Evolution My ToE

[YoursTrue]

This, at least, is an easy one. Jesus didn't have any children, unless you think that Isaiah 53:10 is a reference to him, so his evolutionary lineage through his mother and her ancestors ended with him.

No, her ancestors (or offspring) didn't end with Jesus because she gave birth to others by the natural way,

 

[Bear Wild]

So Mary, you believe, conceived Jesus by sexual intercourse, and therefore was not a virgin when she conceived, is that correct about your belief? I'm bringing this out only in reference to whether a person, not necessarily speaking of you, who claims to believe in Jesus in the Bible can also believe in evolution at the same time. Either Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus in her womb, as the Bible says she was, or she was not.

If she had Jesus in her womb she was not a virgin. This is very simple and straight forward biology.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

When we make choices as to which is better for us as individuals, yes, in a sense we are judging. But God is the ultimate judge of what he accepts.

The fact remains that you have no grounds to determine whether another person is the Christian they claim or not.

When a person diverts a discussion of the theory of evolution to challenging the faith of other posters, it is a tacit acknowledgement that they recognize they have no valid logical or scientific argument to reject the theory. They are left with attacking those that are neither afraid to support a valid theory nor constrained by a fallible church doctrine.

 

[SalixIncendium]

**MOD POST**
RULE 3 REMINDER​

3. Trolling and Bullying
Where Rule 1 covers personal attacks, Rule 3 governs other behaviors and content that can generally be described as being a jerk. Unacceptable behaviors and content include:

1) Content (whether words or images) that most people would find needlessly offensive, especially when such content is posted just to get a rise out of somebody and/or is not part of a reasoned argument.​

2) Defamation, slander, or misrepresentation of a member's beliefs/arguments, or that of a particular group, culture, or religion. This includes altering the words of another member to change their meaning when using the quote feature.

3) Antagonism, bullying, or harassment - including but not limited to personal attacks, slander, and misrepresentation - of a member across multiple content areas of the forums. Repeatedly targeting or harassing members of particular groups will also be considered bullying.

Critiquing the views of others is acceptable. Telling people what their views are is not. Misrepresentation of the views of others will be moderated under Rule 3.

 

[Astrophile]

So Mary, you believe, conceived Jesus by sexual intercourse, and therefore was not a virgin when she conceived, is that correct about your belief?

Yes. However, this is because I have become an atheist, and a disbeliever in miracles, as a result of studying the Bible and learning about the history of Christianity, and because there is a simpler (and, indeed, familiar) explanation for an unmarried woman's becoming pregnant. My atheism is not the result of my scientific research. By the way, the Jews appear to have thought that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Pantera, and the gravestone of a soldier of that name was found in Germany in 1859 - “Jesus, son of Pantera” .

I'm bringing this out only in reference to whether a person, not necessarily speaking of you, who claims to believe in Jesus in the Bible can also believe in evolution at the same time. Either Mary was a virgin when she conceived Jesus in her womb, as the Bible says she was, or she was not.

There are many scientists who accept the scientific account of the age and history of the Universe and the Earth, and of the evolution of living things, who are also Christians. The truth of evolution has nothing to do with the virginity of Mary.

 

[Astrophile]

No, her ancestors (or offspring) didn't end with Jesus because she gave birth to others by the natural way,

I know that; I said that Jesus's lineage ended with him, not that Mary's lineage ended with Jesus.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes. However, this is because I have become an atheist, and a disbeliever in miracles, as a result of studying the Bible and learning about the history of Christianity, and because there is a simpler (and, indeed, familiar) explanation for an unmarried woman's becoming pregnant. My atheism is not the result of my scientific research. By the way, the Jews appear to have thought that Jesus was the son of a Roman soldier named Pantera, and the gravestone of a soldier of that name was found in Germany in 1859 - “Jesus, son of Pantera” .



There are many scientists who accept the scientific account of the age and history of the Universe and the Earth, and of the evolution of living things, who are also Christians. The truth of evolution has nothing to do with the virginity of Mary.

