# The Catholic Church and Evolution



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2022)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/pope-would-you-accept-evolution-and-big-bang-180953166/


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2022)

The Church supports the Big Bang also.
https://www.livescience.com/48524-catholic-church-big-bang-evolution.html


----------



## brutally honest (Jun 22, 2022)

There’s the old punchline that goes, “Is the pope Catholic?”  With this pope, that’s a legitimate question.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> There’s the old punchline that goes, “Is the pope Catholic?”  With this pope, that’s a legitimate question.


He hasn't always been the Pope


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2022)

Makes me wonder if the catholicism of the Popes who said the Sun revolves around the Earth was questioned also...


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 22, 2022)

Im sure this will raise alot of Catholics and or religious folks hackles but Im not so sure its all that explosive.
Why wouldnt someone accept evolution? Its a proven fact that it happens.
Why not accept that an event like the Big Bang happened? Science believed it did.
Unless I missed it, he didnt credit either with Creation. 
Although this was kind of interesting -


> we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said.



Any chance this is a case of darned if you do, darned if you dont?
A common knock on religion is it ignores science.
Now its getting knocked for accepting SOME science.


----------



## brutally honest (Jun 22, 2022)

bullethead said:


> He hasn't always been the Pope



Many Catholics rejoice at that, as they do at his rumored soon-to-be retirement.


----------



## brutally honest (Jun 22, 2022)

I don’t think this is all that new.  I’ve heard Protestants say basically the same thing.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> I don’t think this is all that new.  I’ve heard Protestants say basically the same thing.


It definitely isn't new, just more of a view that mends science and religion.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 22, 2022)

Why would being able to explain evolution with science and religion be any different than explaining a rainbow with science and religion? Or the birth of a child, or the healing of God's nature, or even the parting of the Red Sea?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2022)

Artfuldodger said:


> Why would being able to explain evolution with science and religion be any different than explaining a rainbow with science and religion? Or the birth of a child, or the healing of God's nature, or even the parting of the Red Sea?


It isn't for some, it is for others.
It seems the picking and choosing of where science and religion agree vs where they differ is where the rub lies.


----------



## earlthegoat2 (Jun 22, 2022)

I went to a Catholic school grades K-12. I learned the same evolution as everyone else. 

In fact, we were taught enough science and history to really start asking questions about religion, the Bible, and Catholicism. 

If the Catholic Industrial Complex doesn’t want folks to know about evolution, they sure aren’t doing a very good job of it. 

All that said, I was also “taught” the Bible is mostly allegory. Especially the Old Testament. This gives ample room for things like evolution and the Big Bang theory. Both of those were things know one knew about when the Bible was written anyway. 

Religion is mostly just a way for humans, who are highly complex, to explain the highly complex world around them. 
Fact or not, the Bible and most all other holy books provides a guideline for folks to live good moral and valuable lives.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 22, 2022)

bullethead said:


> It definitely isn't new, just more of a view that mends science and religion.



The Catholics have often been ahead of the power curve when it comes to coming to terms with scientific developments. They've been in the religion business for a long, long time. If your religion (or denomination) isn't willing to "roll with the punches" you'll lose customers. As science & society in general advances, the Catholics can just move the goalposts. 

So while they may be smart, they are dangerous & harmful! Systemically covering up pedophilia is the elephant in the room.   Call me crazy, but NOBODY is above the law and hiding behind your religion to avoid examination & prosecution is just about the worst thing an organization can do! Such an organization is MORALLY BANKRUPT.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 22, 2022)

earlthegoat2 said:


> I went to a Catholic school grades K-12. I learned the same evolution as everyone else.
> 
> In fact, we were taught enough science and history to really start asking questions about religion, the Bible, and Catholicism.
> 
> ...



Yep, even the Jews teach that much of their Torah/Pentatauch/etc. isn't to be taken literally and generally don't get upset when science (especially archeology) throws doubt on their stories. Like you said, they use the books as guidelines for living their lives.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 22, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> The Catholics have often been ahead of the power curve when it comes to coming to terms with scientific developments. They've been in the religion business for a long, long time. If your religion (or denomination) isn't willing to "roll with the punches" you'll lose customers. As science & society in general advances, the Catholics can just move the goalposts.
> 
> So while they may be smart, they are dangerous & harmful! Systemically covering up pedophilia is the elephant in the room.   Call me crazy, but NOBODY is above the law and hiding behind your religion to avoid examination & prosecution is just about the worst thing an organization can do! Such an organization is MORALLY BANKRUPT.





> but NOBODY is above the law


If only that were true.....


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 22, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> If only that were true.....



Oh I know.   Sadly that's one on the "appeals" of Christianity. We see hit & miss justice in the real world, but God will deliver perfect justice to the bad guys in the afterlife.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 22, 2022)

Religion only needs a person to believe it until they die then hope that those alive carry on the tales of how much better off that dead person is and what fun they are having or to watch the joy the living get out of telling others how this desd person will suffer forever.
Nobody ever comes back to tell anyone any differently.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2022)

Israel said:


> That nobody is above the law?


Yep.
It sounds good, should be that way etc.
But depending on title, connections, size of bank account etc.......


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Im sure this will raise alot of Catholics and or religious folks hackles but Im not so sure its all that explosive.
> Why wouldnt someone accept evolution? Its a proven fact that it happens.
> Why not accept that an event like the Big Bang happened? Science believed it did.
> Unless I missed it, he didnt credit either with Creation.
> ...


I think the biggest difference is Christianity can consider God using the science He created but science has no room to consider a God / god as the source they've yet to identify that all this comes from.


> A common knock on religion is it ignores science.
> Now its getting knocked for accepting SOME science.


The Christian world should disagree with him here.
“When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said”.


I think the majority of the Christian world could agree with him here.

“He added: “He created human beings and let them develop according to the internal laws that he gave to each one so they would reach their fulfilment.”

He’s still the Creator of that first life. The difference is while I agree that we might share similar DNA of “monkeys” I don’t believe man evolved from “primate to man as we know him today”. I don’t believe that sharing DNA makes you “branch kin”

Man was created in His image - whatever that means, my only point is God’s image didn’t change over time. He created the primate, and He created the man.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Religion only needs a person to believe it until they die then hope that those alive carry on the tales of how much better off that dead person is and what fun they are having or to watch the joy the living get out of telling others how this desd person will suffer forever.
> Nobody ever comes back to tell anyone any differently.


That’s not Religion.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I think the biggest difference is Christianity can consider God using the science He created but science has no room to consider a God / god as the source they've yet to identify that all this comes from.
> 
> The Christian world should disagree with him here.
> “When we read about Creation in Genesis, we run the risk of imagining God was a magician, with a magic wand able to do everything. But that is not so,” Francis said”.
> ...


Adam and Eve are very modern looking. If religion agrees with science that Humans have been around much longer than the timeline in the bible and agree that humans evolved from earlier ancestors and even the earliest human species were much different than modern humans....is it just your willingness to not accept what is the best evidence that keeps you only going so far with your own conclusions?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> That’s not Religion.


Sorry,Organized Religion


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Adam and Eve are very modern looking. If religion agrees with science that Humans have been around much longer than the timeline in the bible and agree that humans evolved from earlier ancestors and even the earliest human species were much different than modern humans....is it just your willingness to not accept what is the best evidence that keeps you only going so far with your own conclusions?


No, it’s my willingness to consider all things, if God is the Creator of everything including science, then science is subject and limited to Him.

Maybe there’s a wall there where He’s not allowing science to find certain answers - similar to the Tower of Babel coupled with (because of doubt) He will cause them to believe a lie??

I look at things a little different. I don’t just reject - I consider all possibilities, even God. One thing we can agree on - science is still discovering. 

Best evidence isn’t the only evidence, and until it’s a definite no, then it’s still possible.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> No, it’s my willingness to consider all things, if God is the Creator of everything including science, then science is subject and limited to Him.
> 
> Maybe there’s a wall there where He’s not allowing science to find certain answers - similar to the Tower of Babel coupled with (because of doubt) He will cause them to believe a lie??
> 
> ...


Like regarding primates and humans common ancestors...what is it that you think your God is blocking as far as a wall?

Science is always discovering with thr purpose of constantly changing when the the best and most agreed upon is found. The Bible has not changed on many things since they have been proven to be inaccurate. Why?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

Israel said:


> That nobody is above the law?



I think EVERYBODY across the world wishes that justice was applied uniformly to all members of any given society.


----------



## gordon 2 (Jun 23, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> There’s the old punchline that goes, “Is the pope Catholic?”  With this pope, that’s a legitimate question.


The Church's view on the science of creation is older than the term of the present pope in the office.

The rub with the present Pope does not stem for what he says. The rub started that the pontiff is a South American and not a North American ie: American. That's the real beef with many in the US. The guy is a Spanish speaking South American!!!!!!!!!!!!!Argentinian in culture. I mean if the councils were going to come to the America's for  a prospect New York and Chicago were naturally first on the list of places to pick from. And that's the beef with American Catholics. The Pope is just not an American... that's the rub. When the popes were European at least they were of American stock politically. But no... they had to go outside that gene pool...


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

"Best evidence isn’t the only evidence, and until it’s a definite no, then it’s still possible."  spot lite

But it's only "still possible" if somebody refuses to accept a "definite no" as an answer!
But if somebody truly believes that with God_ all _things are possible, then no matter what evidence is presented they will still not believe it. 

Here is my take on it: let's say for argument's sake that the God of the Bible exists,
and that all things are possible with that God. I would think that limits what kinds of things God would do if it affected the "real world" humans live in. My favorite example 
of this would be Joshua Chapter 10 (as I already mentioned) in which God makes the sun "stand still" in the sky so Joshua can have more daylight to continue his successful military battle. Reality (in which humans physically live) and science understand that the Earth orbits the sun, and as the Earth orbits it spins at about 1,000 MPH. The Earth is about 24,000 miles in circumference, thus a 24-hour day means the Earth spins at about 1,000 MPH. Which part of the Earth faces the sun determines (from any human observer's perspective) whether it is night or day. 

If you agree with these scientifically proven/tested facts, then you would most likely agree that if the Earth suddenly stopped spinning the centrifugal force would be problematic for nearly every living thing (humans included) on the planet. Google up "what would happen if the Earth suddenly stopped spinning" and experts can explain it much better than I could, but (spoiler alert) it doesn't end well for planet Earth.

My point is, even if God _can_ do anything, would he do things that are in direct conflict with the laws of nature/laws of science that humans currently live under?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

gordon 2 said:


> The Church's view on the science of creation is older than the term of the present pope in the office.
> 
> The rub with the present Pope does not stem for what he says. The rub started that the pontiff is a South American and not a North American ie: American. That's the real beef with many in the US. The guy is a Spanish speaking South American!!!!!!!!!!!!!Argentinian in culture. I mean if the councils were going to come to the America's for  a prospect New York and Chicago were naturally first on the list of places to pick from. And that's the beef with American Catholics. The Pope is just not an American... that's the rub. When the popes were European at least they were of American stock politically. But no... they had to go outside that gene pool...


You are right, the general consensus is that "He isn't like us".
And
Doesn't God choose the Pope?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> "Best evidence isn’t the only evidence, and until it’s a definite no, then it’s still possible."  spot lite
> 
> But it's only "still possible" if somebody refuses to accept a "definite no" as an answer!
> But if somebody truly believes that with God_ all _things are possible, then no matter what evidence is presented they will still not believe it.
> ...


My take is that a God absolutely definitely positively and without question would be capable of making the impossible possible.  And, that type of power should reign true 100% of the time.
Unfortunately for the God of Abraham, IF he is true, he is hit or miss.


----------



## brutally honest (Jun 23, 2022)

gordon 2 said:


> The rub with the present Pope does not stem for what he says.



