Should Genesis be taken literally?

[Speedwell]

What do you mean by sin nature? Are you referring to the works of the flesh?

Galatians 5:19-21King James Version (KJV)
19 Now the works of the flesh are manifest, which are these; Adultery, fornication, uncleanness, lasciviousness,

20 Idolatry, witchcraft, hatred, variance, emulations, wrath, strife, seditions, heresies,

21 Envyings, murders, drunkenness, revellings, and such like: of the which I tell you before, as I have also told you in time past, that they which do such things shall not inherit the kingdom of God.

I think you have to be a Calvinist to understand it fully; something to do with how our natures changed after The Fall. Though clearly it is possible to sin without a Sin Nature or Adam couldn't have done it.

 

[Code Phox]

If by that you are asking if I am really of the opinion that all life is of common descent and the many species today are resulting from changes from an original simple form of life . . . yes.
If by that you are asking if evolution is my source of salvation and eternal life . . . no, that is what Jesus gives me.

OK, I just wanted your clarification.
I think Evolution and Adaptation are different things.. Evolution being the introduction of random mutations. The concept of mutations being beneficial enough to affect natural selection. Repeat this after thousands of generations, small mutations will build biology till you have a complex organ OR multiple complex organs which work together to accomplish extremely amazing task..
Adaption doesn't depend on mutations, but on the mixing of the large amount of code already present to produce an offspring that has a high amount of success probability because the parents survived themselves to the point of reproduction.. In other words, Natural Selection that picks the best combination of code already present.

Basically, I think Natural Selection drives animals to improve because of the envenvironment. The animals pick mates who are strong and beautiful, so artificial selection plays a role also.
I don't agree with the idea of random mutations developing complexity or affecting natural selection drastically to create a new species. There is a limit to the amount of change that can take place naturally.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

OK, I just wanted your clarification.
I think Evolution and Adaptation are different things.. Evolution being the introduction of random mutations. The concept of mutations being beneficial enough to affect natural selection. Repeat this after thousands of generations, small mutations will build biology till you have a complex organ OR multiple complex organs which work together to accomplish extremely amazing task..
Adaption doesn't depend on mutations, but on the mixing of the large amount of code already present to produce an offspring that has a high amount of success probability because the parents survived themselves to the point of reproduction.. In other words, Natural Selection that picks the best combination of code already present.

Basically, I think Natural Selection drives animals to improve because of the envenvironment. The animals pick mates who are strong and beautiful, so artificial selection plays a role also.
I don't agree with the idea of random mutations developing complexity or affecting natural selection drastically to create a new species. There is a limit to the amount of change that can take place naturally.

Thanks for describing your thoughts on evolution.

The evolutionary theory is that evolution includes both the introduction of random mutations and, after they are introduced, their selection by natural means. Most of them are doomed to be discarded because most such are harmful.

It is correct that mixing of codes can help arrange for more fit individuals. However, evolution theory asserts mutations can also be involved in more fit individuals.

Evolution theory would deny there is a limit to the amount of change that can take place naturally. Well, let me rephrase that. The amount of change that can be achieved by evolution consists of at least all of life as we know it. Of course there are limits to what living things can do! Animals can't fly to the moon . . . just in atmosphere, for example.

 

[Code Phox]

Thanks for describing your thoughts on evolution.

I think about and study the subject often. I look forward to understanding others views like yours and would like to learn more.

The evolutionary theory is that evolution includes both the introduction of random mutations and, after they are introduced, their selection by natural means. Most of them are doomed to be discarded because most such are harmful.

One topic Evolutionists seem to look over is for the likelihood of a positive mutation in offspring... Then the ability for that mutation to be passed onto the next generation and not lost. Much like two individuals with dwarfism won't have children who will necessarily also have dwarfism. Here is a link for deeper information on that: Understanding Genetics .

It is correct that mixing of codes can help arrange for more fit individuals. However, evolution theory asserts mutations can also be involved in more fit individuals.

Another view of mutations is error in reproduction, being positive or negative. Theres a whole lot of places for errors in code to take place.. The idea off errors being beneficial, taking place in the same area AND taking place in the correct order to build on a previous error.. all while we are in a reality where chemistry builds complex molecular machinery.. Multiple places Evolving at the same time to eventually work together to perform a complex function ONLY useful if all the parts are well developed.. Evolution is a substitution for intelligence.
However! I suppose an intelligent design would include change in animals over time to avoid extinction. I just don't trust mutations pushed a fish from the ocean, development of dinosaurs, development of mammals THEN a mammal going back into the ocean for a answer to why we have whales.