I am aware of explanations by tradition against the birth of Jesus by miraculous conception. Those explanations do not convince me that they are true. Insofar as the history and age of the universe and the Earth, again -- as I have said before -- there is nothing to say that each 'day' of creation is a 24-hour period. And a lot to argue against it. So that each day of creation towards the earth had a beginning and an end does not mean that each day was 24 hours. In fact, the last day (the 7th day) has no close. Yet. And so going along with a scientific view of time, I can and do believe that God counts time in His way, as to what a day means. Each day of creation could be thousands of years. Also, humans also have various usages for the word day. But I agree that each day of creation harmonizes with the evident process of life on the earth, and enabling it.
One point at a time.

 

[YoursTrue]

I know that; I said that Jesus's lineage ended with him, not that Mary's lineage ended with Jesus.

Oh, Jesus' lineage ended with him? Not really sure what you mean by that. I'm willing to discuss it.

 

[Astrophile]

I am aware of explanations by tradition against the birth of Jesus by miraculous conception. Those explanations do not convince me that they are true.

Fair enough. The stories about Jesus being the son of Pantera date from about 200 years after the event, so one can't place much reliance on them. On the other hand, the evidence for the virgin birth of Jesus is based on only two Biblical stories, in the gospels according to Matthew and Luke. These stories were also written about a hundred years after the event, and they are so different as to be irreconcilable. It seems to me that the strongest argument against the virgin birth is that of Hume: is it more likely that a man (or, in this case, a woman) should lie, or that the laws of nature should be broken?

Insofar as the history and age of the universe and the Earth, again -- as I have said before -- there is nothing to say that each 'day' of creation is a 24-hour period. And a lot to argue against it. So that each day of creation towards the earth had a beginning and an end does not mean that each day was 24 hours. In fact, the last day (the 7th day) has no close. Yet. And so going along with a scientific view of time, I can and do believe that God counts time in His way, as to what a day means. Each day of creation could be thousands of years. Also, humans also have various usages for the word day. But I agree that each day of creation harmonizes with the evident process of life on the earth, and enabling it.
One point at a time.

The virginity of Mary and the miraculous conception of Jesus have nothing to do with the age of the universe or the Earth, and I have never said that "each 'day' of creation is a 24-hour period." On the contrary, I learnt more than 60 years ago that the Earth is about 4550 years old, and that there were no 'days of creation'.

 

[YoursTrue]

The virginity of Mary and the miraculous conception of Jesus have nothing to do with the age of the universe or the Earth, and I have never said that "each 'day' of creation is a 24-hour period." On the contrary, I learnt more than 60 years ago that the Earth is about 4550 years old, and that there were no 'days of creation'.

I was just making clear that I do not believe each 'day' of creation is a 24-hour period.
Can you please elaborate as to the earth being about 4550 years old, if you believe that, and why? Thanks.

 

[Astrophile]

Oh, Jesus' lineage ended with him? Not really sure what you mean by that. I'm willing to discuss it.

I thought that it was simple enough. Jesus had a long and unbroken line of ancestors, through his mother and her parents and her grandparents etc. back to the origin of life. Since Jesus died childless, this lineage terminated with his death; the genes that made Jesus what he was died with him. If Jesus's brothers and sisters, who shared his ancestry, had children and more distant descendants, their lineage continued Mary's line into the future, so Mary's lineage did not terminate with Jesus's death.

 

[YoursTrue]

I thought that it was simple enough. Jesus had a long and unbroken line of ancestors, through his mother and her parents and her grandparents etc. back to the origin of life. Since Jesus died childless, this lineage terminated with his death; the genes that made Jesus what he was died with him. If Jesus's brothers and sisters, who shared his ancestry, had children and more distant descendants, their lineage continued Mary's line into the future, so Mary's lineage did not terminate with Jesus's death.

OK, I'm a little confused in understanding your answer to that, takes me time to understand what someone may be saying, perhaps after what you said about what you learned about the earth being about 4550 years old we can go over that about the lineage. But thanks.

 

[Astrophile]

I was just making clear that I do not believe each 'day' of creation is a 24-hour period.
Can you please elaborate as to the earth being about 4550 years old, if you believe that, and why? Thanks.

OK, I'm a little confused in understanding your answer to that, takes me time to understand what someone may be saying, perhaps after what you said about what you learned about the earth being about 4550 years old we can go over that about the lineage. But thanks.

Sorry. My mistake; I meant to say that I learnt about the Earth being about 4550 million years old.

