ChristiaNet MallWorld's Largest Christian MallChristian BlogsFree Bible QuizzesFree Ecards and Free Greeting CardsLoans, Debt, Business and Insurance Articles

Christians That Evolved

Is it possible to be a Christian and be saved, and believe in evolution too?

Join Our Free Penpals and Take The Evolution Bible Quiz
 ---learner2 on 1/17/15
     Helpful Blog Vote (3)

Post a New Blog



\\Trav, the point is that God was speaking to Job about Leviathan as a creature Job would be conversant with. It therefore did not become extinct 10's of millions of years ago as taught in the evolutionary belief. \\

I suppose there is no way that Noah could have been speaking poetically of legendary animals, the way we speak of unicorns and hippogriffs and the like today, right?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 2/3/15


When a person first puts confidence in the Lord, there is a considerable change in his, or her, thinking. However, many new Christians lack discernment, and need some time in order to change their 'world view'. Someone who purportedly calls on the name of the Lord, but neither grows, nor is interested in hearing the Lord, is not a Christian.
p.s. Belief in either of the theories (evolution or intelligent design) requires a particular bias, but a non biased examination of the natural evidence would rule out macro evolution.
Psalm 25:4-5, Proverbs 3:5-8, Matthew 7:21, John 8:43-47, 10:1-5, 25-30, chapter 15, 16:13-15, Romans 10:17, 2Timothy 3:16-17, James 1:5-8,19-26.
---Glenn on 1/31/15


Trav, the point is that God was speaking to Job about Leviathan as a creature Job would be conversant with. It therefore did not become extinct 10's of millions of years ago as taught in the evolutionary belief.

As to whether Leviathan went on the ark depends upon whether it fits with the definition 'land-dwelling air breathing' as shown in Genesis 7:15 and 21.

Behemoth would have been on the ark.
---Warwick on 1/30/15


Trav,
Of course if Leviathan was a mostly sea-going creature it may not have needed to be on the ark.
---Warwick on 1/29/15

Of course.
Glad to see you agree with the interpreters and see it's Croc. See also that it's a symbol of Babylon.
Proof? It's not witnessed in scripture as being on the Ark. Or necessary to be on it.
Or necessary to understanding Israels position.
Christ instructed Apostles to look for sheep...not Leviathans. Leviathans are just sporty little opportunity's.

Letter to Leviathans: Co an meet my lil fren mr leviathan.
---Trav on 1/30/15


StrongAxe the description fits a number of creatures, but nothing alive today. There is good reason to believe that Leviathan was a Sarcosuchus a massive armour-plated crocodile which grew to 12 metres in length.

Those who believe the Bible to be an accurate book of history will have no problem with this. Conversely those Christians who interpret Scripture through long-ages/evolution will reject it as their story has Sarcosuchus being extinct for 10's of millions of years.
---Warwick on 1/29/15




Trav, I am pleased that you see Leviathan cannot be a whale. However on what basis do you say Noah did not have Leviathan on the ark? What witnesses do you have to support this?

Of course if Leviathan was a mostly sea-going creature it may not have needed to be on the ark.
---Warwick on 1/29/15


There is no way Leviathan can be a whale.
---Warwick on 1/28/15

I agree in part. Some of the verses show a different, water associated creature. (translators say crocodile or similar) Harpoons, mud, Ships, Sea are water related.
Regardless it proves nothing to me, flood related or even dinosaur related. Noah didn't have one on his Ark and Adam, Abraham, Moses, David were not concerned by them.
Psa_104:26 There go the ships: there is that leviathan, whom thou hast made to play therein.
Isa_27:1 In that day the LORD with his sore and great and strong sword shall punish leviathan the piercing serpent, even leviathan that crooked serpent, and he shall slay the dragon that is in the sea.
---Trav on 1/29/15


Warwick:

Do you know any dinosaur that happens to meet that description either?
---StrongAxe on 1/28/15


StrongAxe: "Really? The sources I have read show different (and older) numbers."

What sources? What numbers? What methods? What assumptions?

