Bible and science?

The Barbarian · May 23, 2019

Barbarian observes:
You still think that if you're alive, your uncle must be dead. As you learned, Archaeoptyrix is a dinosaur very close to the actual ancestor of birds. But it's not a bird. It's a dinosaur."

nolidad said:
Well you can presume what you wish but that means nothing!

It means you think that if a more evolved form exists, all the less-evolved forms must be extinct. It's like the old excuse we get from creationsts:
"If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

It's hard to believe they can't figure that out.

But you better check your college professors they say differently!

I've known a lot of college professors. None of them thought so, but one. A nice old guy, an immunologist, who happened to be a creationist.

After all it was you who showed the transitons from raptor to bird

You've a bit confused. You're thinking of velociraptors, and that's not the line that produced birds.

and they all appear after archy. so they could not be transitions.

Nope. You still don't get it. The earliest flying dinosaur precedes Archaeopteryx, which is a highly evolved flying dinosaur in it's own way. But not a direct ancestor to birds. You don't have to worry about "saving face." Just do better research, and think a little before you post.

If archy has hollow bones that are part of the respiration system like a bird

...and dinosaurs.

lays egg like a bird

... and dinosaurs (both lay hard-shelled amniote eggs)

is feathered like a bird

...and dinosaurs...

...and is warm blooded like a bird .............

Actually, it seems to have been a mesotherm, like other dinosaurs. And it has dinosaur teeth, and no beak. And a dinosaur tail, instead of an avian pygostyle. And dinosaur ribs. And no furcula (wishbone). And unfused digits. And no keeled breastbone... And (long list)

So, having more dinosaur characteristics than avian ones (and those are ones shared by dinosaurs and birds), it's classified as a dinosaur.

Then go back and correct your lineage of bird!

I don't know of any scientist who thinks birds evolved from Archaeopteryx.

(your scute misunderstandings are cleared up in a different post)

Well I am not a biologist.

That's curable. But it will take a little effort. I once knew a body repairman who had gained a pretty good grasp of evolutionary theory. So you could do it, if you wanted to.

Not easy, but certainly doable.

trophy33 · May 24, 2019

nolidad said:
Here is a link to a research paper showing mt Eve

http://www.icr.org/i/pdf/technical/The-Eve-Mitochondrial-Consensus-Sequence.pdf

Mother of All Humans Lived 6,000 Years Ago
BY BRIAN THOMAS, PH.D. * | TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 07, 2010
Share Email Facebook Twitter Pinterest
Inside a human cell's mitochondria--the tiny organelles that provide energy--there is a small and unique chromosome. This loop of DNA is passed from mother to child in every generation and provides an intriguing source of information about mankind's past. Geneticists are using that information in an attempt to determine exactly when the "mother" of all humans lived.

Studies involving this mitochondrial DNA, or mtDNA, raise a number of questions. First, is it possible to reconstruct a putative first mother's mtDNA sequence? And if so, how does it compare to that of modern humans--her many descendants? Also, is there enough information in today's mtDNA to deduce when the figurative first mother--named "Mitochondrial Eve"--lived?

When investigations into these questions began a few decades ago, optimism was high regarding the possibility of pinpointing that first mother's date. But studies have since shown that the data alone are not enough to provide an answer. A certain number of starting assumptions are required, and when researchers' different assumptions are applied, the data can yield very different "ages" for Mitochondrial Eve. A review of the earliest calculations, published in the evolutionary journal Science in 1998, showed that:

Regardless of the cause, evolutionists are most concerned about the effect of a faster mutation rate. For example, researchers have calculated that "mitochondrial Eve"--the woman whose mtDNA was ancestral to that in all living people—lived 100,000 to 200,000 years ago in Africa. Using the new clock, she would be a mere 6000 years old. No one thinks that's the case, but at what point should models switch from one mtDNA time zone to the other?1

So, to align the age with current evolutionary theories of human origins, subsequent calculations have started with assumptions that ensure at the outset that Mitochondrial Eve would have lived more than 100,000 years ago. Thus, evolution-inspired Mitochondrial Eve research is largely characterized by circular reasoning--evolutionary assumptions of deep time are used as an interpretive filter that (not surprisingly) then yields deep-time results.

