BigJon's points:

[seebs]

BigJon posted this in a thread where it didn't belong. Reposted because it's an interesting point.

hmmm, Its clear to me that we are the way we are because God created us in his likeness, however you may have trouble seeing this because your trying to merge a pack of lies and the truth to make one big happy go lucky story in which case you will never find the truth.

I agree that it's impossible to reconcile a pack of lies with the truth; I just disagree with you about which of the two stories is true.

Are you honestly telling me that God is bipedal? That He has hair in His armpits, but only very small, fine, hair over the rest of His body?

Also, Its not really offensive to have other people "preach" (for lack of a better word) evolution, however I'm certainly amazed to the fact of how anyone would want to be closely catagorized with animals, animals that do the following:
#1 eat there own vomit
#2 eat there own dung
#3 run around buck naked

and so on, i think you get the point.

I understand your point.

It's not a meaningful one.

Truth trumps everything. If, indeed, we are related to animals, then the *TRUTH* of that statement trumps anything. I would rather be, as God made me, a hominid with a skeletal structure adapted from that of those that came before me, with an immune system cobbled together from parts, than live a lie, thinking that all the flaws are a result of a careless or incompetent Creator.

Essentially, this argument comes down to "I'd be sad if this were true, therefore, it's not true." This is not a good argument.

 

[BigJon]

no you missed again, we were orginaly created perfect in God's image, however when sin entered the world hence all the problems we have today, the belief in evolution makes it impossible to believe in drastic changes, thus throwing out the entering of sin in the world and the flood, in which case we are back to square one, its either God's way (creation) or evolution.

So now my statement stands true, you cant merge a pack of lies and the truth and come out with the absolute truth.

Futher more, I would rather be made in God's image than any animal's. This doesnt make creation true, but I'm certainly glad it is.

 

[seebs]

Actually, evolution doesn't rule out *occasional* drastic changes - it just rules them out as a primary method.

Anyway, you didn't answer my question: Is god a hairy biped?

Remember, by your own assertions, either God is a hairy biped, or we're stuck with evolution, because creation, as you've described it, didn't happen.

 

[ZiSunka]

One interesting thing to know about evolution is, while it depends on mutations to make genetic changes that lead to phenotypical changes that lead to the creation of new species, scientists are perplexed about the actual mechanism of those mutations, since all observed mutations have invloved the loss of genetic material, not the creation of new material.

Simply put, scientist can't figure out how new, more complex species can arise out of simpler, older species, since genetic material is constantly becoming less complex, not more complex, within any given species.

 

[seebs]

Actually, lambslove, that one's an urban legend. We know of several ways for new genetic material to show up, or for genetic material to change. Outright "loss" of material is unusual.

Over time, genetic material becomes more complex, not less complex, in most cases.

 

[ZiSunka]

Remember, by your own assertions, either God is a hairy biped, or we're stuck with evolution, because creation, as you've described it, didn't happen.

Unfortunately, your overly simplistic understanding of the word "image" is keeping you from understanding what the Bible means when it says man was created in God's image. You think that has to mean that God looks like us, without bothering with any of the other definitions of the word "image."

Might I suggest you ask for a dictionary for Christmas?

 

[BigJon]

so your askin me if God has hair and walks on two feet?

We are made in the image of God, wether God has arm pit hair or not is irrelavent.

 

[ZiSunka]

Actually, lambslove, that one's an urban legend. We know of several ways for new genetic material to show up, or for genetic material to change. Outright "loss" of material is unusual.

Wow! Do you still believe that lie? That's what science thought 40 years ago, but hasnn't been true for decades. Man, I knew the public school system was behind the times in science, but I had no idea how bad it really was!

You ought to try to keep up with science, especially if you are going to procliam it to be the ultimate truth.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by lambslove

Wow! Do you still believe that lie? That's what science thought 40 years ago, but hasnn't been true for decades. Man, I knew the public school system was behind the times in science, but I had no idea how bad it really was!

You ought to try to keep up with science, especially if you are going to procliam it to be the ultimate truth.

I don't think it's a lie at all; I think there's an immense amount of data supporting it, including nice, concrete, observed occurrences in nature. I even read a fascinating article recently on how it is that a "resistant" strain of bacteria is formed - they don't *start* with the genes that make for the resistance!

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by lambslove

Unfortunately, your overly simplistic understanding of the word "image" is keeping you from understanding what the Bible means when it says man was created in God's image. You think that has to mean that God looks like us, without bothering with any of the other definitions of the word "image."

Might I suggest you ask for a dictionary for Christmas?

My point is, if "image" isn't literal, than there's nothing wrong with us being evolved, we can still be in God's "image". The only way that's a contradiction is if we really do mean that God is a hairy biped.

Otherwise, we can be evolved, and still be made in His image.