I appeal to your logic. We have agreed, have we not, that fossils are not formed by animals dying and resting on the earth's surface awaiting gradual burial, but rather by cataclysmic, rapid burial under marine sediments. Thus, long periods of fossil formation, as required for the Darwinian paradigm, never happened, and we are left with the biblical account as the ONLY rational explanation of the fossil record. You do believe the Bible, don't you?


---jerry6593 on 1/29/15


Trav, read Job ch. 41 and you will see the description does not fit with a whale. For example:

Vs 7 "can you fill his hide with harpoons...?" God is saying you cannot harpoon Leviathan. However man has harpooned whales for centuries.

Vs 9. Leviathan cannot be subdued by man but the largest whale can be.

Vs. 12 whales dont have "limbs."

Vs. 15 whales do not have "rows of shields tightly sealed together" on their backs.

Vs. 30 "his undersides are jagged potsherds." On a whale?
And "leaving a trail in the mud like a threshing sledge." Leviathan can travel overland. A whale cant.

There is no way Leviathan can be a whale.
---Warwick on 1/28/15




True many animal that lived at the same time as Dinosaurs are still here. Some in fact were here before the dinosaurs and still are and have changed very little.

But Insects are here and they have gotten smaller. To get larger then today the percentage of oxygen in the air would have to be many times higher then today. But that high a percentage of Oxygen causes a major fire hazard.
---Samuelbb7 on 1/28/15


Trav, crocodiles, alligators and lizards are not descendants of dinosaurs.
---Warwick on 1/27/15

Said they were hold overs from the age of, and they are. Online:... pterosaurs and dinosaurs, crocodiles were an offshoot of the archosaurs, the "ruling lizards" of the early to middle Triassic period (needless to say, the earliest dinosaurs and the earliest crocodiles resembled one another.
Leviathan:(Whale) is mentioned six times in the Tanakh, with Job 41:134 being dedicated to describing him in detail:[1]

1 Can you pull in the leviathan with a fishhook or tie down his tongue with a rope?
---Trav on 1/28/15


Dinosaur legs were directly under their bodies, not spread sideways like lizard legs. -Warwick

Warwick
That's a very good point!!

Just being objective first thing I liked about you.-Trav

Thank you Travis.
I had a good teacher. Jesus asked the same type of questions in his Gospels, questions designed to lead men to the Truth.

The Bible never gets into any details about giants. -StrongAxe

StrongAxe
True, I believe that's because the Giants are mentioned to give a reference, a reference as to the time of the flood.

Since they did not have a dating system, as we have today, the Giants were used as a reference for the time.
---David on 1/28/15


David, these engravings were photographed by Phillip Bell (B.Sc. zoology) who I personally know to be a conservative Christian man. He says the engravings show sauropod dinosaurs, unlike any creature alive today. A first-grade eye-witness. Relevantly, the sauropods are depicted with their tails and necks parallel to the ground. They have been traditionally drawn with tails dragging along the ground and necks vertical. Only recently paleontologists discovered they stood, as depicted in these engravings. How could people of the 1,400's know this unless they had seen them?
If it wasn't for evolutionary indoctrination people would not have any problem believing that man lived alongside dinosaurs.
---Warwick on 1/27/15


Trav, crocodiles, alligators and lizards are not descendants of dinosaurs. If they were they would be called dinosaurs, and they aren't. For one example dinosaur legs were directly under their bodies, not spread sideways like lizard legs.
---Warwick on 1/27/15


StrongAxe, in Job 40: 15-24 he is describing a land-going creature which he calls "behemoth." The creature described Leviathan in ch. 41 is a very different creature.

Again I ask: What else had or has a tail like a cedar tree?

Ch. 40:24 "Can one take him by his eyes, or pierce his nose with a snare?" Can you name any creature other than Behemoth, which man could not trap?

As regards Leviathan read Job 41: 26, 27 "Though the sword reaches him, it does not avail, nor the spear, the dart, or the javelin. He counts iron as straw, and bronze as rotten wood."

