Top Ten Signs You're a Fundamentalist Christian

Alsharad,

Evolution
Evolution describes when an entire species (or section of a species) changes slowly over time to adapt to its surroundings. This happens through the process of natural selection: people who are better suited to their environment are more likely to survive and have offspring, so over time the population changes to be more like those people.

The best example of evolution is white people. Humans originated near the equator, where it is most healthy to have darker skin to protect from the sun, and flatter noses to keep cooler. But when groups of humans moved north into colder places, paler skin and longer noses were more suitable, so the children who were born with paler skin were just slightly more likely to survive and have children. Over 20,000 years this gradually turned all the humans white.

The people who live in Australia now are mostly white because they emigrated from a colder place, but in 20,000 years' time they will have evolved into black people to suit their environment.

This is an example of evolution. Evolution is not a matter of opinion, it's just logic. Evolution happens to all species all the time. It is unavoidable. Weaknesses die out and strengths live on, and so the population change over time to be less like the weak and more like the strong.

Instinct
Evolution is what gives us our instincts. We are instinctively attracted to certain things and repulsed by certain things because we are the descendants of people who had these preferences and got lucky, but there were also people who didn't have these preferences and they died off and didn't have children.

Natural Evolution
Anyway, the other 'evolution' is the theory of natural evolution, which is the theory that all the species — including humans — actually evolved from each other.

This one isn't a matter of logic, and there's no way to prove it other than by finding loads of bones and things that actually show that we have actually changed from one species into another different species. Of which, there isn't overwhelming evidence.

But all the signs are there. We know that there were many human-like species on the planet millions of years ago, including the neandertal species, and that they all died out apart from us. And there are obviously many species on the planet today that appear to have evolved from each other. The cat family is a good example. You get tiny little cats, and great big tigers, yet they are all cats, quite clearly. This in itself is a good indication that all species evolve from each other.

Are humans special?
But could humans be 'special', and not descended from other animals? If humans are different, then all those other proto-human species that died out millions of years ago must have been humans too.

And if humans were completely independent from all other animal life on Earth then where did we come from? If we didn't evolve slowly then the only alternative is that we must have appeared out of thin air!

The Thin Air theory
Some would say that this is exactly what happened — that God made humans appear out of thin air millions of years ago. But why would God use such a crude method, when he created everything else in the universe (including all the other animals) simply with the laws of physics and nothing more? The 'out of thin air' method seems to contradict God's 'minimalist technique' nature. Why make monkeys evolve, and humans (very similar to monkeys) appear from nowhere. This theory is clumsy.

What the Bible actually says
The Bible itself also seems to reject this 'made out of thin air' theory. The Bible gives no specifics at all about where humans came from and only describes the creation of the 'frist man' (Adam). Adam obviously wasn't the first human being because Adam lived only maybe 5,000 years ago, and humans have been around hundreds of times longer than this. So the creation of Adam obvioulsy has nothing to do with where we as a species come from. Humans have been around for millions of years, but Adam was the first 'true' human of God.

What is a true human?
So what is a true human of God? Did God change us at one point in history, so that we became different? If so, what was this change?

We were walking upright millions of years ago, and creating art as long ago as 70,000 years ago, and using language as long ago as 20,000 years (excuse my rough figures). So we already had language, and art, and were no doubt very intelligent creatures. So what changed a few thousand years ago that made us 'of God'? Was this change merely a spiritual change?

Conclusion
Sorry; I realise I'm asking a lot more questions than I'm answering, but I really don't have any answers!

In my opinion, I'm pretty sure natural evolution is real, and that we evolved from other animals. I think the alternative theory is silly and groundless, and The Bible itself denies it.

But as for what God did to us 5,000 years ago — that I have no idea about. Did he made us spiritually aware? If you read the Story of Adam and Eve it actually doesn't make much literal sense and I think it's far more likely that it's some kind of metaphor for the creation of the universe.

 

cool. I've got a teacher, like a mystic and he says the aborigiones reckon they are the only remaining origional humnas, and they're dying ut/leaving the planet/not having any more children, becuase of us. the mutants, who are destroying the planet. yeah so apprantly we're mutants. whatver that means..somehow being spliced with some other type of being. ...

 

thankyou.

