Some Reasons I Don't Believe in Evolution

[Huram Abi]

As we all know men have xy and women only have xx. So a women can NOT make a man, but a man has the DNA to make a women. It seems like every time Science confirms that the Bible is true it could have gone the other way.

Are you saying that a virgin (asexual) birth can only result in a female child?

 

[Skaloop]

As we all know men have xy and women only have xx. So a women can NOT make a man, but a man has the DNA to make a women. It seems like every time Science confirms that the Bible is true it could have gone the other way.

Yeah, but women have different X chromosomes, not two of the same. If Eve just had a double of Adam's X, then all of their children would have identical sex chromosomes; either based on Adam's lone Y and one of Eve's copies of Adam's X for sons, or one of Adam's lone X and one of Eve's copies of Adam's X for daughters.

This is typical of efforts to force new (relative to the Bible) scientific findings to fit the Biblical narrative; it breaks down after thinking it a step or two farther along and opens up a whole load of new questions that need
further mangling of The Word to make it all work.

 

[Doveaman]

Yeah, but women have different X chromosomes, not two of the same. If Eve just had a double of Adam's X, then all of their children would have identical sex chromosomes; either based on Adam's lone Y and one of Eve's copies of Adam's X for sons, or one of Adam's lone X and one of Eve's copies of Adam's X for daughters.

All this is irrelevant.

This is typical of efforts to force new (relative to the Bible) scientific findings to fit the Biblical narrative; it breaks down after thinking it a step or two farther along and opens up a whole load of new questions that need
further mangling of The Word to make it all work.

But Eve wasn't a clone.

If Eve's creation was purely scientific you might have a point (I think). Since Eve's creation wasn't purely scientific then you have no point.

The simple fact is that if Man can form a human from a human using inferior means, this gives support to the Genesis claim of God forming a human from a human using His superior means.

I Man can do it, God can do it better.

 

[Skaloop]

All this is irrelevant.
But Eve wasn't a clone.

If Eve's creation was purely scientific you might have a point (I think). Since Eve's creation wasn't purely scientific then you have no point.

The simple fact is that if Man can form a human from a human through his inferior means, this gives support to the Genesis claim of God forming a human from a human through His superior means.

I was addressing Jazer, who argued that Adam had all the DNA to make Eve, which strongly implies that there was no extra "input" from God in that respect.

 

[Nostromo]

If Eve's creation was purely scientific you might have a point (I think). Since Eve's creation wasn't purely scientific then you have no point.

This makes no sense. Science describes how things happen, it doesn't makes things happen.

I think what you mean is "in accordance with known laws of nature".

 

[dwise1]

Are you saying that a virgin (asexual) birth can only result in a female child?

Actually, in species that use XY, then the answer is yes. From the Wikipedia article on Parthenogenesis:

The offspring produced by parthenogenesis in species that use the XY sex-determination system have two X chromosomes and are female. In species that use the ZW sex-determination system they have either two Z chromosomes (male) or two W chromosomes (non-viable or female), or (theoretically) if clonal parthenogenesis was involved (also called apomixis), they could have one Z and one W chromosome (female).

 

[Jazer]

Are you saying that a virgin (asexual) birth can only result in a female child?

Correct, that is why Jesus is the Son of God. Mary would not have been able to have a male child on her own apart from God. The question is, does the Shroud of Turin contain any of the DNA from Jesus? Or after 2000 years would the DNA be broken down to much to be able to test. The Catholic Church is worried that someone would come along and try to clone Jesus.

 

[Jazer]

I was addressing Jazer, who argued that Adam had all the DNA to make Eve, which strongly implies that there was no extra "input" from God in that respect.

All I am saying is that there is no contradiction with Science. Esp the population genetics and all the work they have been doing with the DNA in the last 10 years. If anything once again Science has confirmed that the Bible is true and accurate. With all the research five - ten years from now they will know even more. I will make a prediction. Nothing in all of their research will contradict the Bible or falsify the Bible in anyway.

 

[Huram Abi]

Correct, that is why Jesus is the Son of God. Mary would not have been able to have a male child on her own apart from God. The question is, does the Shroud of Turin contain any of the DNA from Jesus? Or after 2000 years would the DNA be broken down to much to be able to test. The Catholic Church is worried that someone would come along and try to clone Jesus.

I don't think the question has anything to do with the Shroud, but should be concerned with why God has genetic material and, more specifically, a Y chromosome to contribute.

 

[dwise1]

I don't think the question has anything to do with the Shroud, but should be concerned with why God has genetic material and, more specifically, a Y chromosome to contribute.

OK, what adjective is normally attached to this "God-person" (to borrow from Douglas Adams)? Omnipotent. Or as Q commented when he had been inconviently made human, "Simple. Change the laws of physics."

When God is involved, anything goes. Which of course means that when God is involved, we cannot depend on anything at all.

 

[AV1611VET]

When God is involved, anything goes. Which of course means that when God is involved, we cannot depend on anything at all.

No, anything doesn't go.

God is committed to keeping to His Word.

 

[dwise1]

No, anything doesn't go.

God is committed to keeping to His Word.