 

[YoursTrue]

Sorry. My mistake; I meant to say that I learnt about the Earth being about 4550 million years old.

.
That's a bit of a difference.
Thanks for correcting that!

 

[YoursTrue]

I thought that it was simple enough. Jesus had a long and unbroken line of ancestors, through his mother and her parents and her grandparents etc. back to the origin of life. Since Jesus died childless, this lineage terminated with his death; the genes that made Jesus what he was died with him. If Jesus's brothers and sisters, who shared his ancestry, had children and more distant descendants, their lineage continued Mary's line into the future, so Mary's lineage did not terminate with Jesus's death.

OK, now that you've explained about the age of the earth, ok, let's go on so I can understand more about what you're saying regarding Jesus' lineage. Mary's body, as I understand genetics, is like a bit of a mix with her ancestors, both male and female. In other words, it takes a sperm and an egg to make another person. Would you agree with that so far?
And about the Hume saying which I just re-read your post, would you say that means he didn't believe in what is called the "immaculate conception" because it goes against the laws of nature? If so, I guess he didn't believe in miracles either. Or that which cannot be explained by scientific means, in particular noting this thread, a woman getting pregnant without the assistance of a male sperm entering her body, which is the usual course of those thinking about the natural course of evolution anyway. I haven't read much about David (?) Hume, I'll try to do a little research on him. Don't want to cover too many topics here. I do think the idea of Jesus coming down from God in heaven is true and possible. And placed as a human in Mary's womb. I don't think it's impossible. Can I explain it scientifically? I am not a scientist, but I think God can use the dna and body cells in the way He wants under that circumstance. There's more to it, but I'll leave it at that now. However, you did bring up an interesting question. Still, I remember that Mary had both male and female ancestors, therefore her body fluids and other parts were a compendium of cells from her ancestors. Hopefully we'll talk tomorrow.

 

[Astrophile]

OK, now that you've explained about the age of the earth, ok, let's go on so I can understand more about what you're saying regarding Jesus' lineage. Mary's body, as I understand genetics, is like a bit of a mix with her ancestors, both male and female. In other words, it takes a sperm and an egg to make another person. Would you agree with that so far?

Yes.

And about the Hume saying which I just re-read your post, would you say that means he didn't believe in what is called the "immaculate conception" because it goes against the laws of nature?

You are making the common mistake of confusing the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary with that of the virgin birth of Jesus. According to Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia , this doctrine was defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854, in the words 'the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.' This, as you will see, is quite different from the doctrine of the virgin birth.

If so, I guess he didn't believe in miracles either. Or that which cannot be explained by scientific means, in particular noting this thread, a woman getting pregnant without the assistance of a male sperm entering her body, which is the usual course of those thinking about the natural course of evolution anyway.

It is not so much a matter of disbelieving in the virgin birth, or in miracles generally, because they go against the laws of nature as because there are always simpler explanations for a supposed miracle, as, for example, that the person who told the story of the miracle was lying, deluded or mistaken. Because of this, belief in a miracle can only be based on faith, not on evidence. For the virgin birth, it is more likely that Mary and Joseph had anticipated marriage or that Mary had been unfaithful, and that she simply panicked and took refuge in denying everything. Other teenage girls in the same position have done the same thing. The odd thing is that modern Christians are willing to believe something about a woman who lived in a far-away country more than 2000 years ago that they would not, under any circumstances, believe about their own sister, daughter or niece.

I haven't read much about David (?) Hume, I'll try to do a little research on him.

Yes, Hume's name was David. You have got that right. He was a Scot, born in Edinburgh. Do not make the mistake of calling him English.

Don't want to cover too many topics here. I do think the idea of Jesus coming down from God in heaven is true and possible. And placed as a human in Mary's womb. I don't think it's impossible. Can I explain it scientifically? I am not a scientist, but I think God can use the DNA and body cells in the way He wants under that circumstance. There's more to it, but I'll leave it at that now. However, you did bring up an interesting question. Still, I remember that Mary had both male and female ancestors, therefore her body fluids and other parts were a compendium of cells from her ancestors. Hopefully we'll talk tomorrow.