 

The answer, that which has been said here already is simple:

1. Man is finite.

2. God is infinite.

3. It is not possible for the finite to comprehend the infinite.

Therefore:

a. None of you know what God did or how he did it. That would include the original authors of scripture, and

b. Nowhere does it say that man was NOT created through natural evolution.

Is this so difficult to understand?

 

2. God is imagination!!!

 

your a joke, how can you dare ask for evidence if you start with the presumption a few thousand year old account of creation is to be taken literally. look at the fossil record which is neatly layered from simple to complex organisms.

i want you to give support, outside of the bible (you cant prove the bible using the bible), that proves man and all life appeared on earth in one 6 day period. any proof, i know you dont have anything that wont stand up to any scrutiny, not anything that you think may disprove evolution but that actually proves the genesis account of creation is factual.

 

Because:

1, It's a joke, and any reasionable christians would see that it's a joke and laugh along with me. (It was a christian friend that sent me this list in the first place).

2, You're mistaken when you say it's the 'christian' forum.. it's not. It's a forum about 'christanity' - that is, somewhere people can come and talk about christanity (not somewhere specifically for christians). My message was very much about christanity, so this was the best place to post it. (you didn't expect me to go posting it in the 'love and sex' forum did you?

3, I'm all for coexisting, I'm non racist, non homophobic, non sexist. I'll never judge someone based on what they believe (only on how they act). Can you say the same for fundamental christians?

I wasn't attacking christians, I posted a joke... if you can't see that, then I feel sorry for you - learn the laugh, and the world laughts 'with' you, (otherwise they'll just laugh at you).

 

Well first of all the Bible has many stories, and many of these stories are being backed up by findings in archaeology. The story of God splitting the Red Sea for one. It states that the Children of Israel pass through the sea and when Pharaoh sent his army through the sea to kill them, God allowed the sea to cover over Pharaohs army. Just in recent years divers have now located the very spot where this happened, and are find the remnants of Pharaohs army incrusted in coral. They also found ancient writings carved in stone that gives the account of what took place there. They also discovered the real mount sinai. The Bible states that when God dwelt there He appeared like a furnace of fire. The mountain they discovered is burnt black on top. This mountain is not volcanic but is solid granit. They also discovered the altar where the Jews made the Golden calf. There were no less than 12 items the Bible speaks about in the story and the researchers found all twelve. What was recorded in the Bible was true. And yes I have looked at the fossile record and it is as you say, but the Bible teaches us that God's days are not 24 hours, but one day with God is 1000 years. Even Darwin could not understand why he could not find fossiles that showed trans-species. And now here we are 100 years later. Thousands of fossiles showing trans-species should be evident, and yet we are still waiting for the first fossile. Archaeology is now supporting many of the claims found in the Bible. Evolution is a theory which can only be accepted by blind faith. And this is why a growing number of scientist are slowly backing away from this once popular theory.

 

first off i claim bullshit, give me sum legitimit links that proves any of that, these discoveries if true would have been huge news all over the world, i think your just pulling those things out of your ass or repeating what sum preacher has said.

read this-
Fossils that show intermediate characteristics are generally called transitional fossils. Transitional fossils are fossils that have characteristics that are intermediate in nature to organisms that existed both prior to it and after it. As such, transitional fossils are strongly suggestive of evolution.

There are many examples of transitional fossils in the fossil record. Examples include large-scale transitions such as from reptiles to birds (like the controversial archaeopteryx) and from reptiles to mammals, as well as more detailed transitions, such as those among the many hominids or the development of horses. The fact that, despite the rarity of fossilization, we have a wealth of transitional fossil data and that the fossil data generally conforms to the phylogenetic tree is strongly supportive of the idea of evolution.

Mention transitional fossils to a creationist and you will most likely get a dirty look. Transitional fossils are frequently misunderstood, and like macroevolution, creationists tend to redefine the term to suit their purposes. As explained above, transitional fossils are fossils that have characteristics that are intermediate between other organisms. If the transitional fossil can be dated to a time between the organisms it is an intermediate to, it is strongly suggestive of an evolutionary relationship between the organisms.

Creationists will critique transitional fossils in a variety of ways. They might claim that a transitional fossil is not proof of an evolutionary relationship since you can't prove that it is, in fact, an ancestor of any later organism. They are right. We can't prove that. As has been explained, transitional fossils are suggestive of an evolutionary relationship - they are not proof of it. Once again we run into problems with creationists looking for proof when science deals rather with supporting evidence.