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by BigJon
so your askin me if God has hair and walks on two feet?

We are made in the image of God, wether God has arm pit hair or not is irrelavent.

It's not irrelevant at all! If the reason evolution can't be true is that we were made in God's image, then he *has* to be just like us.

 

[ZiSunka]

I think there's an immense amount of data supporting it,

Actually, there is no data supporting it, so you think wrong.

Just yesterday I was talking to a friend who just got his PhD in biology, and he said the most distressing problem of biology is the knowledge that mutations never ADD material or complexity to an organism or species, mutations all delete material and lessen complexity. He admitted that there has never been an observed mutation, out of hundreds of thousands of observations, that added material or complexity.

And, there are no observations of mutation in nature. All observations have been made in simple organisms in labs. It is currently technologically impossible to "observe" an actual mutation in nature.

Bummer, huh?

 

[ZiSunka]

It's not irrelevant at all! If the reason evolution can't be true is that we were made in God's image, then he *has* to be just like us.

Man! Think beyond your own brain!

And so what? What if he does "look" like us? What does that prove? How does that negate the fact that God created us?

And make it good, not just your usual, "Because I said so."

 

[Satoshi]

Originally posted by BigJon
so your askin me if God has hair and walks on two feet?

We are made in the image of God, wether God has arm pit hair or not is irrelavent.

In other words, you don't want to be confused with facts; you believe what you believe it because you believe it, therefore that's what happened.

 

[chickenman]

lambslove, I'd love to know how your friend got his phD if he's telling you that mutations that increase complexity or add function have never been observed - here is one for starters - http://biocrs.biomed.brown.edu/Darwin/DI/AcidTest.html

any instance of antibiotic infection - especially to man-made antibiotics, is a gain in function caused by mutation

 

[seebs]

Originally posted by lambslove

Man! Think beyond your own brain!

And so what? What if he does "look" like us? What does that prove? How does that negate the fact that God created us?

And make it good, not just your usual, "Because I said so."

I guess, my point is, I don't think it makes sense to say that God is a hairy biped, so whatever we're talking about when we say He made us in His image, it must *NOT* be a question of what our bodies look like.

So, I think it mostly refers to free will, and the eternal life of the soul, not to the shape of the body... and as such, I don't see it as any kind of argument against the belief that bodies evolved.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Originally posted by lambslove


Unfortunately, your overly simplistic understanding of the word "image" is keeping you from understanding what the Bible means when it says man was created in God's image. You think that has to mean that God looks like us, without bothering with any of the other definitions of the word "image."

Might I suggest you ask for a dictionary for Christmas?

Oh I love this argument...

Why is the word image figurative and the word day not?

Did God gather about 180lbs of finly ground rocks, transmute the atoms into the proper kind of atoms and then blow some waste gas into us? Or are the words dust and breathed also figurative not literal?

 

[theyre here]

Originally posted by BigJon
no you missed again, we were orginaly created perfect in God's image, however when sin entered the world hence all the problems we have today,

If we were created "perfect" how could we have sinned? If we were indeed "perfect" nothing we do could be sin by definition -- our actions would be perfect, because we are.

 

[Late_Cretaceous]

Lamslove. Many would consider a person more complex then a salamander. However, a salamander's DNA is no less complex then ours. IN fact a salamander's physiology and anatomy are no less complex. Interestingly too, salamanders have up to 100 times the amount of DNA as a person.
Certain plants have upto a 1000 times more DNA packed into hundreds of chromosomes. Yet I doubt that you would consider a plant more complex then a man.
The amount of DNA has no relationship to complexity.
THe amount of DNA can easily be increased due to certain mutations where entire strands are inserted thereby lengthening the DNA.
Oh, and would you please give some reference in the scientific literature to back up your claims that :
"scientist can't figure out how new, more complex species can arise out of simpler, older species, since genetic material is constantly becoming less complex, not more complex, within any given species."

 

[Starscream]

scientists are perplexed about the actual mechanism of those mutations, since all observed mutations have invloved the loss of genetic material, not the creation of new material.

This is a lie and indicative that one has received their 'education' regarding evolution through creationists websites.

I invite you to look up trisomy 21 (more commonally known as Down's Syndrome). It is a genetic mutation where the recipient gains and extra chromosome, therefore having a net increase in genetic material.

Wow! Do you still believe that lie? That's what science thought 40 years ago, but hasnn't been true for decades. Man, I knew the public school system was behind the times in science, but I had no idea how bad it really was!

What I often find distubing about creationists is not they are wrong but that they are rude and snotty about it as well.

You ought to try to keep up with science, especially if you are going to procliam it to be the ultimate truth.

Pride before a fall, lambslove.

BigJohn tells us that he wouldn't expect anyone to admit they are wrong. Can you admit that you were wrong about mutations always losing genetic material?