Christian Faith Requires the Acceptance of Creationism

[ptomwebster]

Satan isn't a reptile, and the bible doesn't say the fall was Eve having sex.

Serpent is a name for Satan, just like Assyrian is a name for you on this board. The Assyrian is another name for Satan also.

The Scripture does say that the sin in the garden was Eve having intercourse with Satan but you need to want an in depth study to see it. Cain is the progeny of Satan. That study would need a new topic I’m sure.

 

[cubinity]

Intercourse mean dialogue, and it is being had all over this thread. It is not a sin for us to do it with each other, but maybe it was a sin for Eve to do it with the serpent.

 

[Mr.Waffles]

Have a look at what I said to Mark about heliocentrism. Science doesn't tell us how to interpret the bible, but if it shows us an interpretation is wrong, we need to go back to the bible and find a better interpretation from scripture.

Nowhere does the Bible explicitly imply geocentrism as a reality. The exact same thing can be said for the flat-earth theory. This isn't just a matter of misinterpreting scripture, it's a matter of the theory being in direct conflict with scripture. Without prior scientific knowledge, it is understandable why flat earthism or geocentrism were adopted. However, regardless if we have prior knowledge concerning evolution or not, there is no grounds whatsoever for that kind of ''interpretation'' to be tenable, because it compromises everything the Bible presents us.

 

[ptomwebster]

Intercourse mean dialogue, and it is being had all over this thread. It is not a sin for us to do it with each other, but maybe it was a sin for Eve to do it with the serpent.

Well, she got pregnant and had a child, so I guess it was an involved "conversation," right?

 

[Incariol]

Well, she got pregnant and had a child, so I guess it was an involved "conversation," right?

It probably involved the physically capable man who was with her at the time. You do know the mechanics of this, right? It doesn't work with snakes.

 

[cubinity]

Well, she got pregnant and had a child, so I guess it was an involved "conversation," right?

So, at first I was like ,

and then I was like .

Show any evidence at all from the accepted text (the Bible) that the snake is the biological father of any humanoid character in Genesis, and I will continue this conversation. Otherwise, this is just silly.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Show any evidence at all from the accepted text (the Bible) that the snake is the biological father of any humanoid character in Genesis, and I will continue this conversation. Otherwise, this is just silly.

I think where people even got the idea from in the first place is the 'forbidden fruit' and the serpent coming to Eve.
It's just wishful thinking, nonetheless. I think it is as attempt at explaining why we have sin nature in a way where we are actually descendants of the angel himself.

But that's completely un-biblical. The angel does not have that kind of power. Rather, he just paved the way to a realization of vanity and good/evil.
He fell from grace (cursed to crawl on his belly) (hence, the metaphor serpent), and feels strongly about it so he works with whatever power he does have to get mankind to turn away from God just as well.

Some should read Paradise Lost. It's an epic about the angel, among other things, though it is not technically biblical. Rather, it's the work of the esteemed John Milton, a 16th century poet. So if you do read it, do not let it sway what you personally believe. It's just some insight

 

[cubinity]

Interesting to me is how there appears to be a need in some people to tie our sinfulness to our genetics.

It is as if they are trying to say that there is something biological going on that compels us to sin.

As I said, it's very interesting.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

Interesting to me is how there appears to be a need in some people to tie our sinfulness to our genetics.

It is as if they are trying to say that there is something biological going on that compels us to sin.

As I said, it's very interesting.

Well, there is such a thing as carnal influence. Muslims uphold this idea very firm. But I do not think that is something that has to be biologically tied into us, by an adversarial angel anyways. Rather, all we have to have is the knowledge and the desire.

One of the defenses for Jesus actually being God Himself (personally, I don't believe in a Trinity in exactly the same way many others put it), is that since God was in the flesh, he was open to temptation. And this would explain why Satan would actually be foolish enough to tempt God during the events of the Messiah.

 

[cubinity]

I agree that there is a biological influence. I don't see this as having anything to do with sin, though. As you said, sin is an issue of knowledge and desire, not genetics.

As for your other comment, you would think this would be a defense for Jesus not being God, since one of the explicit characteristics of God is that He is not tempted.

 

[Sum1sGruj]

I agree that there is a biological influence. I don't see this as having anything to do with sin, though. As you said, sin is an issue of knowledge and desire, not genetics.

As for your other comment, you would think this would be a defense for Jesus not being God, since one of the explicit characteristics of God is that He is not tempted.

Yeah, I think a Trinity just limits God. Personally, I believe God exists in everyone who heeds Him, and that He is the counterbalance of our carnal desires to our will to be righteous.

Jesus just happened to be the seed of God, therefore being wholly endowed with Him. If he hadn't, it would have been extremely difficult, if not prohibitively so, to endure all of what he had.
We're talking 40 days of fasting, denying Satan right to his face and without fear, and being chastised and crucified. Nothing less then the endowment of God in my opinion.

But as far as a Trinity, I see it as more symbolic then literal. I stay firm to the notion that there is only one God, and that Jesus is the king of Heaven who did for us what the most righteous king would do for his people.
Of course, a kingdom takes on a different junction in this case obviously.

God is infinite, and mathematically, you can subtract infinite from infinite and still have., infinite. So He can be divided without division, and exists in all of us.

 

[cubinity]

Yeah, I think a Trinity just limits God. Personally, I believe God exists in everyone who heeds Him, and that He is the counterbalance of our carnal desires to our will to be righteous.

Jesus just happened to be the seed of God, therefore being wholly endowed with Him. If he hadn't, it would have been extremely difficult, if not prohibitively so, to endure all of what he had.
We're talking 40 days of fasting, denying Satan right to his face and without fear, and being chastised and crucified. Nothing less then the endowment of God in my opinion.