I disagree.  I think it’s precisely about what he says, most notably:

1) some wish-washy statements on homosexuality 

2) some disparaging comments on capitalism

3) some comments agreeing with the climate change cult


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> I disagree.  I think it’s precisely about what he says, most notably:
> 
> 1) some wish-washy statements on homosexuality
> 
> ...


It is my understanding that God/Holy Spirit inspires the Cardinals to choose the Pope. IE: God's Will.
Is it possible that through the Pope of his choosing, the messages from that Pope are also of God's Will?
If not, why choose that Pope?


----------



## Big7 (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Makes me wonder if the catholicism of the Popes who said the Sun revolves around the Earth was questioned also...


Curious. Which Pope said that?


----------



## brutally honest (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> It is my understanding that God/Holy Spirit inspires the Cardinals to choose the Pope. IE: God's Will.
> Is it possible that through the Pope of his choosing, the messages from that Pope are also of God's Will?
> If not, why choose that Pope?



The pope’s views on climate change and capitalism carry no more weight than Joe Blow’s.  It’s beyond his “purview”.

Homosexuality is a different matter.  Regardless of Francis’ views on the subject, he can’t reverse 2,000 years of church teaching on the subject.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Like regarding primates and humans common ancestors...what is it that you think your God is blocking as far as a wall?
> 
> Science is always discovering with thr purpose of constantly changing when the the best and most agreed upon is found. The Bible has not changed on many things since they have been proven to be inaccurate. Why?


What I think God is blocking isn’t necessarily “knowledge” itself, I think it’s the mindset of “we can be just like God”. An example is cloning. Although we can select a male donor and female recipient we are still limited on “creating” a human.

With that ^^^in mind - proven inaccurate based on who’s parameters that are given and limited by who - if God is a possibility?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

Big7 said:


> Curious. Which Pope said that?


https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/galileo-is-accused-of-heresy


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> You are right, the general consensus is that "He isn't like us".
> And
> Doesn't God choose the Pope?



I think the Pope position goes to the second-in-command. I do know that once the Pope is confirmed (in a secret meeting of course) they light a signal fire, and when smoke comes out of the Vatican it means that it's a done-deal. I saw that on the news
a few years back for the current Pope or maybe the Pope before him. Regardless, the crowd of Catholics went wild when they saw the smoke.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Sorry,Organized Religion


No you were right. I was just saying that’s not religion.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> The pope’s views on climate change and capitalism carry no more weight than Joe Blow’s.  It’s beyond his “purview”.
> 
> Homosexuality is a different matter.  Regardless of Francis’ views on the subject, he can’t reverse 2,000 years of church teaching on the subject.


Is that your views or God's?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I think the Pope position goes to the second-in-command. I do know that once the Pope is confirmed (in a secret meeting of course) they light a signal fire, and when smoke comes out of the Vatican it means that it's a done-deal. I saw that on the news
> a few years back for the current Pope or maybe the Pope before him. Regardless, the crowd of Catholics went wild when they saw the smoke.


I've always wondered that if God an or the Holy Spirit is involved in selecting the Pope, why isn't it always unanimous on the first vote?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> My take is that a God absolutely definitely positively and without question would be capable of making the impossible possible.  And, that type of power should reign true 100% of the time.
> Unfortunately for the God of Abraham, IF he is true, he is hit or miss.



Or maybe (just an unproven theory mind you) the bronze/iron age authors of the Bible never considered that their outrageous, fantastical stories would eventually conflict with the reality of how the known universe - and especially planet Earth - _really _works. This is because they didn't have psychic powers, and could not predict the future. 
IMHO the Bible is about as accurate as you would expect from the human authors of the time.


----------



## Big7 (Jun 23, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> Im sure this will raise alot of Catholics and or religious folks hackles but Im not so sure its all that explosive.
> Why wouldnt someone accept evolution? Its a proven fact that it happens.
> Why not accept that an event like the Big Bang happened? Science believed it did.
> Unless I missed it, he didnt credit either with Creation.
> ...


Absolutely.

I was going to quote that same line from the article as you did before I even got down to your post.
Thank You.

Now, I've been a practicing Catholic for 58 years.

The Church believes that evolution is scientific fact.

The Church believes that God caused everything in the know and unknown universe to occur in His time, by His will.

There is no conflict between the teachings of The Church, doctrine, dogmas or anything else that says God did not cause everything that has happened or will happen to happen.

The Church believes that everything in scripture is true and that everything that is true is not in scripture...


----------



## brutally honest (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Is that your views or God's?


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> It is my understanding that God/Holy Spirit inspires the Cardinals to choose the Pope. IE: God's Will.
> Is it possible that through the Pope of his choosing, the messages from that Pope are also of God's Will?
> If not, why choose that Pope?



What if the Cardinals arm wrestle to see who gets to be Pope?   Wait that's just silly - people would notice their injured arms since they are all pretty old.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

brutally honest said:


>


I understand your line in the sand. I am just pointing out things people don't want to answer directly because it conflicts with their own thoughts.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> What if the Cardinals arm wrestle to see who gets to be Pope?   Wait that's just silly - people would notice their injured arms since they are all pretty old.


While THAT ^^^ should be televised, it isn't the processes described by the Church.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Jun 23, 2022)

I've oftened wondered if God inspired men of today are chosen to say things just as the men in Nicea were.


----------



## Big7 (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I think the Pope position goes to the second-in-command. I do know that once the Pope is confirmed (in a secret meeting of course) they light a signal fire, and when smoke comes out of the Vatican it means that it's a done-deal. I saw that on the news
> a few years back for the current Pope or maybe the Pope before him. Regardless, the crowd of Catholics went wild when they saw the smoke.



Depends if the smoke is black or white.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

"Homosexuality is a different matter. Regardless of Francis’ views on the subject, he can’t reverse 2,000 years of church teaching on the subject." - Brutally honest

I think the Catholic church has done PLENTY of hands-on research on homosexuality according to thousands of choir boys! Just sayin'


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

Big7 said:


> Depends if the smoke is black or white.



Oh, so that's the deal with the smoke! Thanks for the info. I wonder if the smoke is a menacing, sulfurous yellow that means Satan has taken over the Vatican! 

That would be a great Netflix movie.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

Big7 said:


> Absolutely.
> 
> I was going to quote that same line from the article as you did before I even got down to your post.
> Thank You.
> ...



Genius! That makes Catholicism super adaptive to almost any worldview. If Christianity ever goes Tango Uniform, I think Catholics will be the last man standing.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> ”
> 
> He’s still the Creator of that first life. The difference is while I agree that we might share similar DNA of “monkeys” I don’t believe man evolved from “primate to man as we know him today”. I don’t believe that sharing DNA makes you “branch kin”


If you can look at a bonobo chimpanzee, watch it for awhile, and tell me with a straight face that we aren't related to them, then I don't know what to tell you.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> If you can look at a bonobo chimpanzee, watch it for awhile, and tell me with a straight face that we aren't related to them, then I don't know what to tell you.


Or Koko the Gorilla. She isn't performing tricks for treats.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

"If you can look at a bonobo chimpanzee, watch it for awhile, and tell me with a straight face that we aren't related to them, then I don't know what to tell you." - NC hillbilly

I hear you! If you take the observations even further, there are sexual/societal similarities. Human females are (with few exceptions) hard wired to be sexually attracted to powerful, strong, effective, outgoing Alpha Males. Bottom line "big shots" get all the females, while losers get no or few females. I've watched videos comparing human small group social behavior with that of our nearest genetic relatives, and the body language is very similar. 

What proves the human evolutionary link to other hominid & non-hominid species of apes to me is the skulls! Older skulls have less brain capacity, more recent skulls have more brain capacity, and so on. Also skull shapes have changed, with the area where the spinal cord inserts into the skull shifting over time to account for a more upright/vertical posture rather than the bent over knuckle-walking of our ancestors.


----------



## brutally honest (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I think the Catholic church has done PLENTY of hands-on research on homosexuality according to thousands of choir boys! Just sayin'



The sexual abuse in the church is abominable.  No one defends it.


----------



## brutally honest (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Human females are (with few exceptions) hard wired to be sexually attracted to powerful, strong, effective, outgoing Alpha Males. Bottom line "big shots" get all the females, while losers get no or few females.



I’d like to take this time to formally apologize to all you beta males for stealing your girlfriends over the years.


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> I’d like to take this time to formally apologize to all you beta males for stealing your girlfriends over the years.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> The sexual abuse in the church is abominable.  No one defends it.



"no one" defends it yet the Catholic church itself *enables it* by stonewalling legal/law enforcement investigations. It's the ultimate "above the law" situation.


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> If you can look at a bonobo chimpanzee, watch it for awhile, and tell me with a straight face that we aren't related to them, then I don't know what to tell you.


OK. We are not evolutionarily related.


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> The Church supports the Big Bang also.
> https://www.livescience.com/48524-catholic-church-big-bang-evolution.html


No. The pope supports the Big Bang and he is not the Church, he is the Bishop of Rome.


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> There’s the old punchline that goes, “Is the pope Catholic?”  With this pope, that’s a legitimate question.


Some Legal scholars will argue that as long as Benedict XVI is alive then Francis is not the pope.


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> It definitely isn't new, just more of a view that mends science and religion.


I see no conflict between science and Christianity.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

Madman said:


> No. The pope supports the Big Bang and he is not the Church, he is the Bishop of Rome.



So is the Pope a figurehead or is he actually HMIC of the Catholic church?


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> So is the Pope a figurehead or is he actually HMIC of the Catholic church?


I'm not Roman so it  doesn't matter what I think about the pope.  The Pope may be "HMIC" of Rome but he is not "HMIC" of the Catholic Church.


----------



## Big7 (Jun 23, 2022)

Here is what the Pope is and ain't.

I would encourage anyone interested in The Catholic Church, Faith, Pope, etc... To go to Catholic sources.

Read this. Real slow. Then, read it again. 100% jives with scripture, which makes sense because The Catholic Church canonized the ORIGINAL books of The Holy Bible.

All 73 of them. 

https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/vicar-of-christ


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

Madman said:


> No. The pope supports the Big Bang and he is not the Church, he is the Bishop of Rome.


https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/12/05/big-bang-theory-catholic-priest/?andro=1&chrome=1


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> If you can look at a bonobo chimpanzee, watch it for awhile, and tell me with a straight face that we aren't related to them, then I don't know what to tell you.


I’m not searching for answers. I’m only stating my opinion.

As I previously mentioned - sharing the same or similar DNA doesn’t mean you’re branch kin. You should be able to inbreed and reproduce if you’re “related”.


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

Big7 said:


> Here is what the Pope is and ain't.
> 
> I would encourage anyone interested in The Catholic Church, Faith, Pope, etc... To go to Catholic sources.
> 
> ...


OH NO!!!!!

73! but mine only has 66!!!  That dasterdly pope.  He waves his magic wand and all of Catholicism bows to him.


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> https://www.thevintagenews.com/2017/12/05/big-bang-theory-catholic-priest/?andro=1&chrome=1


And?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

https://catholicscientists.org/articles/monsignor-georges-lemaitre-originator-of-big-bang-theory/


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

Madman said:


> And?


The Church has recognized the BBT for 50 years. It is taught in Catholic School Curriculum. My wife learned it in Catholic School and our Son's learned it in Catholic School decades apart.


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

Big7 said:


> Here is what the Pope is and ain't.
> 
> I would encourage anyone interested in The Catholic Church, Faith, Pope, etc... To go to Catholic sources.
> 
> ...



In a debate, if I boned up a little, I could argue both sides.  Is the pope the Head Man on Earth, or is he just the Bishop of Rome.

I do know this, if he just speaks to reporters, or proclaims it in a homily, it does not hold much weight. An encyclical is heavier and speaking ex-cathedra is even more so.

I don't believe any RC who does not hold to the BB or monkeys to man evolution will be excommunicated.