Evolution theory would deny there is a limit to the amount of change that can take place naturally. Well, let me rephrase that. The amount of change that can be achieved by evolution consists of at least all of life as we know it. Of course there are limits to what living things can do! Animals can't fly to the moon . . . just in atmosphere, for example.

Well, when I mentioned there is a limit to how much change can take place I reference to humans breeding dogs over thousands of years. We can't make a dog who's size is of a horse OR even make a new species of dog. It seems, breeders mix code already present but have the offspring specialized in parts of the code. Making code more or less dominant through artificial selection. An example are the dogs with lots of loose skin, a small change which affects the focus to skin surface area of a larger dog on a smaller skeletal system. Code which is already there, just mixed.

 

[KWCrazy]

Then you should have no trouble finding evidence in their writings that they did. You should have no trouble finding in the doctrinal statements of the Roman Catholic, Orthodox and Oriental churches that they do now. Go for it. Prove me wrong.

No.
When you make an idiotic statement it's not anyone's job to prove you wrong. It's your job to validate what you said.
I already posted evidence that the early church had no reason to doubt any of the Scriptures, not just Genesis. The lie that YEC is a modern interpretation only came about so people could promote evolution and cast aspersions on Genesis.

 

[KWCrazy]

I do not think the Bible is the inerrant word of God, even though some passages helped me learn about God.

What God?
I don't know what God a Bible fill of mistakes would help you find.

 

[Speedwell]

No.
When you make an idiotic statement it's not anyone's job to prove you wrong. It's your job to validate what you said.
I already posted evidence that the early church had no reason to doubt any of the Scriptures, not just Genesis. The lie that YEC is a modern interpretation only came about so people could promote evolution and cast aspersions on Genesis.

In other words, you can't. No one claimed that the early church "doubted any of the scriptures." Indeed, it is clear that Genesis was regarded as historical throughout most of Christian history and by most Christians even today. I am talking about specific creationist doctrines which were unknown before the Reformation.

 

[joshua 1 9]

I think you have to be a Calvinist to understand it fully

John Wesley was neither Armenian nor Calvinistic. He did not go along with either one of them. Also if you read Calvin's teaching it really is quite a bit different from the way the hyper Calvinists preach and teach today.

 

[cre8id]

In other words, you can't. No one claimed that the early church "doubted any of the scriptures." Indeed, it is clear that Genesis was regarded as historical throughout most of Christian history and by most Christians even today. I am talking about specific creationist doctrines which were unknown before the Reformation.

So, what "specific creationist doctrines which were unknown before the Reformation" are you talking about?

 

[Speedwell]

So, what "specific creationist doctrines which were unknown before the Reformation" are you talking about?

Sola Scriptura, literal inerrancy, perspicuity, self-interpretability and plenary verbal inspiration.

 

[Paul of Eugene OR]

I think about and study the subject often. I look forward to understanding others views like yours and would like to learn more. . . . One topic Evolutionists seem to look over is for the likelihood of a positive mutation in offspring... Then the ability for that mutation to be passed onto the next generation and not lost. . . .

Well, if the mutation actually assists in reproduction, then it has a better chance of showing up in the next generation over the regular gene. After all, we just said it assists in reproduction, right? So it should. And then in the generation following as well, it will tend to grow. After a few hundred generations, you can expect all members of the species to have it and it has become standard.

Here's a tip: more than one mutation can be working its way into the population at a time.

However! I suppose an intelligent design would include change in animals over time to avoid extinction. I just don't trust mutations pushed a fish from the ocean, development of dinosaurs, development of mammals THEN a mammal going back into the ocean for a answer to why we have whales.

Whales have vestigial hip bones and sometimes, on rare occasions, actual vestigial legs sticking out, which they would not have if they had not descended from land animals. And we have, now, transitional whale fossils.

Well, when I mentioned there is a limit to how much change can take place I reference to humans breeding dogs over thousands of years. We can't make a dog who's size is of a horse OR even make a new species of dog. It seems, breeders mix code already present but have the offspring specialized in parts of the code. Making code more or less dominant through artificial selection. An example are the dogs with lots of loose skin, a small change which affects the focus to skin surface area of a larger dog on a smaller skeletal system. Code which is already there, just mixed.