This was made abundantly clear in a Rice University press release regarding the latest attempt to determine when Mitochondrial Eve lived. Researchers used a new statistical method that supposedly assured that the "Mother of all humans lived 200,000 years ago."2

But in explaining how they obtained this number, the researchers inadvertently admitted their bias that partially determined the outcome before they even began calculating. The press release described some of the steps required to interpret DNA base differences "into a measure of time."2

"And how they evolved in time depends upon the model of evolution that you use,"2 according to study co-author Krzysztof Cyran of Poland's Institute of Informatics at Silesian University of Technology. Of course, when one begins with an evolutionary model, one must expect evolutionary results.

Each model added coefficients that are numerically expressed answers to key questions, such as the rate of DNA base change, the effect of mutational hot spots, what DNA sequence to use for comparison (which, for evolutionists, is often from the chimpanzee), and the time between each generation.3 But many of those numbers were assumed:

Each model has its own assumptions, and each assumption has mathematical implications. To further complicate matters, some of the assumptions are not valid for human populations. For example, some models assume that population size never changes.2

But the best available data are still most consistent with the earlier studies that showed that the age of Mitochondrial Eve coincided well with the biblical age of the historical Eve.

For example, a 2008 study of the mitochondrial chromosome found that "on average, the individuals in our dataset differed from the Eve consensus by 21.6 nucleotides."4 The investigators did not expect to find so few differences between their over 800 samples of modern DNA and the calculated sequence for "Eve."

Further, for so few--only 21.6 nucleotides out of 16,569--DNA differences to have accumulated at anything near the measured mutation rates, a much shorter time than "200,000 years" must have transpired since Mitochondrial Eve arrived on the scene.

To stretch out across evolutionary time the occurrences of so few DNA changes requires a gymnastic juggling of the coefficients used in the various models, and appears to require a biologically unrealistic, super-slow mutation rate. Making the data fit vast timescales requires the use of a broken, circular-reasoning-based, evolutionary "clock."

References

Gibbons, A. 1998. Calibrating the Mitochondrial Clock. Science. 279 (5347):28-29.

Mother of all humans lived 200,000 years ago. Rice University press release, August 17, 2010, reporting on research published in Cyran, K. A. and M. Kimmel. Alternatives to the Wright-Fisher model: The robustness of mitochondrial Eve dating. Theoretical Population Biology. Published online ahead of print June 19, 2010.

Mutational hot spots are areas in the mitochondrial chromosome that experience base changes between generations so rapidly that all four DNA bases may have cycled through in only thousands of years, thus skewing attempts at reconstructing mitochondrial DNA clocks. See Galtier, N. et al. 2006. Mutation hot spots in mammalian mitochondrial DNA. Genome Research. 16 (2): 215-222.

Carter, R. W., D. Criswell, and J. Sanford. 2008. The "Eve" Mitochondrial Consensus Sequence. In Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Creationism. Snelling, A. A, ed. Pittsburgh, PA: Creation Science Fellowship and Dallas, TX: Institute for Creation Research, 111-116.

* Mr. Thomas is Science Writer at the Institute for Creation Research.

I do not trust anything from AiG, ICR and similar. They are making serious theological mistakes while reading Scriptures and their "scientific research" is very biased and opinionated.

No other scientific journal takes them seriously.

Most Christians do not accept their theology, most scientists do not accept their science, so why should I trust them

The Barbarian · May 24, 2019

From the paper:
"Analysis of this consensus reveals an unexpected lack of diversity within human mtDNA worldwide. Not only is more than 83% of the mitochondrial genome invariant, but in over 99% of the variable positions, the majority allele was found in at least 90% of the individuals. In the remaining 0.22% of the 16,569 positions, which we conservatively refer to as “ambiguous,” every one could be reliably assigned to either a purine or pyrimidine ancestral state. There was only one position where the most common allele had an allele frequency of less than 50%, but this has been shown to be a mutational hot spot. On average, the individuals in our dataset differed from the Eve consensus by 21.6 nucleotides. Sequences derived from sub-Saharan Africa were considerably more divergent than average."