Do you know of any other massive creature which can resist spears, darts or javelins?
---Warwick on 1/27/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Divorce


David:

The Bible never gets into any details about giants. It doesn't say if they're a separate species, or merely humans who are unusually tall (like many of today's basketball players).
---StrongAxe on 1/27/15


StrongAxe
If the Giants mentioned in (Genesis 6:4) were here before and after the flood, and the only ones here after the flood were on the Ark, the Giants mentioned had to be animals on the Ark. Presuming Noah wasn't a giant.

Something to consider?
---David on 1/27/15


Just being objective.
---David on 1/27/15

Just being objective first thing I liked about you. As well as your name. Your namesake was a man after GOD's own heart. I see why in scripture.
He ate of and shared of the 12 large loaves of Shew bread. Taking also the sword of Goliath that was kept behind the "ephod".
Croc's, Alligators, many Lizards, Monitors etc, are hold overs in todays "tebel" and found in many specific "erets".

Tebel. What is not said or used if you prefer.
---Trav on 1/27/15


Warwick:

Even if Job was written yesterday, and he used the word "Tyrannysaurus" rather than "Leviathan", it would not prove that man and dinosaur coexisted at the same time.
---StrongAxe on 1/26/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Marriage


David, history, in word and drawing shows that man (post-flood) has seen and described dinosaurs. -Warwick

Warwick
The problem with this evidence, is we have modern day lizards which look alot like these dinosaurs depicted on the tomb.

If people think they are looking at a dinosaur on this tomb, they will see a dinosaur.

Just being objective.
---David on 1/27/15


Warwick, you are absolutely right about that.
---learner2 on 1/26/15


Learner if you search for 'did X ever exist' I am sure you will find equivalent 'proof' that it/he/she never existed.
---Warwick on 1/26/15


If you do a Google search for "dinosaurs never existed," you will find proof that they never existed.
---learner2 on 1/26/15


Send a Free Entertainment Tract


Trav
Don't forget the waters coming from the depths of the oceans mentioned in(Genesis ...br>---David on 1/24/15

Good point. And the water returned much the same way. There is the fact that theres only 22% of necessary water on earth to cover Everest 15 cubits. Everest, assumed of course by most. Reasonably, it would have been lower mtns/hills of Ararat being covered 15cbts, where the Ark came to rest. Contextually it is a flood concerning Noah and those who were not perfect in "toledah". Note what is said...Noah was perfect in his generations...(toledah: descent) There is no scriptural witness of the family tree in scripture of the Egyptians, for example. Other than their help or interference with Israel later.
---Trav on 1/26/15


StrongAxe, the point is that no known, current, or extinct creature fits this description other than a dinosaur. To accept that this is so is only a challenge to those who have reinterpreted Scripture through long-ages/evolutionary ideas. If a person is truly Bible-believing then the idea that Job's description is of a dinosaur should be no challenge to them.

David, history, in word and drawing shows that man (post-flood) has seen and described dinosaurs. Do a little research. For just one example in Carlisle Cathedral (UK) there is the tomb of Bishop Richard Bell d.1496 and upon it there are brass plates clearly carved depicting sauropod dinosaurs. There for all to see!
---Warwick on 1/26/15


StrongAxe
(Genesis 6:4) also says they were here before and after the flood. Giraffes and Elephants, these Giants, have been seen after the flood, but the Dinosaurs haven't.

The only dinosaurs that have been seen since the flood, are the fossils and bones of the Dinosaurs
---David on 1/26/15


Warwick:

Just because we have one creature that might fit the description, this does not necessarily mean that it is definitely what is being talked about. There could be others we haven't seen.


jerry6593:

You wrote: But, the Accelerometer Mass Spectrometer is able to make accurate measurements of very old samples, and the ages of ALL fossils in ALL layers and in ALL locations is nearly the same - the age of Noah's flood. To me,

Really? The sources I have read show different (and older) numbers. What sources are you using?
---StrongAxe on 1/26/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Debt Consolidation


Strongaxe, what other creature fits this description? What else had a tail like a cedar tree?