Sure they could. Its just that we haven't been seeking to breed them the size of horses. We HAVE horses, you know. But it would take more than a single human lifetime, of course.

 

[The Times]

Honestly, how do you come up with stuff?

The Man of Sin has been revealed in our day and age, the Great Falling Away has begun!

The Highway to Hell from Homosexuality to Transgenderism to Transhumanism to annihilation

 

[AnnaliseH]

Whales have vestigial hip bones and sometimes, on rare occasions, actual vestigial legs sticking out, which they would not have if they had not descended from land animals. And we have, now, transitional whale fossils.

Prove it.

 

[Douvie]

mere words. And they are wrong.

Really, just mere words by another evolutionist. Surely you must be the ultimate authority! Or maybe you're omniscient.

 

[AnnaliseH]

On Natural Selection

By Dr. Colin Patterson, on the subject of 'Cladistics' in an interview on BBC television, 4 March 1982. Colin Patterson is Senior Palaeontologist at the British Museum of Natural History, London.
There is no doubt that natural selection is a mechanism, that it works. It has been repeatedly demonstrated by experiment. There is no doubt at all that it works. But the question of whether it produces new species is quite another matter. No one has ever produced a species by mechanisms of natural selection. No one has ever gotten near it and most of the current argument in neo-Darwinism is about this question: how a species originates and it is there that natural selection seems to be fading out and chance mechanisms of one sort or another are being invoked.
Emphasis mine.

 

[Douvie]

I think you have to be a Calvinist to understand it fully; something to do with how our natures changed after The Fall. Though clearly it is possible to sin without a Sin Nature or Adam couldn't have done it.

Anglicans are, generally, NOT Calvinistic. Calvinists are sola scriptura. Armenianists are sola scriptura too. We are all, regardless whether you believe in God or not, sinners born in sin. When created Adam and Eve were without sin but they were fallible. Therefore they fell into sin and now you just need to look into the mirror to see a sinner. Fait accompli.

 

[AnnaliseH]

mere words. And they are wrong.

You base your belief in evolution on the words of men, saying that because such a majority of scientists believe in it, it must be true. But when faced with what Evolutionists themselves are forced to admit, you say that it is just words. Must be something to be able to ignore such inconvenient facts.

 

[HenryM]

Well, you don't believe germs make us sick, you don't believe the earth orbits the sun, and you don't believe e=mc^2.

That is consistent with rejecting evolution as well.

Thanks for your frank admissions.

I'm not sure why you don't believe the earth orbits the sun while accepting Newton's gravitational theory, but . . . . . it doesn't matter. It's certainly nothing to do with actual evidence.

Don't misdirect. Here's question again.

What is universally accepted scientific law (not theory), expressed in a formula, that's discovered within macro evolution, and that's now used in science?

 

[Douvie]

You never heard of Einstein's theory of relativity? Of Newton's theory of gravitation? Information theory? Theory of thermodynamics? Heliocentrism theory? Germ theory of disease?

You've got to stop arguing about words and how to use words, and start thinking about evidence and the implications of evidence if you want to be effective in discussing science.

Actually, evolution is a faith because it fulfills the 4 requirements of a faith.

And one of the top evolutionary apologists called it "a fairytale for adults." And seeing you're the doyen of evolutionists and know what are "mere words", and what is not, maybe you can give your opinion on the above quote too.

And I'm withholding the name...so answer very carefully.

 

[Douvie]

But one wonders what this existential threat is supposed to be endangering. The leading Evangelical theologians of the 19th century, people like Hodge and Warfield for example, found little difficulty accepting the great age of the Earth and the evolution of the other creatures, only holding out for the special creation of man. I sometimes think that what is really being defended here is the doctrine of Dispensationalism, but that our creationist colleagues are for some reason unwilling to admit it openly.

What has our view of Creation got to do with Dispensationalism? It seems to me that you are so steeped in tradition that you willfully deny the Sovereignty of the Scriptures.

And as for your mention of Hodge and Warfield, who are no longer around to defend their position, yes they were misled by the evolutionists. Something about chronological events.

You said the Noah's flood occurred after the Ice Age. Why? Maybe you can enlightened us Creationists why this is so. After all we are all half-brained, simple minded creationists.