Without actually going back in time and watching the birth/hatching/etc. of each successive organism in an evolutionary chain, we can not "prove" that an evolutionary relationship exists. Even if you accept evolution, you can't be sure some organism is actually an ancestor of existing species - it might be a side-branch on the evolutionary tree that died out.

However, transitional fossils are just one more piece of evidence that is suggestive and supportive of evolution. Even if a transitional fossil is a side-branch, it still shows that creatures with intermediate characteristics existed, and this indicates the strong possibility that a similar organism could exist that is an ancestor of an existing species. When you consider that such transitionals fall into the phylogenetic tree well within the area you would expect them to, it is a nicely verified prediction of the general theory of evolution and further support for the theory.

Creationists will also sometimes state that a transitional fossil is not, in fact, a transitional. For example, with archaeopteryx, some have claimed that it is not a transitional between reptiles and birds and instead assert that it is a true bird. Unfortunately, this is another example of a creationist lie or distortion. If you look at the evidence it is clear that archaeopteryx has characteristics in common with reptiles that modern birds do not posses. Archaeopteryx is a transitional fossil. We can't say for sure it is actually an ancestor of modern birds, but as explained, that is not a significant issue.

In general, creationist arguments that transitionals are not real transitionals are based on their ignorance of what a transitional fossil is or simply on outright distortions of fact. It is not that there isn't room for debate on the nature or categorization of various fossils, because there is always room for debate. However, creationist debates are almost never informed debate and as such do not accomplish much.

Finally, creationists will sometimes belabor the fact that there are gaps in the fossil record. Even if we have a transitional fossil between two groups of organisms that is suggestive of an evolutionary relationship, creationists will demand intermediaries between the intermediaries. And, if those are found, creationists will want intermediaries between the new organisms. It's a no-win situation. Since creationists try to put forth the strawman that you need "absolute proof" of an evolutionary relationship to accept it, they insist that if we do not have a record of every single organism in the chain we can't say some organism is an ancestor of another.

This is a useless and spurious criticism. I have already shown how we cannot say for certain that any particular fossilized organism was definitively in the evolutionary history of any other organism. But that doesn't matter. The fossil record is still extraodinarily suggestive of evolution in general, and specific fossils are suggestive of evolutionary relationships between specific organisms. We can make very well informed, provisional conclusions (this is science) as to the evolutionary history of many organisms. And these conclusions are supported by the evidence; in many cases by both fossil and nonfossil evidence.

Summary of Fossil Evidence

While the fossil record is certainly not "complete" (fossilization is a rare event, so this is to be expected), there is still a wealth of fossil information to be considered. If you examine the fossil evidence, you see that the fossil record uniformly supports the idea of common descent. The general order of the fossil record, the correspondence of the order of organisms found in the fossil record with the order suggested by examining living organisms, the correspondence of the fossil record to the phylogenetic tree (including transitional organisms), and the biogeography of the fossil record all support the idea of common descent. Since the fossil record is a record of historical organisms, it strongly suggests a process of evolution occurring throughout history.

http://atheism.about.com/library/FAQs/evolution/blfaq_evolution_evidence16.htm

 

I will be posting more information on this soon. Believe me what I'm talking about is true and more than one person is involved in these descoveries. The actually made a movie about them and it was on the news. But findings that support the Bible donot get the coverage that evolution gets in the news. After all it's like every year they find the missing link only to find out it's not.

 

That might be our opinion, Dan. We were discussing what other people believe, because it's not all about you and me. And we are in their forum.

 

As I've already said, this is a forum to talk *about* christanity.

Anyway, this has blown up out of all preportion, like I said, I posted it as a joke... I'm sorry that some people were unable to understand that... peace all

 

it's true that stuff like this does not get the coverage it deserves. I bet if they found noah's ark the government would hide it because of the difference it would make on the world. And we can't have that, oooooh noo. a large number of humanoids finally believing a Bible story??that would be an outrage!! Hmm.... perhaps they already did find it and hide it.