And that "word" is written down where?

No, the Bible does not apply to this question. Because those words were written down to fit the understanding of an ancient people.

And for that matter, just exactly where is it written that: "God is committed to keeping to His Word"?

Which of course begs the question of just exactly what "His Word" is supposed to be.

 

[Jazer]

3. Variation involves a loss of information, not a gain. This means that even though a species may adapt to a new environment, it does so by losing a big part of its genetic information.

The information is not really lost. Hamsers come in well over 40 colors. The ones they were reproducing in the lab kept coming out brown. Then all of a sudden they started to come out in different colors. Oh they said, this is evidence of evolution. Why? Hamsters have always come in over 40 colors, there is nothing new going on here. Nothing has evolved. For some reason they thought they had gotten the hamster to do a new dance. But it's the same dance the hamster has been doing all along.

 

[AV1611VET]

And that "word" is written down where?

You probably have a copy of It on your bookshelf.

No, the Bible does not apply to this question.

Yes, the Bible does apply to this question.

Because those words were written down to fit the understanding of an ancient people.

That's true, but they are dynamic as well; meaning they apply to all generations.

Psalm 33:11 The counsel of the LORD standeth for ever, the thoughts of his heart to all generations.

Learn what this means:

Hebrews 4:12a For the word of God is quick,

And for that matter, just exactly where is it written that: "God is committed to keeping to His Word"?

Psalm 118:89 For ever, O LORD, thy word is settled in heaven.

2 Timothy 2:13 If we believe not, yet he abideth faithful: he cannot deny himself.

Which of course begs the question of just exactly what "His Word" is supposed to be.

The Bible.

1 Thessalonians 2:13 For this cause also thank we God without ceasing, because, when ye received the word of God which ye heard of us, ye received it not as the word of men, but as it is in truth, the word of God, which effectually worketh also in you that believe.

 

[RickG]

The fossil record is a joke. All it is is bones in the ground, and not one set of fossils would stand up in a court of law as preponderance of evolution. In addition, one cannot show that the creature in question even had any offspring.

Fortunately science works by considering all evidence, unlike a court of law which decides which evidence can or cannot be used.

So, let's look at some of the evidence that "your" kangaroo court of law omits.

1. Up until about one billion years ago the fossil record contains only single and multiple celled colonies all from marine environments (prokaryotes & eukaryotes).
2. 600 million years ago - simple animals.
3. 570 million years ago - anthropoids appear.
4. 550 million years ago - more complex and diverse forms appear.
5. 500 million years ago - first fish and proto-amphibians.
6. 475 million years ago - first land plants appear.
7. 400 million years ago - first insects.
8. 360 million years ago - first true amphibians.
9. 300 million years ago - first reptiles.
10. 200 million years ago - first mammals.
11. 150 million years ago - first birds.
12. 130 million years ago - first flowers.
13. 65 million years ago - all non avian dinosaurs died out.
14. 2.5 million years ago - appearance of genus homo.

Now AV, If "any" of these appeared out of order in the geologic record you would have a valid argument against evolution. However, that does not happen anywhere. You can't get from single celled animals to genus homo without evolution. There are many examples of macroevolution you choose to willfully ignore. Nevertheless, they are not needed to prove evolution has occurred as I have shown above.

 

[AV1611VET]

There are many examples of macroevolution you choose to willfully ignore.

That's right, because it's full of propaganda.

Your deep-time aside (taken on deep faith, of course), let's look at your propaganda.

Do you see anything on that list that is misleading to the core?

• first fish
• first plants
• first insects
• first etc.

ETA: To finish this post -- (something came up) -- to finish this post, you're assuming these things are first in time, and they are not.

All they are is deeper in the ground -- nothing more.

I could go off on a tangent about deep time, but I won't.

 

[Jazer]

2. 600 million years ago - simple animals.
5. 500 million years ago - first fish and proto-amphibians.
7. 400 million years ago - first insects.
9. 300 million years ago - first reptiles.
10. 200 million years ago - first mammals.
11. 150 million years ago - first birds.

So for you a day is 100 million years, for GAP a day is 1000 years and for YEC a day is a day.
The only difference is you like adding a lot of zeros.

 

[Jazer]

Because those words were written down to fit the understanding of an ancient people.

There are 8 rules of Bible interpretation. We look first at who the Bible was written for. Then we look at the message that God has for us today in our generation.