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> The Church has recognized the BBT for 50 years. It is taught in Catholic School Curriculum. My wife learned it in Catholic School and our Son's learned it in Catholic School decades apart.


All that means is that the RC Church views it as acceptable not as fact, "science" has yet to call it fact.

If you want to know what the RC Church's teaching is on most topics I believe you will need to research the magisterium on the topic not a school teacher.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

Madman said:


> All that means is that the RC Church views it as acceptable not as fact, "science" has yet to call it fact.


"Madman said:
No. The pope supports the Big Bang and he is not the Church, he is the Bishop of Rome."
First it was just the Pope and he is not the Church. Now the Church supports it, teaches it and accepts it...but it is not fact.
A scientic theory isn't a wild guess.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not searching for answers. I’m only stating my opinion.
> 
> As I previously mentioned - sharing the same or similar DNA doesn’t mean you’re branch kin. You should be able to inbreed and reproduce if you’re “related”.


It's pretty much acknowledged in theory that humans and bonobos probably could.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

Madman said:


> All that means is that the RC Church views it as acceptable not as fact, "science" has yet to call it fact.
> 
> If you want to know what the RC Church's teaching is on most topics I believe you will need to research the magisterium on the topic not a school teacher.


Yeah the teachers in a Roman Catholic school are allowed to teach whatever they want with no direction from the Diocese. The Diocese doesn't get their direction from Rome. None of them are connected in any way.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> The pope’s views on climate change and capitalism carry no more weight than Joe Blow’s.  It’s beyond his “purview”.
> 
> Homosexuality is a different matter.  Regardless of Francis’ views on the subject, he can’t reverse 2,000 years of church teaching on the subject.


I think you are down playing that a bit too far.
While this Pope may be a bit controversial, there are many Catholics who revere the position of Pope and at least listen to the words regardless of who it is.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> If you can look at a bonobo chimpanzee, watch it for awhile, and tell me with a straight face that we aren't related to them, then I don't know what to tell you.


The similarities are pretty dang amazing arent they?
Believe or dont believe whatever you want but there is more than just "coincidence" there.


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> A scientic theory isn't a wild guess.


You are correct it is an educated wild guess.  BTW I don't see where BB counters Scripture and there are several more modern theories that the BB is incorrect.


bullethead said:


> Yeah the teachers in a Roman Catholic school are allowed to teach whatever they want with no direction from the Diocese. The Diocese doesn't get their direction from Rome. None of them are connected in any way.



The pope doesn't run as "tight a ship" as you might think.  These are secular topics in which much leeway is allowed.

Perhaps you should read what the magisterium says about evolution.


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> The similarities are pretty dang amazing arent they?
> Believe or dont believe whatever you want but there is more than just "coincidence" there.


Sure is a lot of similarities 98.7% "shared DNA".  Of course pigs share 98%.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> I’d like to take this time to formally apologize to all you beta males for stealing your girlfriends over the years.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2022)

Madman said:


> Sure is a lot of similarities 98.7% "shared DNA".  Of course pigs share 98%.


At least points in the direction of we are animals just like the rest of the animals and not some one off "special" creations?


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> At least points in the direction of we are animals just like the rest of the animals and not some one off "special" creations?


Maybe, or maybe it points to a common designer.

Porsche and Volkswagen


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> At least points in the direction of we are animals just like the rest of the animals and not some one off "special" creations?


I don't believe the Church claims humans are not animals.  If one would dig into the 1.3% difference one would find that it an astronomical difference.

One cannot only look at the surface DNA difference one would have to look at the inner DNA structure and difference and how those differences cause the animal "be" extremely different.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2022)

Madman said:


> Maybe, or maybe it points to a common designer.
> 
> Porsche and Volkswagen


Thats possible too.
Although Porches and Volkswagens are both still automobiles with different attributes but trace back to a common ancestor.


----------



## WaltL1 (Jun 23, 2022)

Madman said:


> I don't believe the Church claims humans are not animals.  If one would dig into the 1.3% difference one would find that it an astronomical difference.
> 
> One cannot only look at the surface DNA difference one would have to look at the inner DNA structure and difference and how those differences cause the animal "be" extremely different.


If God actually did create me, I feel kind of cheated that he may have used "common" parts. Human Legos come to mind


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> It's pretty much acknowledged in theory that humans and bonobos probably could.


Yea I’ve seen the “suggestion” that they “probably” did for a long period of time. Unlike the Labradoodle, I’m sure the human / bonobos cross breed went extinct.

I’m sorry lol, I’ve been to some crazy family reunions but they all either went home or to jail - I don’t remember any of them having to say “gotta come back at 9am when the park opens”.


Reckon when humans became human enough to have more rights over its branch kin chimp cousins?

Do the math -3000bc world population 4 million. 1000BC world populating of 50 million. 2022 world population over 7 billion. Estimated to be 9.8 billion in year 2050.

I’m only guess that 20,000 years ago there were very very few humans. Yet science fools you into thinking 100’s of thousands of years ago we were here. If we were no wonder we lived 900 years like the Bible says. Somebody had to stay alive a long long time to have humans way back then.

I mean it’s like we just figured out this breeding thing with humans less than 50,000 years ago.,


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Yea I’ve seen the “suggestion” that they “probably” did for a long period of time. Unlike the Labradoodle, I’m sure the human / bonobos cross breed went extinct.
> 
> I’m sorry lol, I’ve been to some crazy family reunions but they all either went home or to jail - I don’t remember any of them having to say “gotta come back at 9am when the park opens”.
> 
> ...


Can you explain how science fools us into thinking humans were around longer?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Can you explain how science fools us into thinking humans were around longer?


How old do you say we humans are and what’s that based on?


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Yea I’ve seen the “suggestion” that they “probably” did for a long period of time. Unlike the Labradoodle, I’m sure the human / bonobos cross breed went extinct.
> 
> I’m sorry lol, I’ve been to some crazy family reunions but they all either went home or to jail - I don’t remember any of them having to say “gotta come back at 9am when the park opens”.
> 
> ...


Humans have been here a long, long time. The fossil evidence is there, it's not speculation. The population of humans didn't explode until the advent of large-scale agriculture and communal societies. If you prefer to close your eyes and believe in one book instead of what you can see with your eyes and can be proven, then that's your prerogative.


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> Humans have been here a long, long time. The fossil evidence is there, it's not speculation. The population of humans didn't explode until the advent of large-scale agriculture and communal societies. If you prefer to close your eyes and believe in one book instead of what you can see with your eyes and can be proven, then that's your prerogative.


NCH that's an ad hominem attack that doesn't address the point.  You make the statement "Humans have been here a long, long time. The fossil evidence is there, it's not speculation."  I agree humans have been here a long time, and based on the evidence how long has that been?



NCHillbilly said:


> The population of humans didn't explode until the advent of large-scale agriculture and communal societies.


This is most likely based on speculation but it could be correct.



NCHillbilly said:


> If you prefer to close your eyes and believe in one book instead of what you can see with your eyes and can be proven, then that's your prerogative.



I would be interested in this point about believing what you see with your eyes and how this perfect fossil record and societal evolution can be proven. 

I seriously doubt anyone believes just what they have learned from one book.

Maybe you were speaking in hyperbole.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

Madman said:


> I'm not Roman so it  doesn't matter what I think about the pope.  The Pope may be "HMIC" of Rome but he is not "HMIC" of the Catholic Church.



Ummm, okay. So who *is* the HMIC of the Catholic church?


----------



## Madman (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Ummm, okay. So who *is* the HMIC of the Catholic church?


Christ


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I’m not searching for answers. I’m only stating my opinion.
> 
> As I previously mentioned - sharing the same or similar DNA doesn’t mean you’re branch kin. You should be able to inbreed and reproduce if you’re “related”.



No, you can only reproduce if you are the exact same species. If you are close on the branch you can sometimes interbreed, but not reproduce. Your offspring will be sterile.

It might be easier & more accurate to consider genes (a short section of DNA) rather than DNA as it relates to evolution and reproduction. Branch kin have "similar" genetics but cannot interbreed because they are a separate species. In other words once an isolated population group of species X has undergone enough gradual significant genetic adaptations to changes in it's environment to be considered a separate species, it cannot reproduce with species Z. 

*HOWEVER if species X is genetically very close to species Y it may produce a sterile* *(non reproducing) hybrid.* That's why a musky (species X) and a northern pike (species Z) can produce a tiger musky (a sterile hybrid, species Y). Some of the musky genes are compatible with some of the pike genes in the tiger musky, but some of the genes & chromosomes related to reproduction are missing or incompatible in the new hybrid tiger musky species. 

*ALSO a musky (or a pike) cannot reproduce at all with a trout* (species R) even to produce a sterile hybrid, because their genes are not at all close enough. 

*NOTE *species X,Y, Z and R are all freshwater fish, thus they all share a common ancestor but it's way, way back on the evolutionary tree. X, Y, and Z are on the same branch, but R is on a completely different branch. The genes have too many differences.

Another example is many different species of oak trees can hybridize. Many species of poplar trees can hybridize. But you cannot hybridize an oak tree and a poplar tree because their common ancestor is way, way back and their genes aren't similar enough. 

Now that the "human genome" is completely mapped we can compare which of our 99 percent or whatever of our genes is similar or different than chimps.

So how do we get new species in the first place? One way is some members of a species population are geographically isolated from the rest of the species group. Over many generations, different genes are expressed (emphasized) to adapt to different environmental conditions in the two isolated populations, and a completely new, separate species originates. If you have a complete gene map of both species, you can which genes control those differences. How cool is that?

In Arizona there are two groups of squirrels. The ones on the south side of the Grand Canyon are Abert Squirrels, and the ones on the north side are Kaibab squirrels. They are two separate species only because of being geographically isolated. 

Grand Canyon marks the Birthplace of Squirrel Speciation | Scienece Rules (wordpress.com)


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

Madman said:


> Christ



So if the Catholic church gets sued in court, Jesus has to hire a lawyer? Please explain how Jesus being in charge works, because I don't get it.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> How old do you say we humans are and what’s that based on?


I am ok following the most accurate data at the time.
You didn't answer my question though.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 23, 2022)

Madman said:


> NCH that's an ad hominem attack that doesn't address the point.  You make the statement "Humans have been here a long, long time. The fossil evidence is there, it's not speculation."  I agree humans have been here a long time, and based on the evidence how long has that been?
> 
> 
> This is most likely based on speculation but it could be correct.
> ...


No, I am speaking of folks who base their whole life and base of knowledge on a book written in the Bronze Age, and think it holds all the answers and all the knowledge you need to go through life. Believing ancient Hebrew folk tales over science and arguing vigorously to defend tales of talking snakes and a 600 year old man who collected every species of animal on earth and stuck them in a boat, then thinking anyone who doesn't believe in them is ignorant seems much more like hyperbole to me.


----------



## brutally honest (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> "no one" defends it yet the Catholic church itself *enables it* by stonewalling legal/law enforcement investigations. It's the ultimate "above the law" situation.



I don't know how you can say they're "above the law" when priests have been charged.  Here's just one article:

Dozens of Northern CA Priests Facing Child Sex Abuse Claims for the First Time – NBC Bay Area 

Yes, the church dragged its feet and/or hid the problems but not without consequences:

The Catholic Church Has Paid Nearly $4 Billion Over Sexual Abuse Claims, Group says (newsweek.com)


----------



## brutally honest (Jun 23, 2022)

WaltL1 said:


> I think you are down playing that a bit too far.
> While this Pope may be a bit controversial, there are many Catholics who revere the position of Pope and at least listen to the words regardless of who it is.



No doubt they listen and may give more weight to his opinions, but economic theory and climate change are not his areas of expertise.  You won't be excommunicated for disagreeing with him in matters like these.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> How old do you say we humans are and what’s that based on?