This demonstrates my point that belief in a miracle can only be based on faith. Your own belief relies on your faith in the power of God to perform miracles rather than on evidence that virgin birth is possible or that Jesus was conceived and born without a father.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes.
You are making the common mistake of confusing the doctrine of the immaculate conception of Mary with that of the virgin birth of Jesus. According to Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia , this doctrine was defined by Pope Pius IX in 1854, in the words 'the doctrine which holds that the most Blessed Virgin Mary, in the first instance of her conception, by a singular grace and privilege granted by Almighty God, in view of the merits of Jesus Christ, the Saviour of the human race, was preserved free from all stain of original sin, is a doctrine revealed by God and therefore to be believed firmly and constantly by all the faithful.' This, as you will see, is quite different from the doctrine of the virgin birth.

Since this is a forum regarding the theory of evolution, my question really is not in regard to what one necessarily believes about the "immaculate conception," whatever that means. Yes, my question was tended toward the idea that the Bible and evolution can mix. Somehow. But the conversation with you sure is interesting.

Yes, Hume's name was David. You have got that right. He was a Scot, born in Edinburgh. Do not make the mistake of calling him English.

This demonstrates my point that belief in a miracle can only be based on faith. Your own belief relies on your faith in the power of God to perform miracles rather than on evidence that virgin birth is possible or that Jesus was conceived and born without a father.

Glad I remembered that correctly, that Hume's first name is David. Yes, I looked up something about his history, he was a Scottish philosopher. Right now I can't plow through his reasonings, but I am impelled to say that evolution requires faith. I say this because while it is certainly possible to unearth, look at and compare fossils, estimate dates, there is no substantial proof that beyond that, things have been questioned by scientists, some teachings have been changed over the years, yet some will expound on it (the theory) as being absolute in truth, quoting other scientists, explorers and researchers. I thank you for the conversation, I really mean it. I will now look up definition of immaculate conception. OK, I did, and I find it requires more than "faith" in what the Bible says. It would be faith in the Catholic Church, I guess. The'concept' is not in the Bible. Here is one definition I see of the "Immaculate Conception," thank you for allowing me to see that better. I appreciate it. "The Immaculate Conception is a dogma of the Roman Catholic Church which states that the Virgin Mary was free of original sin from the moment of her conception." Immaculate Conception - Wikipedia
The Bible never states that, I can see why many would be confused considering if they think about it, what it means, in contrast to what the Bible says. I am sure about that, since it took a man and woman to produce her. Yes, I believe by faith that what the Bible says about the conception of Jesus (NOT immaculate conception, thanks for that...) is true. Just as I wasn't there to observe the miraculous conception of Jesus in Mary's womb with a microscope, I wasn't there (and neither was any human) to see development of different types of life, and I specifically bring out growth from one bacteria (?), more than one bacteria (?) emerging and growing into plants and animals.

 

[YoursTrue]

Yes.

It is not so much a matter of disbelieving in the virgin birth, or in miracles generally, because they go against the laws of nature as because there are always simpler explanations for a supposed miracle, as, for example, that the person who told the story of the miracle was lying, deluded or mistaken. Because of this, belief in a miracle can only be based on faith, not on evidence. For the virgin birth, it is more likely that Mary and Joseph had anticipated marriage or that Mary had been unfaithful, and that she simply panicked and took refuge in denying everything. Other teenage girls in the same position have done the same thing. The odd thing is that modern Christians are willing to believe something about a woman who lived in a far-away country more than 2000 years ago that they would not, under any circumstances, believe about their own sister, daughter or niece.

I agree that most people would not believe that a teenager or anyone would get pregnant without intercourse. I don't know that much about artificial insemination, and I doubt it has anything to do with evolution, such as when two men "have a child." There is usually a surrogate mother. I say usually because I'm not that up on that subject. However, and once again, the mechanism of childbirth has to be in place. (For someone anyway, I think. Now I'll have to look into testtube babies, I guess, maybe, if I have the time.)
Oh, and remember that Joseph didn't believe it either at first about Mary. Another miraculous intervention took place when he had a dream.

 

[dad]

If she had Jesus in her womb she was not a virgin. This is very simple and straight forward biology.

False.

 

[dad]

I learnt more than 60 years ago that the Earth is about 4550 years old, and that there were no 'days of creation'.

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