BTW the middle eastern cedar is a very large tree.
---Watwick on 1/25/15


StrongAxe: Classic C14 dating uses only a Geiger counter to count C14 radiation blips and infer the ratio of C14 to C12 to determine the age of the sample. Now with a half-life of only 5,730 years, this method is highly inaccurate for older samples. But, the Accelerometer Mass Spectrometer is able to make accurate measurements of very old samples, and the ages of ALL fossils in ALL layers and in ALL locations is nearly the same - the age of Noah's flood. To me, this is very strong proof, even for those who don't believe the Bible. You do believe the Bible, don't you?


---jerry6593 on 1/26/15


David:

You wrote: but some of the animals buried in the flood produced fossils. I believe Dinosaur bones have survived because of what it says about them in (Job 40:18).

The assumption that fossils were necessarily created during the flood is just that - an assumption. It takes a sudden cataclysm to form a fossil, but it doesn't necesarily have to be the great flood.

Aslo, while Job 40:18 describes a huge creature, it doesn't necessarily follow that such a creature is a dinosaur. This, again, is merely an assumption.


jerry6593:

Even if carbon dating is inaccurate (e.g. because carbon in atmosphere changed over time), two items deposited at the same time should not read as having different ages.
---StrongAxe on 1/25/15


Some believe rain alone precipitated the flood. But verse 11 says "on that day all the fountains of the great deep burst forth,..." Research shows there is more water under the earth than in the oceans.

This massive inundation carved up the surface of the earth, creating sediments which deeply cover most of our planet. This inundation was mightily destructive as shown by the sedimentary rock layers worldwide which contain trillions of fossils including bones, skin, stomach contents, even blood vessels. They had to be rapidly buried (consistent with the worldwide flood) to be preserved from decay and predation.

That soft flexible tissue (e.g.of dinosaurs) has been found is proof this disaster was relatively recent.
---Warwick on 1/23/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Refinancing


Won't compute. It's impossible for forty days and nights of rain to weather enough soil to form hundred of different levels of sediment. -Trav

Trav
Don't forget the waters coming from the depths of the oceans mentioned in(Genesis 7:11) & (Genesis 8:20.

Samuel
When someone believes a lie, they will try to discount the Truth, no matter how foolish and illogical their argument may sound.

StrongAxe
I came to my conclusion because when you bury a dead animal, it doesn't produce a fossil, but some of the animals buried in the flood produced fossils. I believe Dinosaur bones have survived because of what it says about them in (Job 40:18).
---David on 1/24/15


StrongAxe: "What proof do you have of this?"

Many! One already mentioned - fossils don't typically form either on land or on the sea floor (critters eat them). I could discuss the turbidite-produced nature of the fossil layers in uniformity, extent, pliability, gravel sorting within the layers, etc., but I'll only discuss two now.

Carbon 14 is the only radiometric dating method for the fossils themselves. Other methods only infer dates based on assumptions or on other materials. Accelerator Mass Spectrometer C14 (the only accurate method) measurement shows a strong statistical peak of all fossils worldwide at ~4500 years BP - exactly in line with Noah's flood.

The other proof is the Bible.

---jerry6593 on 1/24/15


\\Noah was brought a fig leaf at the end of the flood.\\

Try again: It was an olive leaf.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/24/15


Takes the right conditions to fossilize.-Trav

Trav
When something dies, decomposition begins. Can something in a state of decomposition, create a fossil? If not, does the subject fossil need to be buried alive, buried in an airtight grave before decomposition sets in, to create a fossil?
---David on 1/23/15

You've seen the extent of my knowledge on the subject.
But, it seems that the bones or skeleton are the main fossil form I've seen. Google or DuckDuckgo, probably would have answers this. Let me know what you find if you look.
---Trav on 1/23/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Franchises


jerry6593:
You said: All the fossils found in the rock strata were formed quickly during Noah's flood.

