getting off topic, I would appeal again to what you believe about Jesus. Jesus believed in the Old Testament. Do you accept His teaching fully or simply the part about dying for your sins? If we reject part of his teaching, we cannot call ourselves followers of Jesus. If we accept it we must believe that the Old Testament contains words from God and that it is fully authoritative.
Besides the amount of use Jesus made of the Old Testament he also gave direct teachings about its authority. This teaching makes it quite clear that Jesus regarded the Old Testament as inspired by God and as the final authority on teaching in all areas. The terms that Jesus used to describe the Bible show the extent to which he found it authoritative. It is written - Jesus uses this phrase 18 times to support his own teaching by reference to his Bible, the Old Testament. In every one of these cases the fact that something was written in the Bible was treated as a guarantee that it was true. Interestingly enough, other people realized that Jesus held the Bible to be fully authoritative and tried to convince him by quoting the scriptures. This occurs eight times in the gospels. Have you never read? - There are ten references in the Bible where Jesus appeals to the people with these words. When he does this it is because he is teaching that the contents of the scripture he quotes are fully authoritative. Matthew 21:42 Jesus saith to them, Did ye never read in the scriptures, The stone which the builders rejected, the same is become the head of the corner: this is the Lord's doing, and it is marvellous in our eyes? Search the scripture - John 5:39 Search the scriptures; for in them ye think ye have eternal life: and they are they which testify of me.This is an appeal to the Pharisees to find an authoritative description of him in the Old Testament. The way he gives it shows that he expects the quotation to complete the argument and thus regards it as authoritative. Matthew 22:29 Jesus answered and said to them, Ye do err, not knowing the scriptures, nor the power of God. Mark 14:49 The Scripture must be fulfilledThe fact that something was predicted in the Bible was, for Jesus, enough to guarantee that it would happen. This is the case because the Bible contains the words of God. Luke 24:25 O fools, and slow to believe all that the prophets have spoken.This was spoken by Jesus to two of his doubting disciples after his resurrection. The important point he was making is that it is enough to find something written in the Old Testament to know that it is true. The disciples were forced to accept that Jesus was raised from the dead by a quotation of passages from the Old Testament rather than by Jesus revealing himself to them. The sum of these statements is to show how Jesus taught that the scriptures to which he had access were inspired by God and were fully authoritative. Jesus quotes from all the sections of the Old Testament; no part is omitted, which shows that Jesus accepted all of it as God's word. The way that the quotations are used shows that Jesus did not only accepted them as moral guides. He also accepted the Old Testament descriptions of history and its prediction of events yet to come. He treated the Bible he had as a complete source of true teaching from God. Jesus believed every part of the Scriptures to be inspired and that no part of the Bible can be ignored. If we are to be true followers of Jesus, true Christians, we must accept the teachings of Jesus. Finally, Jesus spoke of Genesis as well. Matthew 19:3—6 "Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, ‘Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?’ ‘Haven’t you read,’ he replied, ‘that at the beginning the Creator `made them male and female,and said, For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’? So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate. Luke 17:26—32: Just as it was in the days of Noah, so also will it be in the days of the Son of Man. People were eating, drinking, marrying and being given in marriage up to the day Noah entered the ark. Then the flood came and destroyed them all. John 5:46—47: If you believed Moses, you would believe me, for he wrote about me. But since you do not believe what he wrote, how are you going to believe what I say? If you can't bring yourself to believe the Old Testament, then you must believe that Jesus was either misquoted or lying.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Punisher Inactive Member |
quote: If he was misquoted then the NT is a sham. If he was wrong, then he's not much to place your faith in for salvation. The manuscript evidence for the New Testament far outweighs any piece of historic literature. The New Testament has far better textual support than do the works of Plato, Aristotle, Herodotus, or Tacitus, whose contents no one seriously questions. Sir Frederic Kenyon, former Director of the British Museum, comments: "The interval between the dates of the original composition and the earliest extant evidence [i.e. our oldest manuscripts] becomes so small as to be negligible, and the last foundation for any doubt that the scriptures have come down to us substantially as they were written has now been removed."
quote: Can I assume that you don't believe in the virgin birth or the resurrection? To LudvanB: quote: Sorry if I mis-understand. Are you saying that if you find what appears to be a flaw in a biblical statement, a YEC will help you try to understand the passage more clearly? Or do you really mean that as someone who discounts the Bible you are better qualified to interpret its meaning?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024