Dear I don't hate you and certainly don't hate shernen <staff edit>. I don't hate or despise Buddhists for being Buddhists and consider their religion comparable with Christianity but core convictions are not forthcoming. You may well be Christians after a fashion but when you convictions lead you to simply hurl insults and criticisms at other professing Christians I'm thinking your philosophy is all you care about, not the primacy of the faith.
Only once have I heard the gospel from a TE, that just doesn't cut it with me. As far as I can tell TE is devoid of theology and at best you are being used by secular materialists and atheists to attack a literal interpretation of Scripture and when they are satisfied they have effectively neutralized creationism and the many forms of fundamentalist theology your next.
I hope you like your friends because they don't have any more regard for your religion then they have for mine. Theism is the target, not creationism.
Obviously you have lost all regard for creationists as Christians and that's on you. My personal opinion is that the Life Sciences have nothing to do natural history and they know it, their aim is cultural not scientific. So they encourage TEs to continue their full court press of creationism but it won't end there. TE is secular humanism, nothing more. I don't hate people for their sincere convictions but I reserve the right to regard only what I can recognized as proceeding from Christian conviction and to reject what I consider a philosophy simply put in theological terminology.
Such a philosophy is TE and while I do not hate it I do not now, nor have I ever regarded it as Christian. It is nothing more then a contentious and divisive secular philosophy and if it's not then it's something worse.
Originally Posted by Melethiel
We'll never convince mark that we're actually Christians who are actually quite serious about the traditional, historical, Christian faith handed down from the Saints.
As I said.
Just for the record, to any lurkers, I currently attend a WELS church - one of the most traditional Lutheran branches - which is actually officially YEC. I left my previous church when it got too liberal for me to stomach. The theology books on my shelf are mainly meditations, confessional documents, ecclesial, incarnational, and sacramental theology. The whole origins debate is, for me at least, mainly an intellectual exercise.
As for mark's claim that he "has never heard the Gospel from a TE", I will make this one statement. I have never heard the Gospel from mark - and I'm not speaking of any fluffy liberal "Gospel" either. I have, however, heard plenty about monkeys and genes. When I have slightly more time, however (unfortunately, medical school sucks up a lot of free time), I can link to plenty of posts I and other TEs have made in the main Origins forum which pretty clearly delineate the Gospel.
Pots, kettles, and all that.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Господи помилуй нас.
"I have no pleasure in any man who despises music. It is no invention of ours: it is a gift of God. I place it next to theology. Satan hates music: he knows how it drives the evil spirit out of us." -Martin Luther
Last edited by PreachersWife2004; 6th October 2008 at 06:03 PM.
Reason: Consistency of staff edit.
Just for the record, to any lurkers, I currently attend a WELS church - one of the most traditional Lutheran branches - which is actually officially YEC. I left my previous church when it got too liberal for me to stomach. The theology books on my shelf are mainly meditations, confessional documents, ecclesial, incarnational, and sacramental theology. The whole origins debate is, for me at least, mainly an intellectual exercise.
As for mark's claim that he "has never heard the Gospel from a TE", I will make this one statement. I have never heard the Gospel from mark - and I'm not speaking of any fluffy liberal "Gospel" either. I have, however, heard plenty about monkeys and genes. When I have slightly more time, however (unfortunately, medical school sucks up a lot of free time), I can link to plenty of posts I and other TEs have made in the main Origins forum which pretty clearly delineate the Gospel.
Pots, kettles, and all that.
Notice two things lurkers, the response is in the third person and what she means by 'Gospel' remains nebulous. Specifically you are a sinner in need of a Savior due to a sin we are all guilty before God because of one man, namely Adam. I have debated and discussed this at length specifically focusing on Paul's exposition of the Gospel in the book of Romans and Melethiel is well aware of this or maybe she is unaware that I posted a discussion of sin at the opening of Creation Science Resources. Perhaps she thinks that you can look at yourself in the mirror, wave and say 'hi, I'm a Christian', without ever coming under conviction for sin.
For I am not ashamed of the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; to the Jew first, and also to the Greek.(Romans 1:16)
Paul goes on for two chapters describing universal sin and the utter depravity and directly links it to a rejection of God's natural revelation:
Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things. (Romans 1:21-23)
Paul is not preaching some politically correct social gospel, he is saying that we have rejected God in our understanding and attributed to creatures what is rightfully attributed to God alone. Sin is not just offenses committed but essentially sin is a lack of God's righteousness and a rejection of revelation in nature where God's glory is reflected and the conscience bearing witness against us.
As it is written, There is none righteous, no, not one:There is none that understandeth, there is none that seeketh after God. They are all gone out of the way, they are together become unprofitable; there is none that doeth good, no, not one. (Romans 3:10-12)
That's foundational to the Gospel, the fact that we all in word, deed and by our very nature unrighteous and willfully ignorant of God's righteousness. He will again elaborate on the Gospel in Genesis, speaking plainly on grace through faith being the only vehicle by which God's righteousness can be imputed. In chapter 5 he directly ties original sin to Adam who he specifically named.
Nevertheless death reigned from Adam to Moses, even over them that had not sinned after the similitude of Adam's transgression, who is the figure of him that was to come. But not as the offence, so also is the free gift. For if through the offence of one many be dead, much more the grace of God, and the gift by grace, which is by one man, Jesus Christ, hath abounded unto many. (Romans 1:15)
The New Testament clearly indicates that Adam was the first man which is why Luke refers to him as 'son of god', because he had no human parents. This inextricably links the Gospel to Genesis and the historical narrative of Adam and Eve in Eden. I rarely discuss the Scriptures with unbelievers because of they scoff at a literal reading and uniformly resort to pedantic satire and ad hominem attacks, effectively trampling the Gospel under their feet.