Simple answer about determining age of non living things.
https://www.sciencelearn.org.nz/resources/1486-absolute-dating

More complex answers including human aging 
https://humanorigins.si.edu/evidence/dating


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> No, I am speaking of folks who base their whole life and base of knowledge on a book written in the Bronze Age, and think it holds all the answers and all the knowledge you need to go through life. Believing ancient Hebrew folk tales over science and arguing vigorously to defend tales of talking snakes and a 600 year old man who collected every species of animal on earth and stuck them in a boat, then thinking anyone who doesn't believe in them is ignorant seems much more like hyperbole to me.


Ponder this:
2 King Penguins had to swim THOUSANDS of miles to reach the Ark. It would have taken years. They wouldn't need an Ark!


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> Humans have been here a long, long time. The fossil evidence is there, it's not speculation. The population of humans didn't explode until the advent of large-scale agriculture and communal societies. If you prefer to close your eyes and believe in one book instead of what you can see with your eyes and can be proven, then that's your prerogative.


The point is - “Do the math -3000bc world population 4 million. 1000BC world populating of 50 million. 2022 world population over 7 billion. Estimated to be 9.8 billion in year 2050.”


Take that reproduction rate and take us a few hundred thousands years back. I mean at 10,000 bc there was only like a million folks. Seems about every 1000 bc years you go a million or so less folks. At what point do run out of humans before you get to your few hundred thousand years old human? Unless they did live a 1000 years? I ain’t talking about primates, monkeys, chimps, etc., I’m talking human population only. It’s not mathematically possible at that reproduction rate to have human remains a million years old. 

I didn’t get any of that from one book and none of it from the Bible so……..that should address that diversion tactic.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> The point is - “Do the math -3000bc world population 4 million. 1000BC world populating of 50 million. 2022 world population over 7 billion. Estimated to be 9.8 billion in year 2050.”
> 
> 
> Take that reproduction rate and take us a few hundred thousands years back. I mean at 10,000 bc there was only like a million folks. Seems about every 1000 bc years you go a million or so less folks. At what point do run out of humans before you get to your few hundred thousand years old human? Unless they did live a 1000 years? I ain’t talking about primates, monkeys, chimps, etc., I’m talking human population only. It’s not mathematically possible at that reproduction rate to have human remains a million years old.
> ...


Look at human societies that aren't urban and agriculture-based. In a hundred square miles of Amazon jungle, you have a handful of nomadic hunter-gatherers. In NYC, you have millions in much less space. Human reproduction is not constant. It changed with changes in lifestyle and society.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Ponder this:
> 2 King Penguins had to swim THOUSANDS of miles to reach the Ark. It would have taken years. They wouldn't need an Ark!


How about those southern Appalachian endimic black-chinned red salamanders?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I am ok following the most accurate data at the time.
> You didn't answer my question though.


Your answer would have answered it for me. Your data will be based on science. Which seems to conflict the below mathematically. 


“Do the math -3000bc world population 4 million. 1000BC world populating of 50 million. 2022 world population over 7 billion. Estimated to be 9.8 billion in year 2050.”

Now get us to at least 400,000 years back with humans.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I am ok following the most accurate data at the time.
> You didn't answer my question though.



Recent findings indicate anatomically modern humans being 300,000 years old.
Then again, some scientists say 100,000. Either way it's quite a while!


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> Look at human societies that aren't urban and agriculture-based. In a hundred square miles of Amazon jungle, you have a handful of nomadic hunter-gatherers. In NYC, you have millions in much less space. Human reproduction is not constant. It changed with changes in lifestyle and society.


Ok I can understand that concept.

So 1 million in 10,000bc, 4 million in 3000bc, 50 million in 1000BC……..take us back 400,000 years.

One thing that human reproduction is consistent with is 9 months, living an average 75 to 100 years. I have a hard time believing that a few hundred thousand years went by with just a handful of nomadic hunter gatherers.


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Ok I can understand that concept.
> 
> So 1 million in 10,000bc, 4 million in 3000bc, 50 million in 1000BC……..take us back 400,000 years.
> 
> One thing that human reproduction is consistent with is 9 months, living an average 75 to 100 years. I have a hard time believing that a few hundred thousand years went by with just a handful of nomadic hunter gatherers.


I don't find that hard to believe at all. It's repeated on every continent. People have been in North America for around 20,000 years. For most of that time, it was a sparse population of nomadic hunter-gatherers. Then, they started practicing agriculture and communal societies. The population absolutely exploded to several million people in a matter of less than a thousand years.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

brutally honest said:


> I don't know how you can say they're "above the law" when priests have been charged.  Here's just one article:
> 
> Dozens of Northern CA Priests Facing Child Sex Abuse Claims for the First Time – NBC Bay Area
> 
> ...



I stand corrected! It's about time some type of justice was served. Basically the Catholic church threw money at the problem, but how many priests (or their enablers) are spending the rest of their lives behind bars?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Recent findings indicate anatomically modern humans being 300,000 years old.
> Then again, some scientists say 100,000. Either way it's quite a while!


And these same folks say the sun has been here 4.6 billion years abs earth has been here 4.5 billion years also says there was an ice age. There’s no data indicating that sun stopped putting off heat. 

The claim is this - “An ice age is triggered when summer temperatures in the northern hemisphere fail to rise above freezing for years. This means that winter snowfall doesn't melt, but instead builds up, compresses and over time starts to compact, or glaciate, into ice sheets”


Most folks that believe that also laugh at the liberal left about the climate change hoax.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> I don't find that hard to believe at all. It's repeated on every continent. People have been in North America for around 20,000 years. For most of that time, it was a sparse population of nomadic hunter-gatherers. Then, they started practicing agriculture and communal societies. The population absolutely exploded to several million people in a matter of less than a thousand years.


Definitely much harder to populate when groups are small and on the menu.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> I don't find that hard to believe at all. It's repeated on every continent. People have been in North America for around 20,000 years. For most of that time, it was a sparse population of nomadic hunter-gatherers. Then, they started practicing agriculture and communal societies. The population absolutely exploded to several million people in a matter of less than a thousand years.


I’m perfectly fine with 20,000 years. I’m good with a 100,000. I have trouble with 400,000 or more, though. And your statement of a sparse population is why. I find it statistically impossible to be sparse for a couple hundred thousand years. A family of 5 is extinct in 150 years without reproduction.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> And these same folks say the sun has been here 4.6 billion years abs earth has been here 4.5 billion years also says there was an ice age. There’s no data indicating that sun stopped putting off heat.
> 
> The claim is this - “An ice age is triggered when summer temperatures in the northern hemisphere fail to rise above freezing for years. This means that winter snowfall doesn't melt, but instead builds up, compresses and over time starts to compact, or glaciate, into ice sheets”
> 
> ...


I know you are brilliant in some areas but this isn't your strong realm.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> And these same folks say the sun has been here 4.6 billion years abs earth has been here 4.5 billion years also says there was an ice age. There’s no data indicating that sun stopped putting off heat.
> 
> The claim is this - “An ice age is triggered when summer temperatures in the northern hemisphere fail to rise above freezing for years. This means that winter snowfall doesn't melt, but instead builds up, compresses and over time starts to compact, or glaciate, into ice sheets”
> 
> ...


https://www.livescience.com/what-causes-ice-ages.html


----------



## NCHillbilly (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I’m perfectly fine with 20,000 years. I’m good with a 100,000. I have trouble with 400,000 or more, though. And your statement of a sparse population is why. I find it statistically impossible to be sparse for a couple hundred thousand years. A family of 5 is extinct in 150 years without reproduction.


That's your world that includes talking snakes, not the real world.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

“Do the math -3000bc world population 4 million. 1000BC world populating of 50 million. 2022 world population over 7 billion. Estimated to be 9.8 billion in year 2050.” 
spot lite

Please allow me to inject some Bible logic into the first part of your listing if I may:

4000 bc world population 2
3000 bc world population 4 million
2900 bc world population 8
1000 bc world population 50 million


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scie...forward-behavior-weapons-and-tools-180976101/


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

https://www.npr.org/sections/krulwi...ings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

NCHillbilly said:


> That's your world that includes talking snakes, not the real world.


I asked you to give me a real world answer based on your real world data.

If you can’t then ok. But resorting to attacking my spiritual beliefs is nothing but a diversion to not answer the question, especially when my question has had nothing to do with religion.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> https://www.livescience.com/what-causes-ice-ages.html



“Like all the others, the most recent ice age brought a series of glacial advances and retreats. In fact, *we are technically still in an ice age*. We're just living out our lives during an interglacial.Feb 18, 2021”

And the contradiction of global warming by the same folks. 


Just saying - which one?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I know you are brilliant in some areas but this isn't your strong realm.


Matter of opinion. I’m just pointing out the obvious. I make no claim to what is fact or not. Just questions. When did the sun stop doing its job?  You really believe that somewhere on this planet we had years of summer tempts below freezing?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> “Do the math -3000bc world population 4 million. 1000BC world populating of 50 million. 2022 world population over 7 billion. Estimated to be 9.8 billion in year 2050.”
> spot lite
> 
> Please allow me to inject some Bible logic into the first part of your listing if I may:
> ...


At least there’s an answer,


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Ok I can understand that concept.
> 
> So 1 million in 10,000bc, 4 million in 3000bc, 50 million in 1000BC……..take us back 400,000 years.
> 
> One thing that human reproduction is consistent with is 9 months, living an average 75 to 100 years. I have a hard time believing that a few hundred thousand years went by with just a handful of nomadic hunter gatherers.



  400,000 years ago the average life expectancy was probably less than 30 years.
 Hunter/gatherers had a very violent lifestyle, plus large predators would have made meals out of many humans, because megafauna was around until 10,000 years ago. And the infant mortality rate would be through the roof! Also before large scale agriculture (10,000 years or so ago) the land could only sustain a small number of hunter/gatherer humans per square mile. It makes perfect sense that 400,000 years ago (or even 50,000 years ago) the world couldn't support too many people.

The thing is the Bible starts the world off with agriculture already established and thus civilization immediately after! Matter-of-fact in the Cain & Abel story Cain got banished and had to wander and he built a city. Wow, there were enough people to populate a city only one generation after the first humans appeared! Side note with only Adam & Eve as humans the only way the population could grow was through incest - either from Adam & Eve's kids mating with their siblings or with Adam & Eve. 
Then again the Old Testament is chock-full of incest throughout, so I guess it's not a big deal. WARNING don't try this at home, kids!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> https://www.livescience.com/what-causes-ice-ages.html



I used to work with a guy who didn't believe in ice ages either. I didn't argue with him over it, because nothing would have gotten through his filters.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Matter of opinion. I’m just pointing out the obvious. I make no claim to what is fact or not. Just questions. When did the sun stop doing its job?  You really believe that somewhere on this planet we had years of summer tempts below freezing?



The ice age has nothing to do with the sun not doing it's job. Please read bullet head's link with an open mind.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

"I’m perfectly fine with 20,000 years. I’m good with a 100,000. I have trouble with 400,000 or more, though. And your statement of a sparse population is why. I find it statistically impossible to be sparse for a couple hundred thousand years. A family of 5 is extinct in 150 years without reproduction." - spot lite

  Yet a family of 8 _isn't _extinct *with every living thing *(including vegetation that can't survive being flooded underwater for months at a time) killed? I find that statistically impossible. 

