Welcome to City-Data.com Forum!
U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 11-28-2014, 04:14 PM
 
Location: Pensacola, Florida
2,125 posts, read 1,481,788 times
Reputation: 557

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
I've never bought the theory propounded by scientists that man and woman just evolved from molecules building upon molecules. The complexity of the human organism as it functions now---two separate sexes splitting off and evolving their reproductive systems between the legs for both and how the man fits so perfectly into the woman to produce an offspring is just so perfectly designed as to make it impossible in every sense of the word to have happened without Intelligence guiding it--something I was not able to convince hard-core evolutionists of in our discussion in the Religion and Spirituality forum.

I think we can dispense with man appearing 6,000 years ago right off the bat. Looking further back, say 150,000 years if we want to go with what scientists say in this article, which first appeared in the Science journal, not Huffington Post, the article says that it was man that first appeared and then woman later, which doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense to me because how could men reproduce without women.

But I think what one can glean from this article is that
1. evolution of the human specious over a billion years from assembly of specialized molecules on their own power is definitely out as a theory
2. man and woman just appeared at some point--whether they were dropped off from a spaceship or whether God created them here we'll never know--but if the argument is man evolved from specks then it was guided by a divine hand.

But the importance of the article is to point out the absurdity of what fundamentalists propound: that the Bible says that God created man and woman only 6,000 years ago and this must be gospel truth; it cannot be questioned. Genetic studies put this false notion to rest years ago when they mapped the human genome. This article just further corroborates the proof that man has been around for 50-100 thousand years, not 6,000.
The mathematical probability that all life began from is single organism is 1 in 10 to the power of 340 million.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 11-28-2014, 04:17 PM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,177 posts, read 4,791,608 times
Reputation: 2587
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
The Bible doesn't say it took 150,000 years; it says 6,000 years.
It does NOT "say" 6000 years. One has to twist and turn and make all kinds of assumptions to come up with that number. And there are other Christians who have twisted and turned and made all kinds of assumptions to come up with their alternative of 10,000 years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2014, 04:20 PM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,177 posts, read 4,791,608 times
Reputation: 2587
Quote:
Originally Posted by the_human_being View Post
The mathematical probability that all life began from is single organism is 1 in 10 to the power of 340 million.
Who says all life began with a single organism?

If I recall my reading correctly, the process that began life in that primordial soup would have created zillions of organisms, not just one.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2014, 04:35 PM
 
1,727 posts, read 1,428,640 times
Reputation: 619
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
It does NOT "say" 6000 years. One has to twist and turn and make all kinds of assumptions to come up with that number. And there are other Christians who have twisted and turned and made all kinds of assumptions to come up with their alternative of 10,000 years.
Actually it does say that.

Not 6000 exactly, I believe 5700, this is dated in Jewish history and can easily be verified.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2014, 05:04 PM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,384,541 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hannibal Flavius View Post
Scientist trace all people back to a single couple, why would you have a problem with that?
Except they don't.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2014, 05:06 PM
 
17,842 posts, read 14,384,541 times
Reputation: 4113
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Shocked that this has not appeared yet, but the article speaks for itself. The question is: does science speak for the Bible?



So it appears that the Adam and Eve story was, at last investigation, accurate all along---if we leave out the silliness of the talking serpent and all the rest. It's just that the Bible was off by only...oh....say, 150,000 years, give or take?
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Looking further back, say 150,000 years if we want to go with what scientists say in this article, which first appeared in the Science journal, not Huffington Post, the article says that it was man that first appeared and then woman later, which doesn't make a whole heck of a lot of sense to me because how could men reproduce without women.
You might want to read your own links Thrill. That's not what the articles say at all.

Last edited by Ceist; 11-28-2014 at 05:29 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-28-2014, 05:06 PM
 
Location: Someplace Wonderful
5,177 posts, read 4,791,608 times
Reputation: 2587
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jim_a49 View Post
Actually it does say that.

Not 6000 exactly, I believe 5700, this is dated in Jewish history and can easily be verified.
Book, chapter, and verse, please.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2014, 01:31 AM
 
18,250 posts, read 16,920,340 times
Reputation: 7553
Quote:
Originally Posted by chuckmann View Post
Who says all life began with a single organism?

If I recall my reading correctly, the process that began life in that primordial soup would have created zillions of organisms, not just one.
It's not a question of how many organisms got created, It's a question of how they organized themselves into such a sophisticated creatures as a man and woman. There's just no way this glob of chaotic disorganized ooze came together on its own and started forming highly sophisticated structures within the human body--I've named most of them---highly specialized cells that routinely perform millions of chemical processes every day that the most advanced labs in the world can only dream of duplicating. Just look at what the liver alone does for the human body in a single day for 90 years and then try to tell me "nature" designed it all on its own without any outside help.

Watch the link below. It will ID the various systems. Remember that each of these systems perform literally tens of thousands of different chemical reactions everyday--reactions so complex that scientists have barely begin to scratch the surface of understanding how the body performs them. Then try to convince me this all came about by random selection.

Human Anatomy: Learn All About the Human Body at InnerBody.com
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2014, 03:48 AM
 
Location: Florida
23,173 posts, read 26,197,836 times
Reputation: 27914
Quote:
Originally Posted by thrillobyte View Post
Itthen try to tell me "nature" designed it all on its own without any outside help.

Watch the link below. It will ID the various systems. Remember that each of these systems perform literally tens of thousands of different chemical reactions everyday--reactions so complex that scientists have barely begin to scratch the surface of understanding how the body performs them. Then try to convince me this all came about by random selection.

Human Anatomy: Learn All About the Human Body at InnerBody.com
You're doing it again, even though it's been mentioned to you several times...working from the top down.
Nature didn't "design" anything. There was no 'end product' to be achieved. In fact, things are still evolving so even our bodies, as we know them now, aren't a completed end product.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-29-2014, 07:35 AM
 
Location: US
32,530 posts, read 22,033,127 times
Reputation: 2227
Quote:
Originally Posted by hammertime33 View Post
Scientists have done no such thing.
Then you obviously need to study more because there is an historical Eve traced to Africa and an historical Adam seems to have made his appearance about 100-130 years later...This was all accomplished via genetic research...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:


Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 10:25 AM.

© 2005-2024, Advameg, Inc. · Please obey Forum Rules · Terms of Use and Privacy Policy · Bug Bounty

City-Data.com - Contact Us - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37 - Top