This is surprising only from a creationist mindset. It's entirely consistent with the origin of anatomically modern humans in Africa and the movement of a small group of those humans out of Africa into the rest of the world. Founder effect would then explain the relatively low amount of mitochondrial DNA variation in humans outside of Africa.

The founder effect occurs when a small group of migrants that is not genetically representative of the population from which they came establish in a new area.[4][5] In addition to founder effects, the new population is often a very small population, so shows increased sensitivity to genetic drift, an increase in inbreeding, and relatively low genetic variation.

The only puzzle here is why anyone with any familiarity with genetics would find this surprising.

Incidentally, the idea that this represents the mother of all humans has some unsettling consequences. Since Europeans and many Asians have significant Neandertal DNA, and many other Asians and Pacific Islanders have significant Denesovan DNA, that concept requires that almost all humans other than sub-Saharan Africans are only partially-human.

It seems that the geneticists who wrote the paper didn't think this matter out very well.

Edit: Criswell is apparently not a geneticist:

Dan Criswell
Adjunct Professor
University of Montana
July 2002 – July 2003 1 year 1 month
I taught biology 103, an introductory biology course in the summer.
I was also a graduate teaching assistant during the school years 1999-2003.

Neither is Carter, but his professional history shows enough familiarity with genetics that he should have realized that this, like other evidence supports the "Out of Africa" scenario.

The mitochondrial Eve and the Y-chromosome Adam are merely the last common female and male ancestors of all humans alive today. They are not the same as the real Adam and Eve in Genesis.

Indeed, they very likely didn't even live in the same century:

On 1987 population geneticists first demonstrated the existence of such a ‘mitochondrial Eve'3. After analysing mtDNA from 147 people from around the world to chart their genetic relationships, they used a ‘molecular clock’, based on the number of DNA mutations that arise with each generation, to estimate Eve's age. This woman, the researchers concluded, probably lived in Africa around 200,000 years ago. The finding provided evidence for the theory that modern humans evolved in Africa before migrating to other continents.

Yet comparable studies later found that Adam, the common ancestor of the portion of the Y chromosome that passes from father to son, lived roughly 100,000 years ago. It’s possible that Adam and Eve lived aeons apart, and geneticists have come up with a number of explanations as to why.
...
In February, for instance, researchers led by Michael Hammer, a population geneticist at the University of Arizona in Tucson, reported the discovery of an African American family whose Y chromosomes do not seem to directly descend from Adam's4. One possible explanation is that the Y chromosome came from an archaic species of human that interbred with Homo sapiens tens of thousands of years ago.

Yet Hammer sees the discrepancy between the age of the Y-Adam and that of the mitochondrial eve as a “red herring”, and he, as many other population geneticists, bristles at the use of biblical names. Because of the random nature of genealogy, he says, two different genetic lineages are unlikely to have common ancestors who lived in the same population at the same time.
Genetic Adam and Eve did not live too far apart in time

trophy33 · May 24, 2019

The Barbarian said:
Incidentally, the idea that this represents the mother of all humans has some unsettling consequences. Since Europeans and many Asians have significant Neandertal DNA, and many other Asians and Pacific Islanders have significant Denesovan DNA, that concept requires that almost all humans other than sub-Saharan Africans are only partially-human.

It seems that the geneticists who wrote the paper didn't think this matter out very well.

Ouch, I wonder what somebody could do with this, theologically... so many possible crazy ideas and actions between races, "children of satan" and similar.

nolidad · May 24, 2019

myst33 said:
I do not trust anything from AiG, ICR and similar. They are making serious theological mistakes while reading Scriptures and their "scientific research" is very biased and opinionated.

No other scientific journal takes them seriously.

Most Christians do not accept their theology, most scientists do not accept their science, so why should I trust them

Why am I not surprised in the least! You srite asll the old cliches about them. Of ocurse the believers in evolutionism will not take them seriously. All scientific research is biased.