What proof do you have of this?
---StrongAxe on 1/23/15

Won't compute. It's impossible for forty days and nights of rain to weather enough soil to form hundred of different levels of sediment. There would be one monster level of sediment covering the world. It doesn't exist.
We all know it takes thousands or millions of generations of marine life to form limestone hundreds of feet thick.
Noah was brought a fig leaf at the end of the flood. Do fig trees survive saline/salt water? Most grasses and trees cannot tolerate salt. Soil would be sterilized world wide.
Flood happened...just not like its preached.
---Trav on 1/23/15


Fossils have to form quickly as you strongax point out. Now most Geologist do not believe in Noah and the flood so they say this happened at different times millions of years ago.
---Samuelbb7 on 1/23/15


jerry6593:

You said: All the fossils found in the rock strata were formed quickly during Noah's flood.

What proof do you have of this? From what I understand, from various dating methods, fossils have been formed over various different periods.

David:

You asked: Can something in a state of decomposition, create a fossil?

Only in very rare instances when death is caused by something catastrophic. For example, being buried in a pit of tar. These things happen, but only rarely, which is why we have so few fossils compared to the number of creatures that have lived (and died) over the ages.
---StrongAxe on 1/23/15


Takes the right conditions to fossilize.-Trav

Trav
When something dies, decomposition begins. Can something in a state of decomposition, create a fossil? If not, does the subject fossil need to be buried alive, buried in an airtight grave before decomposition sets in, to create a fossil?

Not a scientist, but his has always puzzled me.
BTW, Funny comments!
---David on 1/23/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Lead Generation


StrongAxe: You are quite right that there are virtually NO fossils being formed today. All the fossils found in the rock strata were formed quickly during Noah's flood. But, within these strata, there are no intermediate forms - a condition that even Darwin admitted would refute his theory. Slow species development and fossil burial over vast ages is a fundamental requirement for the Darwinian paradigm. Thus, the very existence of quick, catastrophically-buried fossils (without intermediate life forms) refutes the long-age theory of species development and the very foundation of the Evolutionary Hypothesis.


---jerry6593 on 1/23/15


Warwick, yes, you are right as usual. I will try to grow up. Perhaps you can help me with some sage advice. I'm willing to listen.
---learner2 on 1/22/15


The scientific method requires that an idea be tested with experiments which can prove the idea or disprove it, I was told. So, evolution is not even a scientific "educated guess", I would say.

I understand that certain present-day animals can swallow and digest bones. So, certain dinosaurs could have consumed bones of dead dinosaurs, I would guess.

According to the evolution I was taught, higher beings come with the process of "natural selection" and "survival of the fittest". And worldly people can try to get somewhere, by putting down others. So, "evolution" could be a match with how they want to see things. People can believe what we want to be true.
---com7fy8 on 1/22/15


Fossils, interesting subject.
Knowing how they are formed, I believe, is the crucial element in discovering the Truth.

When a dog dies on the side of the road, or an animal in the woods, why don't they become fossils? "Degeneration"
---David on 1/22/15

Takes the right conditions to fossilize. Flowing or water under sediment pressure with minerals present to replace the organic materials. Tar pits, amber, freezing or carbonization, as online.

Fossils are interesting...love to find them.
Have a few myself on my widowsill. Know a few preachers doctrines that are fossils when I think on it.
---Trav on 1/22/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Mortgages


Learner, you are well named as you have much to learn. When you enter the big end of the pool it is a good idea to be able to back up your comments rather than to turn and skulk away, descending into hypocrisy! Grow up!
---Warwick on 1/21/15


Fossils, interesting subject.
Knowing how they are formed, I believe, is the crucial element in discovering the Truth.

When a dog dies on the side of the road, or an animal in the woods, why don't they become fossils? "Degeneration"

If the Dinosaurs died in the ways in which evolutionists claim, why did they become fossils? Why did they become a fossil, instead of degenerating like a dead dog on the side of the road?
---David on 1/22/15


Warwick, I apologize. Your beliefs are right on. You are right about everything concerning origins.
---learner2 on 1/21/15


jerry6593:

You asked: Why aren't these intermediate fossils found in abundance worldwide

Most living things decay and get recycled (or eaten) when they die. It's only very rarely that one gets fossilized, or its bones remain. Looking for continuity in fossils is like trying to get an entire set of books from a library after it burns to the ground - whatever books are left are likely to be few and far between.
---StrongAxe on 1/21/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Personal Loans


Learner, rather than giving such a limp-wristed reply show me where my belief is wrong.