God: I've got some good news, and some bad news! The good news is I got rid of all the evil in the world! The bad news is I got rid of the world.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> 400,000 years ago the average life expectancy was probably less than 30 years.
> Hunter/gatherers had a very violent lifestyle, plus large predators would have made meals out of many humans, because megafauna was around until 10,000 years ago. And the infant mortality rate would be through the roof! Also before large scale agriculture (10,000 years or so ago) the land could only sustain a small number of hunter/gatherer humans per square mile. It makes perfect sense that 400,000 years ago (or even 50,000 years ago) the world couldn't support too many people.
> 
> The thing is the Bible starts the world off with agriculture already established and thus civilization immediately after! Matter-of-fact in the Cain & Abel story Cain got banished and had to wander and he built a city. Wow, there were enough people to populate a city only one generation after the first humans appeared! Side note with only Adam & Eve as humans the only way the population could grow was through incest - either from Adam & Eve's kids mating with their siblings or with Adam & Eve.
> Then again the Old Testament is chock-full of incest throughout, so I guess it's not a big deal. WARNING don't try this at home, kids!





oldfella1962 said:


> 400,000 years ago the average life expectancy was probably less than 30 years……. large predators would have made meals out of many humans, because megafauna was around until 10,000 years ago. And the infant mortality rate would be through the roof!



Now you’re get what I’m saying. Statistics can’t support thousands of years of short life spans coupled with the other without extinction.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> The ice age has nothing to do with the sun not doing it's job. Please read bullet head's link with an open mind.


Have you been outside this week? It’s over 100 here except at night when the sun is in China. I’ve read it before bullet posted it.

I’m only asking if you really believe that summers stayed below freezing for years? There’s more information out there on ice age besides that one link.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Matter of opinion. I’m just pointing out the obvious. I make no claim to what is fact or not. Just questions. When did the sun stop doing its job?  You really believe that somewhere on this planet we had years of summer tempts below freezing?


The one article explains more in depth about axis tilt and distance differences in the planets orbit around the Sun.

And yes, I believe that there were summer temps below freezing in places on this planet.
The rock fields and formations from the Ice pushing them in places here in Pennsylvania are incredible. The evidence is all around me near where I live.
https://www.dcnr.pa.gov/Geology/GeologyOfPA/GlacialGeology/Pages/default.aspx

https://uncoveringpa.com/boulder-field-hickory-run-state-park


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Have you been outside this week? It’s over 100 here except at night when the sun is in China. I’ve read it before bullet posted it.
> 
> I’m only asking if you really believe that summers stayed below freezing for years? There’s more information out there on ice age besides that one link.



Exactly! So read some more links if you need to. It's a fascinating part of Earth's history. You do know that the ice ages only affected certain areas, right? It wasn't world-wide, and humans didn't have large permanent cities before agriculture. My point is humans were probably less impacted by ice-ages 50,000 years ago than they would be today.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

bullethead said:


> The one article explains more in depth about axis tilt and distance differences in the planets orbit around the Sun.
> 
> And yes, I believe that there were summer temps below freezing in places on this planet.
> The rock fields and formations from the Ice pushing them in places here in Pennsylvania are incredible. The evidence is all around me near where I live.
> ...


I’ll have to believe you for your area in the summer. But not here, it’s over 100 down here in GA. Fish are sweating right now. 

But what you’re experiencing is it large enough to be considered large scale?
I’m thinking Florida. 

https://www.moas.org/Ice-Age-Extinctions--What-Happened--1-5943.html


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 23, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Exactly! So read some more links if you need to. It's a fascinating part of Earth's history. You do know that the ice ages only affected certain areas, right? It wasn't world-wide, and humans didn't have large permanent cities before agriculture. My point is humans were probably less impacted by ice-ages 50,000 years ago than they would be today.



It’s gotta be pretty big on a scale for certain animals to become extinct is all I’m saying.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

400,000 years ago the average life expectancy was probably less than 30 years……. large predators would have made meals out of many humans, because megafauna was around until 10,000 years ago. And the infant mortality rate would be through the roof!
Now you’re get what I’m saying. Statistics can’t support thousands of years of short life spans coupled with the other without extinction. 

Short life spans and high infant mortality would result in low populations, but cranking out kids like rabbits and the biggest brains on the planet developing new tools & strategies to survive kept us humans from going extinct. 

But as I pointed out, until large scale agriculture became widespread, the land could only support X amount of humans anyway. So things worked out okay for the human species so far.

HOWEVER humans came pretty close to extinction about 70,000 years ago! And this is just one instance, no doubt there could have been other close calls. Nothing like a world population of 8 people in one boat, though. 

https://www.livescience.com/62754-warring-clans-caused-population-bottleneck.html


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 23, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> It’s gotta be pretty big on a scale for certain animals to become extinct is all I’m saying.



The Earth has had several large-scale extinction events. Life has been on Earth for millions, possibly a couple of billion years. You hang around that long, bad luck is bound to hit you. The next one might take out humans! 99 percent of all species that ever lived are extinct now - that's a fact. 

According to the Bible God himself almost caused our extinction, so no matter how you slice it our time is coming.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> The Earth has had several large-scale extinction events. Life has been on Earth for millions, possibly a couple of billion years. You hang around that long, bad luck is bound to hit you. The next one might take out humans! 99 percent of all species that ever lived are extinct now - that's a fact.
> 
> According to the Bible God himself almost caused our extinction, so no matter how you slice it our time is coming.



So my only point of all this rambling is how much blind faith one puts into science. Let’s face it, the flood sounds as wild as freezing summers. The only difference is science tells you what they say is fact or evidence and unless you’ve actually put the test to test yourself……..of course gravity is an easy one, throw a rock in the air and watch it fall.

I mean how many folks do you know that might know someone that has seen a frozen summer?? Unless you’re a scientist most of their language has to be looked up and they tell you this means thus and that means that abs without seeing any of it in motion…….you just believe it’s true. 


Sone here think their distance cousin is chimp because science told them so.

Posting links isn’t proof of anything except finding a link that agrees with your thinking. The research in that link belongs to someone else - you’re just trusting it’s true.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I’ll have to believe you for your area in the summer. But not here, it’s over 100 down here in GA. Fish are sweating right now.
> 
> But what you’re experiencing is it large enough to be considered large scale?
> I’m thinking Florida.
> ...


My area was near the southern most edge of the glaciers. It was not Worldwide or Continent-wide.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> So my only point of all this rambling is how much blind faith one puts into science. Let’s face it, the flood sounds as wild as freezing summers. The only difference is science tells you what they say is fact or evidence and unless you’ve actually put the test to test yourself……..of course gravity is an easy one, throw a rock in the air and watch it fall.
> 
> I mean how many folks do you know that might know someone that has seen a frozen summer?? Unless you’re a scientist most of their language has to be looked up and they tell you this means thus and that means that abs without seeing any of it in motion…….you just believe it’s true.
> 
> ...


Science tells you what they have found, tested, re-tested, confirmed, reviewed and agreed upon.
The Bible tells you what bronze age men imagined, hoped, guessed and knew the best they could at that time.

You don't have to believe links, science or freezing summers despite the evidence. But that doesn't discredit them.
* edited for atrocious late night spelling


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I used to work with a guy who didn't believe in ice ages either. I didn't argue with him over it, because nothing would have gotten through his filters.


I can see where it would be difficult to imagine for someone who lives in a consistently warm environment where glaciers never touched and there is no evidence to see but for that criteria to be the person's evidence as a trump card to the tons of scientific explanations and actual evidence where glaciers once were is comical. Especially since many of those same Ice Age deniers believe in things which are written about by bronze age men who literally have absolutely no testable and passable explanations to their claims and provide outlandish excuses when those claims fail to stand up to scrutiny.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

Spot lite I really can't understand how you think I demonstrate putting my "blind faith"
in science. Maybe you aren't aware of this, but when new discoveries or ideas are presented to the world by a scientist, other scientists ruthlessly pounce on his new ideas like a pack of hyenas on a wounded zebra. The whole point of quality science is to disprove scientific claims, because scientists want the most accurate version of "the truth" they can get. 

Yes, I guess I do have faith in what science tells me because the claims are thoroughly tested (when possible) by a variety of other often hostile scientists and explained to the general public _at different levels_ so non-educated people like myself can understand them.

Sorry, but the world is more complicated than just throwing a rock in the air to prove gravity exists. And evolution - for example - seems _very _intuitive to me. I don't need scientists to explain the evolution that I see unfolding every day all around us. Simple things always get more complicated in every arena as far as I can see, so why shouldn't living things? I know you believe that other stars & planets exist, and for arguments sake let's assume that 99.9 percent of them don't have life, because the environmental conditions aren't compatible with life as we know it. Earth didn't have life at first, because the conditions were too harsh, just like all the other 99.9 percent of planets.
Eventually Earth's conditions changed enough to allow simple life. Life by definition has to have the ability to adapt (by slight changes in each generation) because life's environment changes. The entire universe is constantly in motion and changing at every level to include Earth of course. If a species can't adapt fast enough to a changing environment it dies out. But guess what? Life itself goes on. I will die (I can see other people die with my own eyes so I don't take that on faith) but I have made hopefully improved copies of myself and my wife when I had kids, so life itself goes on.

So other than gravity there's another "scientific fact" I can see and test out for myself - all living things die. Stories about never dying (which have been told and written long, long before the Bible was written) don't add up to what my own common sense & experiences tells me. Accepting any one person experiencing eternal life IMHO would take blind faith.

Also God creating all species of life FULLY FORMED IN IT'S MOST ADVANCED VERSION seems ridiculous to me. The first version of anything complex is never the best version. *A God snapping his fingers and creating two anatomically modern humans is like a Ferarri rolling off the assembly line of Henry Ford's first automobile factory. *


----------



## 660griz (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> So my only point of all this rambling is how much blind faith one puts into science.



Blind faith? But, you can see it.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> So my only point of all this rambling is how much blind faith one puts into science. Let’s face it, the flood sounds as wild as freezing summers. The only difference is science tells you what they say is fact or evidence and unless you’ve actually put the test to test yourself……..of course gravity is an easy one, throw a rock in the air and watch it fall.
> 
> I mean how many folks do you know that might know someone that has seen a frozen summer?? Unless you’re a scientist most of their language has to be looked up and they tell you this means thus and that means that abs without seeing any of it in motion…….you just believe it’s true.
> 
> ...


With all due respect I think that you are out of your usual reasonable demeanor in this argument you are presenting here.
You literally use "research that belongs to someone else" to get you through everyday life if not to live every single day. You are using technology that (correct me if I am wrong) you and certainly I do not understand,  cannot explain or cannot replicate to send a series of "1s and 0's" that somehow end up looking like text and pictures up into space, bounce off a satellite and appear on someone's phone screen or computer screen a huge distance away in less than a second.
Somebody did that homework, it is verifiable and it is accurate.
There are examples like that that you/we use every single day without question. When traveling great distances on your camel do you still use the North Star for guidance or do you occasionally take the vehicle that has more computer power in it than NASA used to put men on the moon and trust the guidance of Global Positioning Satellites to have a voice tell you through a talking screen where to go? Maybe you make and understand, heck even invent micro chips that can store 50,000 songs or contain programming that operates machinery. I do not, but I do trust the research of others. I know that you do use them unless you have altered the directions for the cure for leprosy as instructed in the Bible and it has been the recipe to accomplish similar micro chip tasks.
The areas of scientific dating, archeology, geology.and a thousand other areas are no different. They use methods and ways that I cannot begin to comprehend despite my best efforts to research what I am being told. Based off of what I depend on daily from science in other areas I take these different sections of science as just as accurate and reliable.
The cherry picking  you are doing is over and above in this thread. I truly understand that you are making points to defend your beliefs and religion because both mean so much to you but using Bronze Age writings that go against what is known and affirmed in modern scientific methods and trying to make the case that modern science is an inaccurate lie while depending upon that same science to exist daily is not a good stance to take.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Science tells you what they have found, tested, re-tested, confirmed, reviewed and agreed upon.
> The Bible tells you what bronze age men imagined, hoped, guessed and knew the best they could at that time.
> 
> You don't have to believe links, science or freezing summers despite the evidence. But that doesn't discredit them.
> * edited for atrocious late night spelling


-


> scientific explanations and actual evidence where glaciers once were is comical. Especially since many of those same Ice Age deniers believe in things which are written about by bronze age men who literally have absolutely no testable and passable explanations to their claims and provide outlandish excuses when those claims fail to stand up to scrutiny.