You never heard the Gospel from me? I'm an evangelical which means I affirm the totality of Scripture as being the redemptive history of God in human affairs. Christ in the incarnation redeemed us from the sin of Adam through his substitutionary death on the cross and on the third day was raised through the glory of God. That power is available to us to crucify the old nature and walk as new creatures in Christ which is a miraculous interpolation not unlike the creation of life on this planet elaborated on by Moses in Genesis 1.
How long have you been arguing so strenuously against creationism that you don't realize that it comes from New Testament conviction? You embrace this atheistic a priori assumption of universal common decent that must never allow supernatural events as being historically verifiable. That is why I have rejected TE as a secular philosophy that neither accepts nor affirms traditional Christian theism.
Instead of addressing me directly you simply address the audience in a theater designed to make sport of creationists. Creationists were offered a theology specific discussion forum until there was enough of them on here to release the inflammatory rhetoric of Darwinian metaphysics.
You may consider that Christian, I do not.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Last edited by mark kennedy; 4th October 2008 at 11:07 AM.
Reason: Repairing transcript errors to avoid deleterious effects
Apparently while the TEs do not have the vigor to respond to me in a theology specific discussion forum they have turned into a flame gallery they have no qualms about reporting posts that question their Christian conviction. Since it is impossible to have a discussion with creationists without invading TEs heaping their unmitigated scorn the creation forum would appear to have been destroyed by them.
Congratulations, you have ruined any chance of having an open discussion with creationists. I suggest the moderators appeal to the ultimate decision maker and call this forum what it really is, a Darwinian shooting gallery. The rules prohibit me from telling TEs what I really think of them so I'll just say goodbye to this secular philosophy and the shameless proponents who have ran this forum into the ground.
Have a nice day
Mark
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Just a quick bump to see if any interest in the subject remains
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
Just a quick bump to see if any interest in the subject remains
Darwin's null hypothesis for common descent is not unanswerable:
“If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed, which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down.” (Darwin, On the Origin of Species)
Flip side of the IC debate?
I was thinking about this thread while we were talking about irreducible complexity. It is a tough climb from ape cranium to human.
__________________
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. (as it is written, "I have made you a father of many nations") To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. in the presence of Him whom he believed--God, who gives life to the dead and calls those things which do not exist as though they did;
Bumping the thread again in the hopes of reaching creationist lurkers looking for substantive source material. I'm probably going to start a new one soon but having trouble finding the time.
__________________
“Gärtner, by the results of these transformation experiments, was led to oppose the opinion of those naturalists who dispute the stability of plant species and believe in a continuous evolution of vegetation. He perceives in the complete transformation of one species into another an indubitable proof that species are fixed with limits beyond which they cannot change.” (G. Mendel)
I haven't read the thread, but seems like you are wondering if the human brain could arise naturally, if so might I suggest that you take the topic to the life science section where you get everything from YECs to atheists to Buddhists. Especially since this section of the forums is somewhat dead.
__________________ Dear friends, let us love one another. Everyone who loves has been born of God and knows God. Since God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. If we love one another, God lives in us and his love is made complete in us. There is no fear in love. But perfect love drives out fear, because fear has to do with punishment. The one who fears is not made perfect in love. God is love. Whoever lives in love lives in God, and God in him.
The human brain is the center of the human nervous system and is a highly complex organ. Enclosed in the cranium, it has the same general structure as the brains of other mammals, but is over three times as large as the brain of a mammal with an equivalent body size. Most of the expansion comes from the cerebral cortex, a convoluted layer of neural tissue that covers the surface of the forebrain. Especially expanded are the frontal lobes, which are involved in executive functions such as self-control, planning, reasoning, and abstract thought. The portion of the brain devoted to vision is also greatly enlarged in human beings.
Brain evolution, from the earliest shrewlike mammals through primates to hominids, is marked by a steady increase in encephalization, or the ratio of brain to body size. The human brain has been estimated to contain 50–100 billion neurons, of which about 10 billion are cortical pyramidal cells. These cells pass signals to each other via approximately 100 trillion synaptic connections.
In spite of the fact that it is protected by the thick bones of the skull, suspended in cerebrospinal fluid, and isolated from the bloodstream by the blood-brain barrier, the delicate nature of the human brain makes it susceptible to many types of damage and disease. The most common forms of physical damage are closed head injuries such as a blow to the head, a stroke, or poisoning by a wide variety of chemicals that can act as neurotoxins. Infection of the brain is rare because of the barriers that protect it, but is very serious when it occurs. More common are genetically based diseases, such as Parkinson's disease, multiple sclerosis, and many others. A number of psychiatric conditions, such as schizophrenia and depression, are widely thought to be caused at least partially by brain dysfunctions, although the nature of such brain anomalies is not well understood.
Only 29% of the genes in the comparison of the Chimpanzee Genome and the Human Genome sequences are the same.
Mmmm 'kay, I think I gotta clear this up, just in case no one else has caught on to the error here.
from:
"Initial sequence of the chimpanzee genome and comparison with the human genome." The Chimpanzee Sequencing and Analysis Consortium. Nature437, 69-87 (1 September 2005)
First:
"We calculate the genome-wide nucleotide divergence between human and chimpanzee to be 1.23%, confirming recent results from more limited studies"
Oh darn, it looks like instead of the merely 29% Mark says we share, we actually share about 98.77% of our genome....
Now here is the quote that was taken out of context:
"Orthologous proteins in human and chimpanzee are extremely similar, with 29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage."
So mark took a quote about protein similarity, and changed a few words.... hmm.
Last edited by Jeffwhosoever; 24th January 2010 at 10:30 AM.
Reason: Edited by Staff consensus
29% being identical and the typical orthologue differing by only two amino acids, one per lineage."
Linear Mode