Are you claiming we are not commanded to preach the gospel?

Is the preaching of the gospel foremost in your mind?

The evolutionary idea is a naturalistic belief in which there is no God, nor any need of Him. It is the opposite of what Scripture says. Therefore the acceptance of it means a person has rejected that God's word is the ultimate truth. Why then would such an indoctrinated person be open to the gospel?

Have the courage and manners to give a sensible reply.
---Warwick on 1/21/15


Is it possible to be a Christian and be saved, and believe in evolution too?
---learner2 on 1/17/15

It's possible to be a Thomas Christian that needs proof of anything that is not clear. Joh_20:27 Then saith he to Thomas, Reach hither thy finger, and behold my hands, and reach hither thy hand, and thrust it into my side: and be not faithless, but believing.

Evolution is taught as truth while called a "theory".
I've personally discarded evolution for lack of proof. I still look to GOD to provide an answer for the questions in front of me.
Gen 1 there is room in GOD's days for a longer creation. even a precreation before Adam's Gen 2 account. Allowing what we know/discover... to fit.
---Trav on 1/21/15


\\Do you even know what "pseudointellectual" means?\\

Yes.

It means jerry6593.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/21/15


I remember years ago when George Wallace called everyone he disagreed with a pseudointellectual. Labeling can be humorous.
---learner2 on 1/21/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Auto Insurance


\\Why aren't these intermediate fossils found in abundance worldwide?\\

Ask a paleontologist.

Why do you think they are not more frequently and widely found?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/21/15


cluny: "jerry, do you even know what "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" means?"

Yes, I do. It is the childish conjecture that people show the their evolutionary history in the appearance of the fetus as it develops. It is a lie, and the drawings of Haeckel are woefully inaccurate.

Do you even know what "pseudointellectual" means?



"All controversy about Archeopteryx (sic) has been settled. Yeh, it's a fake! Feathers etched onto a real lizard fossil, indeed. Why aren't these intermediate fossils found in abundance worldwide?


---jerry6593 on 1/21/15


Warwick, as you wish.
---learner2 on 1/20/15


Learner, our God given work is to passionately, wholeheartedly and effectively preach the gospel. It is therefore to be held above all other things. Is there something better?

My long experience shows there is an educated-in antiBiblical mind set (humanism whose basic belief is evolution) which closes peoples minds to God's saving truth. Martin Luther once said the Christian 'soldier' should oppose whatever the Godless are teaching, against God's word. In our western society children are indoctrinated into humanistic evolutionary ideas which close their minds to God's word. I make no apology for opposing such Godless ideas.

If you consider this "obsession" then you have missed the point.
---Warwick on 1/20/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Holidays


\\Many also consider the fake Archaeopteryx fossil of Solnhofen, Germany to be his work.\\

Who?

Can you be precise?

All controversy about Archeopteryx has been settled. It (also called Urvogel in German) is not a fake.

Does the SDA still teach that Jesus will come back to Earth via the constellation Orion?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/20/15


Warwick, that is because you are rather obsessed with the subject. So I understand. It's OK.
---learner2 on 1/20/15


jerry, do you even know what "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" means?

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/20/15


Learner, I witness for Jesus quite often and find that belief in evolution closes peoples mind to the gospel. They know that if the evolutionary belief is correct the Bible is wrong about foundational issues.

When I read stories about non-believers conversion to Christianity they regularly say that their belief in evolution was a real stumbling block to them.

When I discuss Christianity with people and they show disinterest I then routinely ask them why they are not interested and belief in evolution is a common answer.
---Warwick on 1/20/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Insurance


Actually, Ernest Haeckel's theory of recapitulation has been largely discredited.--StrongAxe

Strongaxe
Since your illness began, I'm sure we all cherish those days when we see you on Cnet.
---David on 1/20/15


cluny: "I'm willing to be you don't even know what this means, jerry."

