• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Evolution My ToE

dad

Undefeated
I agree with you that what you say if false. Biologically impossible.
Whether you agree or not is beside the point. Not like you have anything to say about it. Impossible is just a little term to denote the restricted world man lives in at the moment.
 

Astrophile

Active Member
A child being taught something does not mean it is true.

To be precise, I was not taught it; I read it in a book, which explained the basics of radiometric dating. What I have read and learnt since has confirmed what I learnt during the 1950s. I was also taught Christianity as a child, so by your argument .....
 

dad

Undefeated
To be precise, I was not taught it; I read it in a book, which explained the basics of radiometric dating. What I have read and learnt since has confirmed what I learnt during the 1950s. I was also taught Christianity as a child, so by your argument .....

I do not think the basics of radiometric dating were explained to you. The basics of radiometric interpretation of isotope ratios involve beliefs. You were probably not taught that important part of it.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Wild Fox said:
"If she had Jesus in her womb she was not a virgin."

No, that is not true. Since she did not have sexual intercourse until after the birth of Jesus, her hymen wasn't broken when she conceived, therefore she was a virgin until she gave birth. And then her hymen was broken.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
Wild Fox said:
"If she had Jesus in her womb she was not a virgin."

No, that is not true. Since she did not have sexual intercourse until after the birth of Jesus, her hymen wasn't broken when she conceived, therefore she was a virgin until she gave birth. And then her hymen was broken.

Such a small piece of tissue that people take to mean so much.

It is quite possible to get pregnant without breaking the hymen. it is even possible to have sex without breaking it.

Hymen does not imply virginity or vice versa.
 

dad

Undefeated
Such a small piece of tissue that people take to mean so much.

It is quite possible to get pregnant without breaking the hymen. it is even possible to have sex without breaking it.

Hymen does not imply virginity or vice versa.
The great sign of the messiah being born to a virgin one day had to do with a baby from God that had no man as a father and had zero to do with sexual reproduction.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Such a small piece of tissue that people take to mean so much.

It is quite possible to get pregnant without breaking the hymen. it is even possible to have sex without breaking it.

Hymen does not imply virginity or vice versa.
As I understand it, the scholarly view considers the virgin birth to be rather thin historical support. Apparently, there have been mistranslations of virgin and young girl, etc. For a book that fundamentalists claim is infallible and has been maintained accurately for millennia, there appear to be a lot of inaccuracies.
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
As I understand it, the scholarly view considers the virgin birth to be rather thin historical support. Apparently, there have been mistranslations of virgin and young girl, etc. For a book that fundamentalists claim is infallible and has been maintained accurately for millennia, there appear to be a lot of inaccuracies.


Yes, the specific OT verse referred to in the NT talks about a young girl, not a virgin. Furthermore, that young girl is clearly the wife of the prophet in question.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
Yes, the specific OT verse referred to in the NT talks about a young girl, not a virgin. Furthermore, that young girl is clearly the wife of the prophet in question.
It all says to me that we really do not understand the Bible as well as some claim and we focus on parts without authority, while pitching the message of Christ out the window with the bath water.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Such a small piece of tissue that people take to mean so much.

It is quite possible to get pregnant without breaking the hymen. it is even possible to have sex without breaking it.

Hymen does not imply virginity or vice versa.
To me, there is no question of God as Creator who is able to split cells or enable things unusual from afar. The usual definition of virgin is that person who has not had sexual intercourse, that is true. The breaking of the hymen is usually part of the process.
 

Dan From Smithville

What's up Doc?
Staff member
Premium Member
To me, there is no question of God as Creator who is able to split cells or enable things unusual from afar. The usual definition of virgin is that person who has not had sexual intercourse, that is true. The breaking of the hymen is usually part of the process.
For the female. There is no indicator at all for a male. Perhaps a stupid grin.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Such a small piece of tissue that people take to mean so much.

It is quite possible to get pregnant without breaking the hymen. it is even possible to have sex without breaking it.

Hymen does not imply virginity or vice versa.
Ok I give in. The breaking of the hymen does not always mean a woman has had sexual intercourse. I'm going to leave it at that.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Thank you for your opinion.
And a biblically supported one it is. So it currently seems to me. Although Joseph was listed on the genealogical records as Jesus' father. But the birth or rather the conception did not come about in the usual way.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
Modern humans did not exist. We know what *did* exist through the fossils they left. And what did exist 2 million years ago was NOT the modern Homo sapiens sapiens. And, by the way, the fossils don't include just the bones. They include footprints (showing that they walked upright, but had very different feet than modern humans).

However, if you go to only 50,000 years ago, we know that anatomically modern humans *did* exist. Again, we know this by the fossils and tools they left. The array of tools by that time was quite diverse.

If, however, you go back 1 million years, you find a species, Homo erectus, that is easily distinguished from modern humans anatomically, but also has many of the characteristics of modern humans (upright posture, social groups, probably fire use, complex tool use, etc). There is even some suggestion that their hyoid bone had dropped in a way to allow more complex vocal sounds (beginnings of language? we don't know).

These are NOT just hypotheses: we have the actual bones and tools from that time period to show what existed at that time.
just reading this..."The researchers suggest their findings may force scientists to rethink theories of human descent from the trees—it would have taken a lot longer than previously believed to adjust to living on the ground if the phalangeal curve took multiple generations to straighten." (No kidding... ain't that something?) About Lucy the chimp. https://phys.org/news/2020-05-chimp-human-child-phalangeal-genetic.html
 

SkepticThinker

Veteran Member
And that's a definite answer, as if it settles the question? (I don't think so. But, if you do, that's what counts by this time.)
You asked how we know humans existed in the past. Well, we know that, because they left their remains behind and we can examine them.

Are you asking how scientists date them?

Maybe their remains drifted, or were blown away to other parts and soil particles got mixed in and the elements corroded, etc. Maybe each 'day' wasn't the same amount of time.

You don't really think scientists are unaware of erosion and contamination, do you?
 

Polymath257

Think & Care
Staff member
Premium Member
just reading this..."The researchers suggest their findings may force scientists to rethink theories of human descent from the trees—it would have taken a lot longer than previously believed to adjust to living on the ground if the phalangeal curve took multiple generations to straighten." (No kidding... ain't that something?) About Lucy the chimp. https://phys.org/news/2020-05-chimp-human-child-phalangeal-genetic.html

Key word: *if*

Since it is likely that relatively small changes in a control protein would produce these effects, there is no good reason to think they take a long time.
 

YoursTrue

Faith-confidence in what we hope for (Hebrews 11)
You asked how we know humans existed in the past. Well, we know that, because they left their remains behind and we can examine them.

Are you asking how scientists date them?



You don't really think scientists are unaware of erosion and contamination, do you?
I am aware that humans existed some 6000 years ago, for starters. But hundreds of thousands of years? Naw...even with "remains so-called left behind."
 
Top