So I take it then you are not a dispensationalist,
do not believe in eternal security
do not believe in the sovereignty of God over creation
do not believe in the literal,historical, grammatical hermeneutic of scripture

nolidad · May 24, 2019

myst33 said:
Ouch, I wonder what somebody could do with this, theologically... so many possible crazy ideas and actions between races, "children of satan" and similar.

Races came from Babel. you will find that teh only differences between creation science and evolutionary dogma is the time factor and that Creation science through research rejects man ascended from a primordial soup to man!

nolidad · May 24, 2019

The Barbarian said:
Barbarian observes:
You still think that if you're alive, your uncle must be dead. As you learned, Archaeoptyrix is a dinosaur very close to the actual ancestor of birds. But it's not a bird. It's a dinosaur."

It means you think that if a more evolved form exists, all the less-evolved forms must be extinct. It's like the old excuse we get from creationsts:
"If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?"

It's hard to believe they can't figure that out.

I've known a lot of college professors. None of them thought so, but one. A nice old guy, an immunologist, who happened to be a creationist.

You've a bit confused. You're thinking of velociraptors, and that's not the line that produced birds.

Nope. You still don't get it. The earliest flying dinosaur precedes Archaeopteryx, which is a highly evolved flying dinosaur in it's own way. But not a direct ancestor to birds. You don't have to worry about "saving face." Just do better research, and think a little before you post.

...and dinosaurs.

... and dinosaurs (both lay hard-shelled amniote eggs)

...and dinosaurs...

Actually, it seems to have been a mesotherm, like other dinosaurs. And it has dinosaur teeth, and no beak. And a dinosaur tail, instead of an avian pygostyle. And dinosaur ribs. And no furcula (wishbone). And unfused digits. And no keeled breastbone... And (long list)

So, having more dinosaur characteristics than avian ones (and those are ones shared by dinosaurs and birds), it's classified as a dinosaur.

I don't know of any scientist who thinks birds evolved from Archaeopteryx.

(your scute misunderstandings are cleared up in a different post)

That's curable. But it will take a little effort. I once knew a body repairman who had gained a pretty good grasp of evolutionary theory. So you could do it, if you wanted to.

Not easy, but certainly doable.

I love that cover word "seems", to define raptors and the like. Birds aren't mesotherms, lizards and amphibs aren't mesotherms they "seem" to be mesotherm because the prists of evolution "need" them to be mesotherm. that is all.

Well I named velociraptor in the lione because it was in the lineage of descendants you posted! I know they claim a maniraptor who existed in teh same time frame as archy.

As for flying dinos- I know there was pteranadon and pterodactyl.
As for archy being a direct ancestor to birds- once again evolutionism gives us a buffet of choices to pick from.

You:
"It means you think that if a more evolved form exists, all the less-evolved forms must be extinct. It's like the old excuse we get from creationsts:
"If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?""

Well why don't you ask me what I think instead of being presumptious?>

But I do pose a valid point- evolution requires genetic advancement , and mutations that prefer an "advantage" are selected by nature. Why would less evolved creatures survive millions of years if they are in a less advantaged genetic rung?

trophy33 · May 24, 2019

nolidad said:
Races came from Babel.

Any proof? I do not see anything about races in the text.

trophy33 · May 24, 2019

nolidad said:
So I take it then you are not a dispensationalist,

I am not.

nolidad said:
do not believe in eternal security

I do.

nolidad said:
do not believe in the sovereignty of God over creation

I do.

nolidad said:
do not believe in the literal,historical, grammatical hermeneutic of scripture

I believe that Scriptures were theologically inspired, but the "scientific" knowledge and languages is not the inspired part.
I believe that we must understand historical and cultural context of Genesis to read it properly.

For example, if we would read "I praise you in my kidneys", then the inspired part is that we should praise God, not the idea that we scientifically do it in our kidneys.

