Evolution doesn't matter anymore.

[Aussie Pete]

yeah, a lot of the genes we have are what control cells and what not, of course we would expect there to be similarities, funny of course that the amount of differences tend to line up with how distant we are from them evolutionary. And before you say, "Same design, same designer." you also have to explain the similarities that are not required, like having genes for things animals don't use and don't make much sense without being related.

The study of genetics is nowhere near complete. Researchers keep finding functions of so-called junk genes. I'm not sure what gene controls red faces, but it sure gets a workout in the scientific community.

 

[The Barbarian]

How can a creature evolve to be in the image of God?

God could have done it that way if He had chosen. We are in His image not in a physical body, but in being a living soul that is capable of knowing good and evil:

Gen. 3:22 And he said: Behold Adam is become as one of us, knowing good and evil: now, therefore, lest perhaps he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever.

This soul is give to man immediately by God, not as a natural process. It actually exists before our bodies do.

Jerimiah 1:5 Before I formed thee in the bowels of thy mother, I knew thee;

 

[The Barbarian]

The study of genetics is nowhere near complete. Researchers keep finding functions of so-called junk genes.

What creationists call "junk DNA" (proper term is "non-coding" DNA) does not code for proteins, but often has other functions. When I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, scientists were already discovering these functions.
Genes and non-coding DNA sequences - PubMed

And lately, it's become clear that non-coding DNA is also an important source of new genes.
New genes spring from non-coding DNA

It's always a surprise to find that many creationists still don't know about these things.

 

[loveofourlord]

The study of genetics is nowhere near complete. Researchers keep finding functions of so-called junk genes. I'm not sure what gene controls red faces, but it sure gets a workout in the scientific community.

Except they ARE junk DNA because we KNOW what they do is the point. Creationists kinda ignore that part, sure there is a lot less then firs thought, but like 4% of our genome being devoted to smells we no longer have, and have no room for, but were likely from our ancestors, the dolphins with the same. it's junk because we know what it used to do and it no longer does.

 

[loveofourlord]

What creationists call "junk DNA" (proper term is "non-coding" DNA) does not code for proteins, but often has other functions. When I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, scientists were already discovering these functions.
Genes and non-coding DNA sequences - PubMed

And lately, it's become clear that non-coding DNA is also an important source of new genes.
New genes spring from non-coding DNA

It's always a surprise to find that many creationists still don't know about these things.

and like I said what scientists call junk DNA refers to things more about stuff we KNOW what it used to do, but no longer. All the ERV's, broken ancient genes and such.

 

[Job 33:6]

Uh, I believe God had no problem in bringing a fully functioning universe into existence instantaneously (as some have said... like Adam being a fully functioning adult on day one).

• How old are you Adam?
  
• A day old.
• A day old? You look like you are 25 years old.
  
• Yeah, but I was made from the dust of the ground just yesterday.

In an instant, God made at least one universe (some like myself believer there is at least one other i.e. heaven which involved the exchanges in quantum particles from universe to universe and end up in the universe's dustbins / black holes or white holes... In theory, generally the two universes leach into the other everywhere at the quantum level).

Back dating the universe (the biggest "what if" scenario) the universe stared at a pin point? How long would that have taken? Doesn't matter. It started approximately 7,000 years ago (Earth time... universe time progresses faster the further away it is from gravity wells).

The late A.E. Wilder-Smith (former atheist turned Christian) holder of 3 earned Ph.D.s once quipped "Evolutionists asking how old the universe is if it stared at a pinpoint, is like a 7 year old child asking how tall he was 12 years ago? ..."

The Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, there are others... are good places to study and to find out the atheists don't have all the answers they feign and are generally bullies who force their religion on the rest of us.

One problem with this line of reasoning, is that the earth has things such as foot tracks, complex burrow networks, nests with eggs, feeding traces etc. That depict a passage of time.

You gave an example of Adam being a day old but looking like he was 25.

But imagine if Adam had human foot tracks behind him.

Wouldn't you think,

- "hey Adam, I know God just made you a fraction of a second ago, but did you make those footprints?"

What would Adam say?

Adam- "No, I didn't make those footprints, God created them to make it look as if I had actually spent time in the past walking, though I never had".

Well that wouldn't make any sense.

The only logical conclusion is to say that the past did involve a lapse of time.

And it is these lapses of time that demonstrate that creation is ancient.

It's not so much the existence of earth or life that looks old. But rather, it's the existence of scars and features that give the impression that time passed.

If Adam had a scar, it would seem likely that Adam experienced a past in which that scar formed. Else perhaps God (or Satan) were trying to fool us.

 

[Aussie Pete]

Except they ARE junk DNA because we KNOW what they do is the point. Creationists kinda ignore that part, sure there is a lot less then firs thought, but like 4% of our genome being devoted to smells we no longer have, and have no room for, but were likely from our ancestors, the dolphins with the same. it's junk because we know what it used to do and it no longer does.

Ignorance is not bliss, it is dangerous. Educational institutions require a new science book every year. That's because science does not have all the answers and never will know everything. Last year's "facts" can be year's fallacies.

"We know" is just arrogance. "We knew" not so long ago that the genome was full of junk. "We knew" that the appendix served no purpose. "We knew" that tonsils served no purpose so they were routinely removed. Etc etc. There is no new Bible every year. God got it right the first time around.

1 Corinthians 1:18-20
'For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?…'

 

[loveofourlord]

Ignorance is not bliss, it is dangerous. Educational institutions require a new science book every year. That's because science does not have all the answers and never will know everything. Last year's "facts" can be year's fallacies.

"We know" is just arrogance. "We knew" not so long ago that the genome was full of junk. "We knew" that the appendix served no purpose. "We knew" that tonsils served no purpose so they were routinely removed. Etc etc. There is no new Bible every year. God got it right the first time around.