I think what I am saying..............................we place a lot of blind faith in science. None of us were there during their "testable" experiments. We take their reports that they say are accurate and believe them because they say they are true. And I am not knocking them, and I am not saying there was no ice age........just pointing out the blind faith we have in them. And yes, some of their work sounds outlandish - freezing summers, not a day, and years of it.

As mentioned many times before most Christians don`t just believe "things which are written about by bronze age men who literally have absolutely no testable and passable explanations to their claims and provide outlandish excuses when those claims fail to stand up to scrutiny"...........we don`t need science to try to figure how a summer froze over for years, or how a flood such as the one described in the Bible happened...................... we acknowledge it all sounds "outlandish"..........we acknowledge that science has it`s limits...........we are not concerned nor hung up in those areas.......we realize there are things that science cannot explain........taking all of that into consideration - we don`t really care if something outlandish can or cannot be explained by science, we do not have to have them to explain something "outlandish" to us. If we have to put faith in one of them - we will put the faith in God.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I can see where it would be difficult to imagine for someone who lives in a consistently warm environment where glaciers never touched and there is no evidence to see but for that criteria to be the person's evidence as a trump card to the tons of scientific explanations and actual evidence where glaciers once were is comical. Especially since many of those same Ice Age deniers believe in things which are written about by bronze age men who literally have absolutely no testable and passable explanations to their claims and provide outlandish excuses when those claims fail to stand up to scrutiny.



The guy who didn't believe in ice ages wasn't from the South, he was from the Midwest, but still didn't believe in ice ages. He did believe in glaciers since he can see the tops of tall mountains are always snow-capped - he believed that.

I think I may have tried to show him google maps "image" mode/satellite photos of places where it's obvious (it pops right out at you) that large scale scouring of the soil & vegetation had occurred relatively recently in predictable patterns and locations that would strongly indicate ice ages unrelated to elevation concerns, but I can't remember for sure. But once somebody has that "young earth" mentality their filters never budge an inch.

I honestly admire their tenacity to hang onto the young earth worldview in the relentless onslaught of evidence against it. But it's true, people see what they want to see.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> -
> 
> 
> I think what I am saying..............................we place a lot of blind faith in science. None of us were there during their "testable" experiments. We take their reports that they say are accurate and believe them because they say they are true. And I am not knocking them, and I am not saying there was no ice age........just pointing out the blind faith we have in them. And yes, some of their work sounds outlandish - freezing summers, not a day, and years of it.
> ...


Freezing summers in conditions that you live in do seem outlandish. Every few years orange crops freeze off because it gets below 32deg in Florida for 3 days. No worries big whoop its 78deg again on day four so therefore no way can glaciers have formed elsewhere.....until (which takes about 20,000 years) the orbit of the earth around the sun is at its maximum distance and the axis of the earth tilts an ever so slight degree that causes dramatic changes in temperatures,  weather and the environment that last for thousands of years until that orbit and tilt come back into a pattern where it is more suitable for warmer conditions.

We cannot possibly understand everything but it is certainly wise to accept the best answers from the most modern testing methods rather than disregard them in favor of saying an invisible guy in the sky did it.
It is not a knock or shot at anyone or their religion if you take a step back and look at it objectively.
The scientific methods far outweigh the other option in every category.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> -
> 
> 
> I think what I am saying..............................we place a lot of blind faith in science. None of us were there during their "testable" experiments. We take their reports that they say are accurate and believe them because they say they are true. And I am not knocking them, and I am not saying there was no ice age........just pointing out the blind faith we have in them. And yes, some of their work sounds outlandish - freezing summers, not a day, and years of it.
> ...



This is great example of why IMHO faith & science will never be fully compatible. 
They are oil & water!  Believers don't want to take scientific testing as gospel, and non-believers don't want to take the gospel as scientifically sound. 

IMHO it boils down to what I consider "common sense" as defined under my own personal beliefs: which is _more likely_ to be true?  That bronze age uneducated * humans "got it right" or science "got it right?" 

* by "uneducated" I DO NOT mean stupid! Bronze age people just didn't have the advantage of an entire interconnected planet full of readily accessible & shared knowledge. If God had the year 2022 knowledge, he certainly didn't share it with the writers of the Bible, or any other human.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> With all due respect I think that you are out of your usual reasonable demeanor in this argument you are presenting here.
> You literally use "research that belongs to someone else" to get you through everyday life if not to live every single day. You are using technology that (correct me if I am wrong) you and certainly I do not understand,  cannot explain or cannot replicate to send a series of "1s and 0's" that somehow end up looking like text and pictures up into space, bounce off a satellite and appear on someone's phone screen or computer screen a huge distance away in less than a second.
> Somebody did that homework, it is verifiable and it is accurate.
> There are examples like that that you/we use every single day without question. When traveling great distances on your camel do you still use the North Star for guidance or do you occasionally take the vehicle that has more computer power in it than NASA used to put men on the moon and trust the guidance of Global Positioning Satellites to have a voice tell you through a talking screen where to go? Maybe you make and understand, heck even invent micro chips that can store 50,000 songs or contain programming that operates machinery. I do not, but I do trust the research of others. I know that you do use them unless you have altered the directions for the cure for leprosy as instructed in the Bible and it has been the recipe to accomplish similar micro chip tasks.
> ...





> you and certainly I do not understand,  cannot explain or cannot replicate.





> it is accurate.


but.............. it is accurate.


> The cherry picking  you are doing is over and above in this thread. I truly understand that you are making points to defend your beliefs and religion because both mean so much to you but using Bronze Age writings that go against what is known and affirmed in modern scientific methods and trying to make the case that modern science is an inaccurate lie while depending upon that same science to exist daily is not a good stance to take.


No I was not cherry picking by pointing out blind faith. Using GPS isn`t that hard to understand - there is a satellite there I am sending / receiving a signal with.

I am talking about blind faith; as an example only "this is at least 8 million years old"................... because science says and you believe the results are accurate yet you cannot test it, explain it, replicate it, or understand it but...............will use that to say what is "affirmed in modern scientific methods" proves the Bible wrong.

Me - ok I believe it is very old, even older than the what most think we are. I can read, I know there is no timeline given from Genesis 1 to Genesis 3 so I am not struck on the argument that earth can only be about 7000 years old. But with science being a moving target until something else is discovered I am not so naive to think everything we find is automatically "at least a million years old". I am somewhere in the middle of 7000 years and 1 million years.

There was never a need to defend my beliefs until the diversion to attack them came into play (not by you, but there is one that continues to resort to that when he has no positive input into the conversation and it is always the same ole one liner). I never offered a defense for my beliefs and still don`t care to defend it. My point remains the same - there is just as much blind faith in science as there is in God.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Israel said:


> Doesn't this then go to the argument of "general" knowledge of God (if God be true?). If it must be universal as some contend, not needing the telling of man or men...every one (in that sense) would "have it"?
> 
> It would (if that contention is sound) have to be as available and sound to "bronze agers" (and even previous), not limited by time nor geography as apprehend able to one as it is to any other man.
> 
> ...


It screams for the argument that a God should be capable of writing a book that is understandable to each individual no matter of culture,  race, creed, language, interpretation or time


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> This is great example of why IMHO faith & science will never be fully compatible.
> They are oil & water!  Believers don't want to take scientific testing as gospel, and non-believers don't want to take the gospel as scientifically sound.
> 
> IMHO it boils down to what I consider "common sense" as defined under my own personal beliefs: which is _more likely_ to be true?  That bronze age uneducated * humans "got it right" or science "got it right?"
> ...


Actually, believers do use science and believe science. But there is a point we know that science gets off in the weeds trying to explain the unexplainable with "probably happened". But you are right - "Believers don't want to take scientific testing as gospel, and non-believers don't want to take the gospel as scientifically sound"


And there is nothing wrong with that as long as one will be honest with himself and admit that there are some things within both science and religion that you just have to simply believe is right.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> It screams for the argument that a God should be capable of writing a book that is understandable to each individual no matter of culture,  race, creed, language, interpretation or time


Who is it not understandable to? That Book tells you why some don`t understand it - it starts with doubt, the answer is in there. 

I know there are "Christians" arguing over what something means - dig in it a little and you will find that somewhere there is someone doubting.............."you don`t really have to do that" and it is usually because it is something they don`t agree with that might cause them to change the way they are living.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Freezing summers in conditions that you live in do seem outlandish. Every few years orange crops freeze off because it gets below 32deg in Florida for 3 days. No worries big whoop its 78deg again on day four so therefore no way can glaciers have formed elsewhere.....until (which takes about 20,000 years) the orbit of the earth around the sun is at its maximum distance and the axis of the earth tilts an ever so slight degree that causes dramatic changes in temperatures,  weather and the environment that last for thousands of years until that orbit and tilt come back into a pattern where it is more suitable for warmer conditions.
> 
> We cannot possibly understand everything but it is certainly wise to accept the best answers from the most modern testing methods rather than disregard them in favor of saying an invisible guy in the sky did it.
> It is not a knock or shot at anyone or their religion if you take a step back and look at it objectively.
> The scientific methods far outweigh the other option in every category.



I think I see the problem and I'm not picking on spot lite or any believer, but here is a pattern I've noticed: none of the explanations (like the earth's angle of tilt getting slightly nudged over time, then returning to what we deem "normal") will make any sense unless somebody believes that the Earth and the universe are INCREDIBLY OLD!
If you try to cram all the things that have occurred on Earth - and will occur again - into a short time period of course it's hard to swallow. The first step to even wanting to investigate & take seriously the sciences of geology, geography, paleontology, etc. is to accept the fact that the earth is extremely old - maybe unfathomably & counterintuitively old to the human brain - and processes take a long time to play out and no one human will ever see most of these things play out within their individual lifetimes. For example:

I've never seen nor felt continental drift * (plate tectonics) because continents generally move only inches in a decade! I've never seen a new member of the sunfish family evolve, but shellcrackers/long eared sunfish/pumpkinseeds/red breast sunfish genes indicate that their evolution is very likely an ongoing process.
I just can't see God making all these separate but closely related sunfish species during his six day creation period. 

* I have experienced "Continental drift" when my grandpa's Lincoln needed a front end alignment!


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

"And there is nothing wrong with that as long as one will be honest with himself and admit that there are some things within both science and religion that you just have to simply believe is right." - spot lite concerning reconciling science with religion

But here is the main difference between the two: most religions (including Christianity) already had their ideas & claims written and established a long time ago. They cannot bring anything new to the table. God isn't establishing new covenants and guidance, performing fantastic Hollywood ready miracles, or anything else. God is staying well- hidden to the average person in other words. 

But science is constantly searching, investigating, discovering, exploring, testing, documenting and sharing knowledge 24/7 - 365 with no end in sight! Thus science "may not know" something today, but they very well might know tomorrow, or in the year 2082. Christianity can only reinterpret what is already written, unless archeologists locate more physical artifacts in the future of Biblical concern.

Also, there are THOUSANDS of different religions that all claim their ideas are "the truth". They may share similar types of stories, but most borrow or are influenced by other religions, or prior religions that no longer exist. Regardless, many religions' core beliefs vary greatly from each other.

Thousands of scientists as a rule _generally _come to a consensus (concerning basic ideas and theories at least) over time in the face of overwhelming and convincing evidence. 

Bottom line: religions are "set in stone" and science adapts to where the evidence leads them.