The Barbarian · May 24, 2019

nolidad said:
I love that cover word "seems", to define raptors and the like. Birds aren't mesotherms, lizards and amphibs aren't mesotherms

There are mammals and fish which are mesotherms. "Mesotherm" isn't a homology, it's a lifestyle. Feathers would do a cold-blooded non-flying animal no good at all. It's not just the endothermy written in their bones. It's insulation, and highly active lifestyles, like running and flying that make this clear.

they "seem" to be mesotherm because the prists of evolution "need" them to be mesotherm. that is all.

For a century, scientists didn't see dinosaurs as mesotherms. Evolutionary theory did just fine. Do you even think before you chant those slogans?

Well I named velociraptor in the lione because it was in the lineage of descendants you posted! I know they claim a maniraptor who existed in teh same time frame as archy.

No. No scientist I know thinks that velociraptor gave rise to birds. You're just mistaken.

As for flying dinos- I know there was pteranadon and pterodactyl.

Nope. Those aren't dinosaurs. Remember when I told you that not knowing what you were talking about, is a huge disadvantage?

As for archy being a direct ancestor to birds

I don't know any scientist who thinks so. For one thing, it's got more dinosaur features than bird features. For another thing, early birds developed differently. Archaeopteryx is close to the line that gave rise to birds. But it's not a bird.

Barbarian chuckles:
"It means you think that if a more evolved form exists, all the less-evolved forms must be extinct. It's like the old excuse we get from creationsts:
"If humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?""

Well why don't you ask me what I think instead of being presumptious?

You already made the error here; you just don't understand enough to realize it.

But I do pose a valid point- evolution requires genetic advancement

Nope. Evolution can also produce smaller genomes, simpler structures and occasionally even less-adapted forms. You've once again run into a wall because you don't know what you're talking about.

and mutations that prefer an "advantage" are selected by nature.

Mutations don't "prefer" anything. Fitness only counts in terms of environment. Would it be too much to ask you to just find out about the theory before you presume to tell us what's wrong with it?

Why would less evolved creatures survive millions of years if they are in a less advantaged genetic rung?

Because they happened to be better fitted for the environment. Would you like to see some examples?

The Barbarian · May 24, 2019

nolidad said:
Races came from Babel.

Not according to the Bible. Sometimes, it appears that creationists just make up things as they go.

you will find that teh only differences between creation science and evolutionary dogma is the time factor

And weird non-scriptural religious beliefs like the above. If taken as a literal history instead of a parable, the story of the tower of Babel would account for languages, not races. And since we now have compelling evidence for the evolution of languages, the traditional Christian interpretation of the story is much more likely than a literalist revision.

and that Creation science through research rejects man ascended from a primordial soup to man!

Actually, humans evolved from other primates, not soup. And of course evolutionary theory doesn't account for the origin of life. Once again, what you don't know, sneaked up and bit you.

trophy33 · May 24, 2019

nolidad said:
Creation science through research rejects man ascended from a primordial soup to man!

Only to say that man ascended from a dust... right?

nolidad · May 24, 2019

myst33 said:
Only to say that man ascended from a dust... right?

NO that God formed man from dust and breathed in Him the breath of life and He became alive!

but seeing you lean towards the evolutionary philosophy, when do you think man infused the genus homo with a soul?

According to evolutionsim we go from homo habilis to homo sapien.

nolidad · May 24, 2019

The Barbarian said:
Not according to the Bible. Sometimes, it appears that creationists just make up things as they go.

And weird non-scriptural religious beliefs like the above. If taken as a literal history instead of a parable, the story of the tower of Babel would account for languages, not races. And since we now have compelling evidence for the evolution of languages, the traditional Christian interpretation of the story is much more likely than a literalist revision.

Actually, humans evolved from other primates, not soup. And of course evolutionary theory doesn't account for the origin of life. Once again, what you don't know, sneaked up and bit you.

Yes according to the Bible!

Genesis 11 King James Version (KJV)
11 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lordscatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

But technically the races came from Shem Ham Japheth. The variations probably did not occur until God scattered the peoples.