1 Corinthians 1:18-20
'For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.” Where is the wise man? Where is the scribe? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?…'

150+ years and evolution hasn't been debunked and instead gotten stronger every year, while creationists are still repeating lies from 50 years ago. Maybe creationists should strive to be more like science and they might get taken more seriously.

Still hear the long repeated lies about lucy and such.

 

[Aussie Pete]

150+ years and evolution hasn't been debunked and instead gotten stronger every year, while creationists are still repeating lies from 50 years ago. Maybe creationists should strive to be more like science and they might get taken more seriously.

Still hear the long repeated lies about lucy and such.

Evolution is debunked. God has made it clear that He created all things. Either you believe God or you go with the empty philosophy of the godless. I prefer to believe God.

 

[Aussie Pete]

and like I said what scientists call junk DNA refers to things more about stuff we KNOW what it used to do, but no longer. All the ERV's, broken ancient genes and such.

I have a word, commonly used in Australia, to describe such notions. It's not polite to use it here.

 

[loveofourlord]

Evolution is debunked. God has made it clear that He created all things. Either you believe God or you go with the empty philosophy of the godless. I prefer to believe God.

well all of reality says otherwise, I can stick with fallible human understandings of the bible or accept reality I chose accepting reality.

 

[Aussie Pete]

well all of reality says otherwise, I can stick with fallible human understandings of the bible or accept reality I chose accepting reality.

I'll leave you to your self deception.

 

[The Barbarian]

Ignorance is not bliss, it is dangerous. Educational institutions require a new science book every year.

I spent a lot of time in educational institutions, as a student and as a teacher, and I can tell you that story is false.

That's because science does not have all the answers and never will know everything. Last year's "facts" can be year's fallacies.

Science does progress rapidly, but the basics rarely change much. And since science texts cover basics, there isn't much need to change them often. One notable exception in my lifetime was plate tectonics, which rapidly replaced earlier theories when scientists discovered the mechanisms for the process.

"We know" is just arrogance. "We knew" not so long ago that the genome was full of junk.

When I was an undergraduate in the 1960s, there were articles in the literature about functions of non-coding DNA (which is what creationist call "junk DNA") Some of it, like the broken gene for vitamin C in humans, is junk. But a lot of it is not. Most creationists have now accepted this, but it took them a very long time.

"We knew" that the appendix served no purpose.

Creationists, maybe. But scientists knew very well that vestigial organs often serve a different purpose than the one that they lost. Human appendices, for example are no longer fermentation chambers for vegetable matter, but do provide some leukocytes, and also serve as a refuge for normal gut flora in times of infection or antibiotic use.

And yes, there is no new Bible every year. The last major revision of God's word was in the 1600s. But there are all sorts of new interpretations added to it. YE creationism was added by the Seventh-Day Adventists in the 20th century.

1 Corinthians 1:18-20
'For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

Yes. But there will always be creationists who count themselves wise enough to re-interpret the Bible to fit their desires.

 

[The Barbarian]

God has made it clear that He created all things

The problem is that you don't approve of the way He did it. Trust him all the way and let it be His way.

 

[Thomas White]

Uh, I believe God had no problem in bringing a fully functioning universe into existence instantaneously (as some have said... like Adam being a fully functioning adult on day one).

• How old are you Adam?
  
• A day old.
• A day old? You look like you are 25 years old.
  
• Yeah, but I was made from the dust of the ground just yesterday.

In an instant, God made at least one universe (some like myself believer there is at least one other i.e. heaven which involved the exchanges in quantum particles from universe to universe and end up in the universe's dustbins / black holes or white holes... In theory, generally the two universes leach into the other everywhere at the quantum level).

Back dating the universe (the biggest "what if" scenario) the universe stared at a pin point? How long would that have taken? Doesn't matter. It started approximately 7,000 years ago (Earth time... universe time progresses faster the further away it is from gravity wells).

The late A.E. Wilder-Smith (former atheist turned Christian) holder of 3 earned Ph.D.s once quipped "Evolutionists asking how old the universe is if it stared at a pinpoint, is like a 7 year old child asking how tall he was 12 years ago? ..."

The Institute for Creation Research, Answers in Genesis, there are others... are good places to study and to find out the atheists don't have all the answers they feign and are generally bullies who force their religion on the rest of us.

Do you really believe atheists are forcing their views on us? I've never had that experience.

 

[JohnD70X7]

Do you really believe atheists are forcing their views on us? I've never had that experience.

www.icr.org

Ask them.

 

[Thomas White]

www.icr.org

Ask them.

I'm not asking if they believe that. I'm asking, do you really believe that? If you do, why?

 

[loveofourlord]

www.icr.org

Ask them.

you mean the group whose entire thing is attacking science and ridiculing it and trying to set us back hundreds of years? They are the one that are trying to force religion, and in that a very particular type of religious view on others.

 

[coffee4u]

It's unclear exactly when language developed among hominids, but today only one ape species has spoken language--homo sapiens.

-CryptoLutheran

Genesis 11
Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.
8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel —because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

 

[ViaCrucis]

Genesis 11
Now the whole world had one language and a common speech.
8 So the Lord scattered them from there over all the earth, and they stopped building the city. 9 That is why it was called Babel —because there the Lord confused the language of the whole world. From there the Lord scattered them over the face of the whole earth.

Even with the assumption that the story is literal--and I don't share that supposition--it still doesn't address the origins of human language. It only describes, and explains through narrative, that human languages are diverse.

The question of the evolution of language still remains.

Though if one takes the creation stories in Genesis chapters 1 and 2 more-or-less literal, then one may suppose that language was simply an innate quality of the human creature; and may see no reason to inquire any further.

Science, however, has a duty to inquire.

-CryptoLutheran