----------



## bobocat (Jun 24, 2022)

What observable evidence is there for Darwinian evolution? Where one kind changes to another. Evidence where faith would not need to come in. Darwinian evolution is unscientific in itself because it takes blind faith.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

bobocat said:


> What observable evidence is there for Darwinian evolution? Where one kind changes to another. Evidence where faith would not need to come in. Darwinian evolution is unscientific in itself because it takes blind faith.



You're kidding, right? There are plenty of "transitional fossils" AKA "missing links". 
Back in the day a lot of Creationists used to use the "where are the missing links?" argument, but recent scientific discoveries shed more light on this.

Here is a link to transitional fossils just to get you started, if you are interested.

Four Famous Transitional Fossils That Support Evolution (forbes.com)


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> It screams for the argument that a God should be capable of writing a book that is understandable to each individual no matter of culture,  race, creed, language, interpretation or time



Logical and practical point, but if God revealed himself to every swinging Richard on this planet with the exact same easily understood message, it would take "faith" completely out of the equation. And "faith" is the foundation of religion, correct?
So I guess it's kind of a catch-22 in that regard IMHO.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

"I know there are "Christians" arguing over what something means - dig in it a little and you will find that somewhere there is someone doubting.............."you don`t really have to do that" and it is usually because it is something they don`t agree with that might cause them to change the way they are living." - spot lite

Not just Christians, but a lot of people in many situations - it's human nature. 
It's sort of like obese people trying every type of shortcut sold on TV to lose fat because they don't want to control their urges to eat a gallon of ice cream per week.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Who is it not understandable to? That Book tells you why some don`t understand it - it starts with doubt, the answer is in there.
> 
> I know there are "Christians" arguing over what something means - dig in it a little and you will find that somewhere there is someone doubting.............."you don`t really have to do that" and it is usually because it is something they don`t agree with that might cause them to change the way they are living.


It isn't just doubt. The versions you have contain things lost in translation and cloud the meaning and message oof things. Young Woman/Virgin is a great example. That one alone COMPLETELY changes the story, events, interpretation and beliefs.

The book is in no way universally understandable, accepted or believed. It is an individual thing to get out of it the messages and meanings that a person wants. The writers knew they didn't sound god like so they put in a *disclaimer to cover their faults. It is what it is and it isn't God-like.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Logical and practical point, but if God revealed himself to every swinging Richard on this planet with the exact same easily understood message, it would take "faith" completely out of the equation. And "faith" is the foundation of religion, correct?
> So I guess it's kind of a catch-22 in that regard IMHO.


A god wouldn't need faith it would have unrelenting loyalty with the awe and respect it deserves as Godfor revealing itself in all of it's grandness.
Anyone that is still doubtful should be vapoized into particles just as examples.

But a 2000 year old pamphlet in the screen door doesn't cut it for me.
I guess that I have higher expectations of something that is my version of a God.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

"A god wouldn't need faith it would have unrelenting loyalty with the awe and respect it deserves as God for revealing itself in all of it's grandness.
Anyone that is still doubtful should be vaporized into particles just as examples." - bullet head

This is an interesting point! There are many religions, and the human-made religions so far require faith to believe in them *because* they sound "made up" or are at the very least confusing to some degree. Regardless, to an atheist or the follower of another religion they all sound silly or unbelievable without the faith that gives their followers the suspension of disbelief required to give them validity.

I can imagine an ACTUAL real-deal deity that runs the entire universe revealing itself to all humans simultaneously with a mountain of bullet-proof evidence presented in real time. I can see how faith would not be required, since faith is just a human conceived notion required for human conceived religions. 

But so far, I see no evidence of a deity that isn't a product of the (very amazing and limitless) human imagination.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> A god wouldn't need faith it would have unrelenting loyalty with the awe and respect it deserves as Godfor revealing itself in all of it's grandness.
> Anyone that is still doubtful should be vapoized into particles just as examples.
> 
> But a 2000 year old pamphlet in the screen door doesn't cut it for me.
> I guess that I have higher expectations of something that is my version of a God.


That is a valid pint but God does reveal himself. He just isn`t going to do it via mans prescription. I think that says a-lot in itself - I will show me to you my way, I am not bound to your parameters.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> It isn't just doubt. The versions you have contain things lost in translation and cloud the meaning and message oof things. Young Woman/Virgin is a great example. That one alone COMPLETELY changes the story, events, interpretation and beliefs.
> 
> The book is in no way universally understandable, accepted or believed. It is an individual thing to get out of it the messages and meanings that a person wants. The writers knew they didn't sound god like so they put in a *disclaimer to cover their faults. It is what it is and it isn't God-like.


It begins with doubt and the rest follows. 

When I say the Book is understandable - I can agree there are things in there like the flood that sound crazy. I am not saying that makes any more sense than a frozen summer does so that is not what is meant by understandable and I spend no time trying prove either story fact or fiction............I take the stance of it can happen, then God can make it happen. If He wants 45 years of frozen summers so be it. Those wild stories in the Bible and the scientific studies are not where I received a revelation of God.  

What I am saying is the purpose behind a virgin birth and what it means spiritually makes sense and is very easy to understand / comprehend. For just the simplicity of it according the story it removes the sins brought in from the father but there is much much more.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> That is a valid pint but God does reveal himself. He just isn`t going to do it via mans prescription. I think that says a-lot in itself - I will show me to you my way, I am not bound to your parameters.


The above is an excuse as to why some seem think it happened to them but have no idea why it doesn't happen to others.
Why wouldn't a god use an individuals parameters if that is the most effective way? The GOA wasn't shy about doing what was needed to individuals in the stories. I mean man he REALLY upped the performances for Pharaoh so much so that God would harden Pharoah's heart just so God could return for an encore with something even better.

I've said it before and I'll say it again...
A God by definition would be the ONE force that is capabe of revealing itself to a person on an individually unique level. A God would know how to reach you and me in ways that only we each could be sure is legitimate. My revealing would be different than yours. Doesn't everyone deserve that shot? Not the excuse like "well God knocked but you didn't answer" stuff. A real true legitimate exactly what it takes moment so there is no misunderstanding and then let the individual take it from there.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> It begins with doubt and the rest follows.
> 
> When I say the Book is understandable - I can agree there are things in there like the flood that sound crazy. I am not saying that makes any more sense than a frozen summer does so that is not what is meant by understandable and I spend no time trying prove either story fact or fiction............I take the stance of it can happen, then God can make it happen. If He wants 45 years of frozen summers so be it. Those wild stories in the Bible and the scientific studies are not where I received a revelation of God.
> 
> What I am saying is the purpose behind a virgin birth and what it means spiritually makes sense and is very easy to understand / comprehend. For just the simplicity of it according the story it removes the sins brought in from the father but there is much much more.


Except because of translation you are tickled over a Virgin birth, the spirituality, the splendor...and the word Virgin that you hang your beliefs on isn't even the right word. ALMA means young woman with NO preconceived notions about her virginity.

You could not have used a better example to make my point.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> The above is an excuse as to why some seem think it happened to them but have no idea why it doesn't happen to others.
> Why wouldn't a god use an individuals parameters if that is the most effective way? The GOA wasn't shy about doing what was needed to individuals in the stories. I mean man he REALLY upped the performances for Pharaoh so much so that God would harden Pharoah's heart just so God could return for an encore with something even better.
> 
> I've said it before and I'll say it again...
> A God by definition would be the ONE force that is capabe of revealing itself to a person on an individually unique level. A God would know how to reach you and me in ways that only we each could be sure is legitimate. My revealing would be different than yours. Doesn't everyone deserve that shot? Not the excuse like "well God knocked but you didn't answer" stuff. A real true legitimate exactly what it takes moment so there is no misunderstanding and then let the individual take it from there.



I think you were allowed that opportunity.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Except because of translation you are tickled over a Virgin birth, the spirituality, the splendor...and the word Virgin that you hang your beliefs on isn't even the right word. ALMA means young woman with NO preconceived notions about her virginity.
> 
> You could not have used a better example to make my point.


I don’t recall saying tickled over. But yea do more unbiased research and you’ll discover that back in those days that ALMA, a young unmarried woman, concisely put (virgin) hadn’t “been around the block”

Trust me, I’m not naive…….I’ve probably done more research than you have just make sure I’m believing what I’m supposed to believe because I’m finding something there and not because “mama said so”


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I think you were allowed that opportunity.


What was my opportunity?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> I don’t recall saying tickled over. But yea do more unbiased research and you’ll discover that back in those days that ALMA, a young unmarried woman, concisely put (virgin) hadn’t “been around the block”
> 
> Trust me, I’m not naive…….I’ve probably done more research than you have just make sure I’m believing what I’m supposed to believe because I’m finding something there and not because “mama said so”


https://outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/

Betulah means Virgin.
https://weareisrael.org/spiritual-seed-2/male-child/betulah-vs-almah/


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> What was my opportunity?


Didn’t you say you had a Christian background?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Didn’t you say you had a Christian background?


Absolutely but I can't say that I was contacted by any Deity.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> https://outreachjudaism.org/alma-virgin/
> 
> Betulah means Virgin.
> https://weareisrael.org/spiritual-seed-2/male-child/betulah-vs-almah/


“The Hebrew word *עלמה* (al-mah’) is often erroneously translated as “virgin.” A betulah’ (virgin) can be an al-mah (young sexually mature woman) and vice versa;* but these two words are not synonymous!* A betulah’ is not is not necessarily a young woman and a young woman is not necessarily a virgin”


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Absolutely but I can't say that I was contacted by any Deity.


You can’t say you wasn’t contacted by any Deity?


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> “The Hebrew word *עלמה* (al-mah’) is often erroneously translated as “virgin.” A betulah’ (virgin) can be an al-mah (young sexually mature woman) and vice versa;* but these two words are not synonymous!* A betulah’ is not is not necessarily a young woman and a young woman is not necessarily a virgin”


That is Spot On, Spotlite.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> That is Spot On, Spotlite.


Except you’re not seeing it - A betulah’ (virgin) can be an al-mah (young sexually mature woman) and vice versa

The point here is a young woman can be married. Just because she’s young doesn’t mean she’s single. Women then were not sexually active outside of marriage.

Mary wasn’t married so she wasn’t sexually active. Words lost in translation has nothing to do with that part.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> You can’t say you wasn’t contacted by any Deity?


How many Deities have contacted you?
More than 15?


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> How many Deities have contacted you?
> More than 15?


Lol you already know I believe that only one Supernatural Deity is real.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Except you’re not seeing it - A betulah’ (virgin) can be an al-mah (young sexually mature woman) and vice versa
> 
> The point here is a young woman can be married. Just because she’s young doesn’t mean she’s single. Women then were not sexually active outside of marriage.


YEAH, same as today.....?
You ever read the story about Lot's daughters in the Bible?
All the ancient prostitutes were 60 and married too.

There is a specific word for Virgin and it is used as such in Hebrew.
It was changed by whoever wrote Matthew to fit what he wanted told. Obviously not a Hebrew or he'd have known better.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Lol you already know I believe that only one Supernatural Deity is real.


In the making of this point I don’t care what you believe.
You are making the assertion that I don't know if I was contacted by the god you believe in but I do not belive in then assert that my point is moot because I asked you if are sure that you weren't contacted by Gods that you don't belive in.

Belief would have nothing to do with whether or not something as powerful as a god of any imagination wanted to contact you. There would be nothing you can do about it.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> YEAH, same as today.....?
> You ever read the story about Lot's daughters in the Bible?
> All the ancient prostitutes were 60 and married too.
> 
> ...


So if this from your link is “spot on”

- A betulah’ (virgin) can be an al-mah (young sexually mature woman) and vice versa

Vice versa mean that an al-mah can be a betula (virgin).

I’m not sure what you’re hung up on there??


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> In the making of this point I don’t care what you believe.
> You are making the assertion that I don't know if I was contacted by the god you believe in but I do not belive in then assert that my point is moot because I asked you if are sure that you weren't contacted by Gods that you don't belive in.
> 
> Belief would have nothing to do with whether or not something as powerful as a god of any imagination wanted to contact you. There would be nothing you can do about it.