Actually the traditional Christian interpretation was Babel! It wasn't until after Constantine allowed the massive influx of pagan thought into the church that ever slowly did the traditional Christian and Jewish truth was overtaken by pagan heresy!

And maybe you should keep up with evolutionary theory. There are dozens of theories out there on how life began that are peer reviewed by other believers in evolutionism.

And all life supposedly started from that first organic self replicating goo- which got there by some means you are clueless about? Primates supposedly didn't come until hundreds of millions of years after. Why do you love muddying the waters of what is the simple teaching of your beliefs?

Of course you would think we make things up! Yo accept evolution as science so it is easy for you to think other make things up as well! LOL

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe Jesus ever told a lie?

nolidad · May 24, 2019

myst33 said:
I am not.

I do.

I do.

I believe that Scriptures were theologically inspired, but the "scientific" knowledge and languages is not the inspired part.
I believe that we must understand historical and cultural context of Genesis to read it properly.

For example, if we would read "I praise you in my kidneys", then the inspired part is that we should praise God, not the idea that we scientifically do it in our kidneys.

Well I do not know if I would call praising God with our kidneys a scientific treatise. It was the only word at the time for them to describe praising God in the inner man! Their understanding of the trichotomous nature of man did not come until much later. That is known as progressive revelation.

YOu accept the theories of men who were not there and did not see any of the ancient events over a God who was there!

Do you think Jesus could lie?

The Barbarian · May 24, 2019

Barbarian observes:
And weird non-scriptural religious beliefs like the above. If taken as a literal history instead of a parable, the story of the tower of Babel would account for languages, not races. And since we now have compelling evidence for the evolution of languages, the traditional Christian interpretation of the story is much more likely than a literalist revision.

nolidad said:
Yes according to the Bible!

No. Language is not race.

Genesis 11 King James Version (KJV)
11 And the whole earth was of one language, and of one speech.

2 And it came to pass, as they journeyed from the east, that they found a plain in the land of Shinar; and they dwelt there.

3 And they said one to another, Go to, let us make brick, and burn them thoroughly. And they had brick for stone, and slime had they for morter.

4 And they said, Go to, let us build us a city and a tower, whose top may reach unto heaven; and let us make us a name, lest we be scattered abroad upon the face of the whole earth.

5 And the Lord came down to see the city and the tower, which the children of men builded.

6 And the Lord said, Behold, the people is one, and they have all one language; and this they begin to do: and now nothing will be restrained from them, which they have imagined to do.

Here we see that this is not a literal history. In the story, God expresses concern that men might build a tower high enough to reach heaven. Which seems absurd to us today, but in those times, it was thought to be very near, not much higher than birds fly.

So clearly, God never worried that men might build a tower to heaven. You know this. But this is about languages, not races:

7 Go to, let us go down, and there confound their language, that they may not understand one another's speech.

8 So the Lord scattered them abroad from thence upon the face of all the earth: and they left off to build the city.

9 Therefore is the name of it called Babel; because the Lord did there confound the language of all the earth: and from thence did the Lordscatter them abroad upon the face of all the earth.

But technically the races came from Shem Ham Japheth. The variations probably did not occur until God scattered the peoples.

More non-scriptural inventions. Why can't you just let it be God's way?

And maybe you should keep up with evolutionary theory. There are dozens of theories out there on how life began that are peer reviewed by other believers in evolutionism.

As you learned, evolutionary theory isn't about the origin of life. Creationists lie about that constantly, and like you, get embarrassed when reminded of the truth.

And all life supposedly started from that first organic self replicating goo- which got there by some means you are clueless about?

Well, let's take a look...

There is grandeur in this view of life, with its several powers, having been originally breathed by the Creator into a few forms or into one; and that, whilst this planet has gone cycling on according to the fixed law of gravity, from so simple a beginning endless forms most beautiful and most wonderful have been, and are being evolved.
Charles Darwin, last sentence of On the Origin of Species, 1879

Even Darwin just supposed that God created the first living things. Because you have no clue about any of this, you just make up stories as you go. Why not just learn something about it, and you won't be continuously embarrassed?