 

The greatest proof against evolution is now coming from those who support it. Author Luther Sunderland formally, and in detail, interviewed five leading fossil experts from the world's major fossil museums. Face to face in a formal scientific discussion, they not only confirm, but also enhance, what creation scientists such as Dr. Duane Gish have been saying all along. Even though Australian anti-creationist palaeontologist Michael Archer is still insisting that evolutionary transition is adequately documented in the fossils. The best of the best in the evolutionary fossil camp claim otherwise, in their own words.
None of the five museum officials whom Luther Sunderland interviewed could offer a single example of a transitional series of fossilized organisms that would document the transformation of one basically different type to another.
Dr Eldredge(curator of invertebrate palaeontology at the American Museum) said that the categories of families and above could not be connected, while Dr Raup (curator of geology at the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago) said that a dozen or so large groups could not be connected with each other. But Dr Patterson (a senior palaeontologist and editor of a prestigious journal at the British Museum of Natural History) spoke most freely about the absence of transitional forms.
Before interviewing Dr Patterson, the author read his book, Evolution, which he had written for the British Museum of Natural History. In it he had solicited comments from readers about the book's contents. One reader wrote a letter to Dr Patterson asking why he did not put a single photograph of a transitional fossil in his book. He replied to the author in a most candid letter as follows:
... I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transitions in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them. You suggest that an artist should be used to visualise such transformations, but where would he get the information from? I could not. honestly, provide it, and if I were to leave it to artistic licence, would that not mislead the reader?
The reason the theory of evolution is failing is because it's main supporters are recognizing, that the evidence is simply not there.

 

Their are no less than 300 prophecies in the Old Testament that fortold Christ coming hundreds of years before He arrived. And it also fortold the rejection of His own people.


Of course it did, lets forget the fact that the whole bible was written after all this. Not like it was written and then all of this came true!







The Bible has strong evidence to support it's claims where the theory of evolution has no evidence. Only blind faith. Evolution has been around for over 100 years, and we are still waiting for the first fossile that would show trans-species.

The "theory" of evolution has been proved. Try to pick up a National Geographic magazine sometime, for maybe watch the History Channel. Or maybe you could even use the internet for some other task than to try to prove the bible! Maybe do a lil research instead, that is the whole point of the web.


Besides the bible is a man made document, anyone quoting it to prove or back up a religion is doin nothing but quoting a man that wrote this in a different language 1000s of years ago.

 

They have been fulfilled, they are being fulfilled as we speak, and more shall come to pass.

LOL, yes, one man knew 1,000 languages and he wrote the entire Bible.

First and foremost, the Bible was written in both Greek and Hebrew. It was not until 1534 that the book was translated in Europe, and even then it was merely translated into major languages. Secondly, many authors contributed to the Book, before and after Christ. It is comprised of three parts. The old Testament is made up of two parts of Jewish origin and the New Testament was written after Christ's death by both the apostles/disciples who walked with him and their proteges. Thirdly, no one in the world knows a thousand languages.

Scientists still are not aware of what caused the process of evolution to begin. Their theory is down to what is know as a, "singularity". They have no clue as to the origins of this, "singularity."

On an end note, only the most confused fundamentalists believe that the world was actually created within the span of six days, according to our timeline.

 

5. You are willing to spend your life looking for little loopholes in the scientifically established age of Earth (few billion years), but you find nothing wrong with believing dates recorded by Bronze Age tribesmen sitting in their tents and guessing that Earth is a few generations old.

there is evidence of metaphor

I have rebuttals for others but it's before 10 in the mornining

 

If the theory of evolution had been proven, they would no longer call it a theory. I don't need to pick up a National Geographic magazine, i'm listening to those who still support evolution, and they are the one's who are claiming there is no trans-species evidence to be found in the fossile record. It's your own people who are telling you this. The Bible was written by inspired men of God, and this can be proven by the prophecies that are found within its pages. And many of these prophecies are being fulfilled in the very day we live in. Only God knows the future in detail. I would suggest you do a little research and read Ezekiel chapters 36,37,38,and 39. You might be surprised just how current the Bible really is.

 

LOL, yes, one man knew 1,000 languages and he wrote the entire Bible.

First and foremost, the Bible was written in both Greek and Hebrew. It was not until 1534 that the Bible was translated in Europe, and even then, it was merely translated into major languages. Secondly, many authors contributed to the Book, before and after Christ. It is comprised of three parts. The old testament is made up of two parts of Jewish origin and the New Testament was written after Christ's death. Thirdly, no one in the world knows a thousand languages.


Can you Read. The bible has been translated into 1000s of langauges, not orginally written in them. Why dont you try to translate one sentence into every language over 1000s of years and see if you end up with the same sentence you started with!