No, I haven’t asserted anything, let’s back track to make sure:

you said - A God would know how to reach you and me.

I said “I think you were allowed that opportunity”

You asked - “What was my opportunity?”

I said - “Didn’t you say you had a Christian background?”

You said  “Absolutely but I can't say that I was contacted by any Deity”

I’m not sure where you can find the Christian God outside of Christianity or what other god you could have found in Christianity. And I’m not seeing any assertions made. But, I apologize if it appears that way. If they’re there it was an honest mistake


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Do if this from your link is “spot on”
> 
> - A betulah’ (virgin) can be an al-mah (young sexually mature woman) and vice versa
> 
> ...


Not all young women are virgins.
Not all virgins are young.

You are making the argument that if an obituary of someone read that they were a Fan of professional football, you are assigning them a team when no specific team is mentioned. FAN (young woman) in general = ALMA.

On the other hand if the obituary specifically stated the person was a Dallas Cowboys fan. Dallas Cowboys fan (virgin) specifically = BETULAH

It wouldn't matter if Mary was 14 or 40. A Virgin is a Virgin.
All the bible said is she was a young woman...no mention of anything else.
Had the Bible said she was a Betulah it would get into specifics about her non horizontal activity.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> No, I haven’t asserted anything, let’s back track to make sure:
> 
> you said - A God would know how to reach you and me.
> 
> ...


So being raised Christain is my opportunity? Some get visions, shakes, tears, trembling, pulled from wrecks by angels etc etc etc and my ah-ha moment was I got to go to a Lutheran church because my mom got custody of me in the divorce???


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Not all young women are virgins.
> Not all virgins are young.
> 
> You are making the argument that if an obituary of someone read that they were a Fan of professional football, you are assigning them a team when no specific team is mentioned. FAN (young woman) in general = ALMA.
> ...


My argument is here.

A betulah’ (virgin) can be an al-mah (young sexually mature woman) and vice versa

Vice versa mean that an al-mah can be a betula (virgin).


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

I am headed to the beach with my Alma and 2 of her Sons.
I cannot head to the beach with a Betulah and 2 of her Sons.

That is the difference


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> My argument is here.
> 
> A betulah’ (virgin) can be an al-mah (young sexually mature woman) and vice versa
> 
> Vice versa mean that an al-mah can be a betula (virgin).


Can be, but isnt specific that it is.
You preach context in the bible. The bible uses both words specifically in context.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> So being raised Christain is my opportunity? Some get visions, shakes, tears, trembling, pulled from wrecks by angels etc etc etc and my ah-ha moment was I got to go to a Lutheran church because my mom got custody of me in the divorce???


I’m not one of those hung up on the church name on the sign. Lutherans have found Gid just like Baptist have. 

But I don’t find any of those above scenarios in the Bible as part of salvation. However God might reveal Himself in a wreck. I don’t know, I didn’t have any such ah-ah moment such as above.


----------



## bobocat (Jun 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> You're kidding, right? There are plenty of "transitional fossils" AKA "missing links".
> Back in the day a lot of Creationists used to use the "where are the missing links?" argument, but recent scientific discoveries shed more light on this.
> 
> Here is a link to transitional fossils just to get you started, if you are interested.
> ...



In science you can test, see and observe. Still waiting on change of kinds. Not changes of species or adaptation but the change of kinds. Darwin spoke of change in kind. Not man's theory of a fossil.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> I am headed to the beach with my Alma and 2 of her Sons.
> I cannot head to the beach with a Betulah and 2 of her Sons.
> 
> That is the difference


Sorry dude but that came from your link. But……I hope you, the Alma and Betulah don't get sunburned!!

I’m headed to feed my heifers. Guy down the street calls them cows. They’re really bovines.

A heifer is a young bovine. Technically she can be 5 and still be a heifer. 

Really, I am going to feed cows now. Y’all have fun!


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

bullethead said:


> Can be, but isnt specific that it is.
> You preach context in the bible. The bible uses both words specifically in context.


Ok that’s fair. Name the father of Jesus.  Show us where Mary was shunned with an illegitimate child.

I was most certain that any info in your link would not be contradictory ?

Just picking bullet, you know I have nothing but respect for ya buddy. I know others on-look and probably think we despise one another but that’s the farthest thing from the truth.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

"What I am saying is the purpose behind a virgin birth and what it means spiritually makes sense and is very easy to understand / comprehend. For just the simplicity of it according the story it removes the sins brought in from the father but there is much much more." - spot lite

So, an actual "virgin birth" supports the preconceived (no pun intended) narrative better? Or fulfills a prophecy? Just asking, because there is an awful lot of that in the Bible. Just sayin'


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

bobocat said:


> In science you can test, see and observe. Still waiting on change of kinds. Not changes of species or adaptation but the change of kinds. Darwin spoke of change in kind. Not man's theory of a fossil.



Fossils are the most common evidence available. If you want to watch evolution between kinds in real time you would have to be immortal because it takes a long, long time.

Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | Live Science 

Transitional Fossils | Darwin (cam.ac.uk) 

this list has fossils linking groups (kinds) of animals, not just species

List of transitional fossils - Wikipedia


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> "What I am saying is the purpose behind a virgin birth and what it means spiritually makes sense and is very easy to understand / comprehend. For just the simplicity of it according the story it removes the sins brought in from the father but there is much much more." - spot lite
> 
> So, an actual "virgin birth" supports the preconceived (no pun intended) narrative better? Or fulfills a prophecy? Just asking, because there is an awful lot of that in the Bible. Just sayin'


Biblically, in short, you’re born into sin because through man sin entered the world. Jesus didn’t need an earthly father. 

To be the ultimate sacrifice it had to be spotless. The thrive in question is ultimately God’s throne and it needed to be His Son to inherit that. Through Jesus, the High Priest, is the way to the Father.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Biblically, in short, you’re born into sin because through man sin entered the world. Jesus didn’t need an earthly father.
> 
> To be the ultimate sacrifice it had to be spotless. The thrive in question is ultimately God’s throne and it needed to be His Son to inherit that. Through Jesus, the High Priest, is the way to the Father.



I get that Jesus didn't need an Earthly father, but don't they have to trace Jesus' heritage back to Daniel - David (or somebody) to fulfill an Old Testament prophecy?


----------



## bobocat (Jun 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Fossils are the most common evidence available. If you want to watch evolution between kinds in real time you would have to be immortal because it takes a long, long time.
> 
> Fossils Reveal Truth About Darwin's Theory | Live Science
> 
> ...



The links use words like "could be" and "theory".  Not really observable evidence you can test. Takes faith to believe in evolution. The old "you can't see it because it takes millions of years" . Sorry just a little skeptical to say the least to believe I came from nothing or a monkey.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

bobocat said:


> The links use words like "could be" and "theory".  Not really observable evidence you can test. Takes faith to believe in evolution. The old "you can't see it because it takes millions of years" . Sorry just a little skeptical to say the least to believe I came from nothing or a monkey.



Nobody is saying that "something came from nothing". Science does not (at this time) know the origin of the singularity that expanded/the big bang may have been.

Also, science doesn't claim that humans came from monkeys, it claims that humans & monkeys have a common ancestor.

But I can understand your skepticism. I for one am skeptical about Biblical claims lacking any solid evidence.


----------



## Big7 (Jun 24, 2022)

Lot of Catholic experts in this thread.


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

Big7 said:


> Lot of Catholic experts in this thread.



I'm certainly not a Catholic expert, but I do believe heartily & enthusiastically in evolution.


----------



## Big7 (Jun 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I'm certainly not a Catholic expert, but I do believe heartily & enthusiastically in evolution.


Me too.

It's fact. If every person came from Adam and Eve, we would all share the same DNA and we all know mankind goes way back, way, way back before 6000 years.


----------



## bobocat (Jun 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> Nobody is saying that "something came from nothing". Science does not (at this time) know the origin of the singularity that expanded/the big bang may have been.
> 
> Also, science doesn't claim that humans came from monkeys, it claims that humans & monkeys have a common ancestor.
> 
> But I can understand your skepticism. I for one am skeptical about Biblical claims lacking any solid evidence.



Just saying both require faith and both are religions we just go opposite directions. It's just easier for me to see a Creator opposed to evolution.


----------



## Spotlite (Jun 24, 2022)

oldfella1962 said:


> I get that Jesus didn't need an Earthly father, but don't they have to trace Jesus' heritage back to Daniel - David (or somebody) to fulfill an Old Testament prophecy?


Been done. He can be traced back through Mary on the natural birth and through Joseph after he married Mary all the way to David. Some say you can’t trace through the mother, that’s a lie. There is absolutely no requirement anywhere that states he had to come through the male lineage. The seed of David, out of the house of David, etc. is where it will come from. Your daughter is definitely of your seed. Jewish tradition will trace through the mother they just don’t name the mother.

It’s also permissible that the inheritance can pass through the daughter if the father has no sons. Read Numbers 27, which also was part of the Torah.

If you dig deep enough it was more than just a “miracle” for the virgin birth. In the male lineage before it gets to Joseph there was a curse and no natural son would be able to sit on the throne after that.

Mary with no sons can have the family inheritance passed through her to son. Otherwise the family inheritance dies with the last son.

Those claiming to be the Messiah today and tracing themselves back to David through the male side aren’t able to get passed the curse - “Write ye this man childless, a man that shall not prosper in his days: for no man of his seed shall prosper, sitting upon the throne of David, and ruling any more in Judah”


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

Big7 said:


> Me too.
> 
> It's fact. If every person came from Adam and Eve, we would all share the same DNA and we all know mankind goes way back, way, way back before 6000 years.



Interesting theory of WHY Christianity needs the Adam & Eve story:
They need a "first human(s)" so they can have "original sin" so that the idea of everyone having sin in them by default can be redeemed by Jesus' sacrifice of his life. 
If humans very gradually came to be a new species there would be no "first" humans per se, just like the lines are blurry between all species evolving.

However, Adam & Eve are part of the Judaism tradition, but they don't have Jesus to be their sacrifice. So maybe that theory is confusing to me. Also, how can Catholics be cool with evolution? How would Adam & Eve fit into the evolutionary chain? Maybe somebody can explain that please. 

About 30 years ago there was a Time Magazine story about all humans tracing their mitochondrial DNA back to one female, possibly "Eve". Predictably, the article didn't really tell the whole story, and scientists had to explain it in better detail.

No, a Mitochondrial "Eve" Is Not the First Female in a Species | Science| Smithsonian Magazine 

All About Mitochondrial Eve: An Interview with Rebecca Cann - PMC (nih.gov) 

Are we all descended from a common female ancestor? | HowStuffWorks


----------



## oldfella1962 (Jun 24, 2022)

bobocat said:


> Just saying both require faith and both are religions we just go opposite directions. It's just easier for me to see a Creator opposed to evolution.



Some people consider a belief in science a religion. 

Scientism - Wikipedia


----------



## bullethead (Jun 24, 2022)

Spotlite said:


> Ok that’s fair. Name the father of Jesus.  Show us where Mary was shunned with an illegitimate child.
> 
> I was most certain that any info in your link would not be contradictory ?
> Just picking bullet, you know I have nothing but respect for ya buddy. I know others on-look and probably think we despise one another but that’s the farthest thing from the truth.


Above all else, you and I are good, always have been and always will be. You talk to me like you would a friend. Nothing is taken personally. 

All I know about Jesus is from the stories. In my honest opinion,  Joseph is most likely the biological Father of Jesus.


----------



## bullethead (Jun 25, 2022)

Israel said:


> Now you got it!
> 
> That's it.


I've always had that notion, I have yet to find it in reality or in man made ancient texts.


----------