Of course you would think we make things up!

See above. You just got caught yet again.

Let me ask you a question. Do you believe Jesus ever told a lie?

You've asked enough questions. I'm not surprised you think that's possible, given how little faith you have in His word. It would be a lot easier for you, if Jesus wasn't telling the truth, um?

If you claim to be a Christian, why would you not know that He always told the truth? And please don't drag out parables. Of course, He told stories, to illustrate things, that didn't actually happen. If you think that's not telling the truth, then a lot of your statements become understandable.

The Barbarian · May 24, 2019

nolidad said:
NO that God formed man from dust and breathed in Him the breath of life and He became alive!

but seeing you lean towards the evolutionary philosophy, when do you think man infused the genus homo with a soul?

According to evolutionsim we go from homo habilis to homo sapien.

Well, no. "evolutionsim" (whatever that is) might say so, but evolutionary theory does not.

trophy33 · May 24, 2019

nolidad said:
Well I do not know if I would call praising God with our kidneys a scientific treatise. It was the only word at the time for them to describe praising God in the inner man! Their understanding of the trichotomous nature of man did not come until much later. That is known as progressive revelation.

My example demonstrated, that the inspired part is the theological part, not the vocabulary or technical side of it.

nolidad said:
YOu accept the theories of men who were not there and did not see any of the ancient events over a God who was there!

I accept that people who wrote the Bible were thinking in a different way than we are today. And we must accomodate to them while reading their text to understand what we read. Do you accept this simple fact?

nolidad said:
Do you think Jesus could lie?

No. But as I learned, the creationist definition of lie is "not being literal, scientific or technical".

trophy33 · May 24, 2019

nolidad said:
NO that God formed man from dust and breathed in Him the breath of life and He became alive!

but seeing you lean towards the evolutionary philosophy, when do you think man infused the genus homo with a soul?

According to evolutionsim we go from homo habilis to homo sapien.

Everything that lives is a soul. Including animals. And everything that lives has the breath of life in it.

The proper question should be "when did the man become the image of God", i.e. when did the man become different from animals. I do not know exactly in which year this happened or if it was a longer process. But there certainly is something special about us.

nolidad · May 25, 2019

myst33 said:
My example demonstrated, that the inspired part is the theological part, not the vocabulary or technical side of it.

I accept that people who wrote the Bible were thinking in a different way than we are today. And we must accomodate to them while reading their text to understand what we read. Do you accept this simple fact?

No. But as I learned, the creationist definition of lie is "not being literal, scientific or technical".

Oh we do accomadate to their understanding. But there is still no evidence that God would allow His Word to be written with intentional false concepts that were and still are believed and even have scientific support!

But if you believe Jesus never lied

Matthew 19 King James Version (KJV)
19 And it came to pass, that when Jesus had finished these sayings, he departed from Galilee, and came into the coasts of Judaea beyond Jordan;

2 And great multitudes followed him; and he healed them there.

3 The Pharisees also came unto him, tempting him, and saying unto him, Is it lawful for a man to put away his wife for every cause?

4 And he answered and said unto them, Have ye not read, that he which made them at the beginning made them male and female,

5 And said, For this cause shall a man leave father and mother, and shall cleave to his wife: and they twain shall be one flesh?

The crowd knew and Bible readers know that means Adam and Eve.So Jesus confirmed Adam and Eve

MAtt.24:

37 But as the days of Noah were, so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

38 For as in the days that were before the flood they were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, until the day that Noe entered into the ark,

39 And knew not until the flood came, and took them all away; so shall also the coming of the Son of man be.

They understood that to be all life everywhere! The fact that they did not know how big everywhere was is still irrelavent.

The simple fact is that a regional flood is only a theory less than 2 centuries old! It was born in the european Schools of higher criticism at least from a theological standpoint.

So either Jesus did not know as Creator what
He created or knowing what teh belief system was ini His day intentionally did not tell the truth to the rulers and masses which is known as a lie!

Bible and science?

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Crabby Old White Guy

Crabby Old White Guy

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Well-Known Member

Similar threads