Here are the eight rules:​

1) The rule of DEFINITION: What does the word mean? Any study of Scripture must begin with a study of words. Define your terms and then keep to the terms defined. The interpreter should conscientiously abide by the plain meaning of the words. This quite often may require using a Hebrew/English or Greek/English lexicon in order to make sure that the sense of the English translation is understood. A couple of good examples of this are the Greek words "allos" and "heteros". Both are usually translated as "another" in English - yet "allos" literally means "another of the same type" and "heteros" means "another of a different type."​

2) The rule of USAGE: It must be remembered that the Old Testament was written originally by, to and for Jews. The words and idioms must have been intelligible to them - just as the words of Christ when talking to them must have been. The majority of the New Testament likewise was written in a milieu of Greco-Roman (and to a lesser extent Jewish) culture and it is important to not impose our modern usage into our interpretation. It is not worth much to interpret a great many phrases and histories if one's interpretations are shaded by pre-conceived notions and cultural biases, thereby rendering an inaccurate and ineffectual lesson.​

3) The rule of CONTEXT: The meaning must be gathered from the context. Every word you read must be understood in the light of the words that come before and after it. Many passages will not be understood at all, or understood incorrectly, without the help afforded by the context. A good example of this is the Mormon practice of using 1 Cor. 8:5b: "...for there be gods many and lords many..." as a "proof text" of their doctrine of polytheism. However, a simple reading of the whole verse in the context of the whole chapter (e.g. where Paul calls these gods "so-called"), plainly demonstrates that Paul is not teaching polytheism.​

4) The rule of HISTORICAL BACKGROUND: The interpreter must have some awareness of the life and society of the times in which the Scripture was written. The spiritual principle will be timeless but often can't be properly appreciated without some knowledge of the background. If the interpreter can have in his mind what the writer had in his mind when he wrote - without adding any excess baggage from the interpreter's own culture or society - then the true thought of the Scripture can be captured resulting in an accurate interpretation. Oliver Wendell Holmes said, "Our only interest in the past is for the light it throws upon the present."​

5) The rule of LOGIC: Interpretation is merely logical reasoning. When interpreting Scripture, the use of reason is everywhere to be assumed. Does the interpretation make sense? The Bible was given to us in the form of human language and therefore appeals to human reason - it invites investigation. It is to be interpreted as we would any other volume: applying the laws of language and grammatical analysis. As Bernard Ramm said:​

"What is the control we use to weed out false theological speculation? Certainly the control is logic and evidence... interpreters who have not had the sharpening experience of logic...may have improper notions of implication and evidence. Too frequently such a person uses a basis of appeal that is a notorious violation of the laws of logic and evidence." (Protestant Biblical Interpretation, Boston: W. A. Wilde, 1956)​

6) The rule of PRECEDENT: We must not violate the known usage of a word and invent another for which there is no precedent. Just as a judge's chief occupation is the study of previous cases, so must the interpreter use precedents in order to determine whether they really support an alleged doctrine. Consider the Bereans in Acts 17:10-12 who were called "noble" because they searched the Scriptures to determine if what Paul taught them was true.​

7) The rule of UNITY: The parts of Scripture being interpreted must be construed with reference to the significance of the whole. An interpretation must be consistent with the rest of Scripture. An excellent example of this is the doctrine of the Trinity. No single passage teaches it, but it is consistent with the teaching of the whole of Scripture (e.g. the Father, Jesus, and the Holy Spirit are referred to individually as God; yet the Scriptures elsewhere teach there is only one God).​

8) The rule of INFERENCE: An inference is a fact reasonably implied from another fact. It is a logical consequence. It derives a conclusion from a given fact or premise. It is the deduction of one proposition from another proposition. Such inferential facts or propositions are sufficiently binding when their truth is established by competent and satisfactory evidence. Competent evidence means such evidence as the nature of the thing to be proved admits. Satisfactory evidence means that amount of proof which would ordinarily satisfy an unprejudiced mind beyond a reasonable doubt. Jesus used this rule when he proved the resurrection of the dead to the unbelieving Sadducees in Matt. 22:23-33.​

Learning these eight rules and properly applying them will help keep any interpreter from making errors and will hopefully alleviate many of the disagreements unfortunately present in Christianity today. However, these eight principles are no substitute for the Holy Spirit which will, if you let Him, guide you in the truth [John 14:26]. If you receive Christ into your heart, God will give you the Holy Spirit freely as a gift [Acts 2:38]. I urge you, if you have not already done so, to examine the claims and the work of Jesus Christ and to receive Him as your Savior.​

Apologetics research resources on religious cults and sects - The Eight Rules of Bible Interpretation

 

[RickG]

That's right, because it's full of propaganda.

Your deep-time aside (taken on deep faith, of course), let's look at your propaganda.

Not at all on faith, its based on physical evidence and obeys the all laws of physics.

Do you see anything on that list that is misleading to the core?

• first fish
• first plants
• first insects
• first etc.

you're assuming these things are first in time, and they are not.

All they are is deeper in the ground -- nothing more.

Not a single thing wrong. Life begin in the oceans. What I stated was land plants, not plants in general which also originated in the oceans.

How deep in the ground has nothing to do it. It is geologic strata of the same age.

By citing it is propaganda is accusing scientists of deliberate wrong doing. Isn't that a violation of forum rules?

Also, I am not assuming anything is first time. I am only saying that that is what the fossil record shows. Again, show any of what I listed in geologic strata it doesn't belong and you have a valid argument against evolution.

I could go off on a tangent about deep time, but I won't.

I would love for you to do that. Please.....pretty please....do it!

 

[RickG]

So for you a day is 100 million years, for GAP a day is 1000 years and for YEC a day is a day.
The only difference is you like adding a lot of zeros.

No, I'm not a GAP person. I considered GAP theory for some time, but the more I explored it, the more I found too many problems.