Are you "willing to be" exposed as a pseudointellectual? StrongAxe is correct. Ernst Haeckel's drawings (he was quite the artist) were deliberate fakes by which he attempted to "prove" Darwin's theory. Many also consider the fake Archaeopteryx fossil of Solnhofen, Germany to be his work. Darwin's theory consistently relies on hoaxes for support.


---jerry6593 on 1/20/15


Yes, it is possible.

If we consider, even from the New Testament, there were always errors in the beliefs of the Christians then, and there still are now.

My problem with evolution is that it makes the story of eating the forbidden very hard - the forbidden fruit fall works when there was one couple on the earth - if we work with evolution, are we to take that all of humanity ate the forbidden fruit?

Sounds too unlikely
---Peter on 1/19/15


Cluny:

You wrote: Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

Actually, Ernest Haeckel's theory of recapitulation has been largely discredited.
---StrongAxe on 1/19/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Christian Dating


Cluny 'ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny' is a nonsense idea which claims the human embryo is initially identical with that of other mammals and then goes through a series of stages where it has gills like a fish,13 a tail like a monkey, etc. Haeckel called this 'the biogenic law.' He produced drawings to prove this idea however they were proved fraudulent. This however did not stop passionate evolutionists from including them as fact in biology textbooks until recent times.

I am confident Jerry is well aware of this.

I am sure many Christians hold to a belief in microbe to man evolution not having thought it through, as their belief is contradicted by Scripture and contradicts basic Christian doctrines.
---Warwick on 1/19/15


Micha, one does not usually bring up origins of the universe when witnessing about Jesus. So it is not always so important.
---learner2 on 1/19/15


Is it possible to be a Christian and be saved, and believe in evolution too?-learner2 on 1/17/15
Yes, it is possible. Although it will affect one's testimony in Jesus Christ.
A belief in this dichotomy will do more to turn people from God than light the Way toward Him, considering you are referring to molecules-to-man evolutionary concepts.
Luke 9:25 For what is a man advantaged, if he gain the whole world, and lose himself, or be cast away?
John 6:37 All that the Father giveth me shall come to me, and him that cometh to me I will in no wise cast out.
1Co 9:27 But I keep under my body, and bring [it] into subjection: lest that by any means, when I have preached to others, I myself should be a castaway.
---micha9344 on 1/19/15


\\Cluny: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."


BUMF!\\

I'm willing to be you don't even know what this means, jerry.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/19/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Health Treatments


God does not lie.

There is no animal that evolved into a human.

God created man, both male and female. See Gen 1-2.
---aservant on 1/18/15


"Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny." ---Cluny on 1/18/15 I agree.

"The development or developmental history of an individual 'organism', (as a form of life considered as an entity) to repeat (ancestral 'evolutionary stages' [as pertaining to]) its development, especially as depicted in a family tree," is of course true, as clearly shown and reiterated in each individuals birth.
---Josef on 1/18/15


Cluny: "Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny."


BUMF!




---jerry6593 on 1/19/15


Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny

So you believe in disproved scientific hypothesis that was rejected decades ago?

Being a Christian is based on accepting JESUS CHRIST as our Lord and Savior. We are saved by Grace alone.

I will not judge a person's heart based on what they think. It is not our job.

Agape.
---Samuelbb7 on 1/19/15


Read These Insightful Articles About Affiliate Program


I guess that settles it. Thank you.
---learner2 on 1/18/15


\\As in a fetuses devolopment into infancy, then from infancy to adulthood. Yes.
\\

Ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny.

Glory to Jesus Christ!
---Cluny on 1/18/15


"Is it possible to be a Christian and be saved, and believe in evolution too?"
That would depend upon what type of evolution you are referring to.
As the "process of formation, growth, and development:" As in a fetuses devolopment into infancy, then from infancy to adulthood. Yes.
As "the theory that groups of organisms change with the passage of time, mainly as a result of natural selection, so that descendants differ morphologically and physiologically from their ancestors." No. Simply beause a "christian," the way I understand the term, is a follower of the way, a Christ follower, and a follower of Jesus who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life, takes the Father at His word.
---joseph on 1/18/15


Copyright© 1996-2015 ChristiaNet®. All Rights Reserved.