But as far as a Trinity, I see it as more symbolic then literal. I stay firm to the notion that there is only one God, and that Jesus is the king of Heaven who did for us what the most righteous king would do for his people.
Of course, a kingdom takes on a different junction in this case obviously.

God is infinite, and mathematically, you can subtract infinite from infinite and still have., infinite. So He can be divided without division, and exists in all of us.

Ah, I see. That explains a lot.

 

[Anthony Puccetti]

Anthony's argument, as usual, is a classic example of the straw man fallacy. He argues that my position is the same as atheistic evolution, then argues against atheistic evolution (the strawman in this case), which he knows full well both the Pope and I reject.

I didn't say your position is the same as atheistic evolution,I said that the theory of evolution is atheistic,because it is naturalistic and therefore it gives to natural causes alone the ability to create species. This is the theory you accept as true and illogically base your theistic evolution upon. You accept the claims of the theory and say that God did it,but the theory does not allow for God to be doing anything,because it has nature doing everything by itself. The historical claims of the theory cannot be demonstrated to have happened,and the natural processes that it proposes as the means for evolution - natural selection and genetic mutation - cannot logically produce new primary species,but only sub-species. They cannot cause macro-evolution. They are not the proper and actual means by which living creatures are produced. So the theory is illogical as well as naturalistic.

I don't care how you usually perceive it being proposed. I'm pointing out that the theistic evolution affirmed in the Pope's ITC document is fully theistic.

The ITC document does not affirm theistic evolution as if the scientific theory of evolution were true,which is what you are proposing. The phrase theistic evolution,as it is commonly used,is loaded with the assumption that the theory is true. If all it meant was that God guides the natural processes of biological change,then it would not be misleading. But it is usually proposed as a theistic view of the scientific theory,even though it is naturalistic,undemonstrable and illogical.

If you think it is illogical, you need not ascribe to it, as the Pope and I do. The difference is simple - my view is that God is the one doing all of the things that we see as "natural" processes. This is affirmed in Scripture, and is about as big a difference as one can get.

We're not arguing about whether or not God moves natural processes.
This is about the theory of evolution. You are blindly accepting the theory as
true and putting a theistic spin on it,as if that makes it alright.

The pope has not given his support to the theory of evolution itself,so to say that he supports theistic evolution (as you understand it) is misleading.

 

[gluadys]

I didn't say your position is the same as atheistic evolution,I said that the theory of evolution is atheistic,because it is naturalistic and therefore it gives to natural causes alone the ability to create species.

I don't know how you are defining "naturalistic", but God created nature and its natural processes, so what is atheistic about them?

OTOH, what makes you thing TE espouses the atheistic idea that any natural cause operates "alone"? Are you not banishing God from nature when you accept this description?

This is the theory you accept as true and illogically base your theistic evolution upon. You accept the claims of the theory and say that God did it,but the theory does not allow for God to be doing anything,because it has nature doing everything by itself.

No, the theory doesn't say this at all.

This is an atheistic interpretation of the theory. It is not part of the scientific theory. Science never says that nature does anything "by itself".

Don't confuse science (which is neutral on the subject) with atheism. TEs don't buy into the lie that nature acts "by itself". Not just in evolution: in any and all natural processes.

The historical claims of the theory cannot be demonstrated to have happened,

That is the nature of history, but the sort of evidence which would be left by a history of evolution is the sort of evidence discovered paleontologically, morphologically, developmentally and genetically. So there is a good deal of supporting evidence for the inferred history and none, as yet, for lack of evolution in the past. So long as the evidence and the theory match, one can surely judge the theory probable.

and the natural processes that it proposes as the means for evolution - natural selection and genetic mutation - cannot logically produce new primary species,but only sub-species.

So, how does one distinguish "primary species" from "sub-species"? Are primary species those with no ancestors? Do you know of any species with no ancestors?

The core understanding of evolution is that all species began as sub-species of an existing species, so there is no need to produce primary species. Hence this is not a problem for evolutionary theory.

We're not arguing about whether or not God moves natural processes. This is about the theory of evolution. You are blindly accepting the theory as true and putting a theistic spin on it,as if that makes it alright.

Is that not exactly what you were arguing in the first paragraph when you equated natural processes with atheism? If God can and does move natural processes (as all Christians agree) then God can and does move the natural process of evolution. Sure that is putting a theistic spin on the theory. But we have as much right to put a theistic spin on the theory as atheists have to put an atheistic spin on the theory.


Your error is to see the atheistic spin as part of the theory instead of as a scientifically unnecessary philosophical attachment to the theory.

 

[Papias]

I've been out due to the birth of my son - thankfully, that has all gone well (everyone is healthy). I'm pretty busy with the new baby (Connor), so I doubt I'll have much time to post.

In that time, it looks like this thread has had many tangents. Nonetheless, I'll respond to the responses to my last post, even though Jvpiter did a good job of covering it anyway.

First, Sum wrote:

the fact remains that our coding is like a deck of cards. It can be shuffled, but nothing can be added to it.

to which I responded:

To add information, first, take a functional gene, and make an extra copy using the duplication mutation. That won’t hurt the organism, since the second copy is simply redundant. Then use any of the other mutation methods so as to make the second copy do something new. The organism still has the original copy doing whatever it is supposed to do, but now has the added ability of whatever the new gene does (such as digesting nylon, as in a species of bacteria). This has been observed by scientists numerous times, and denying that it happens is simply denying the real world.

and then mark wrote:

No one is denying that this happens. What has raised skepticism is what can be reasonably expected from gene duplication:

<edit>
mark wrote:

Easy, expected, observed and non-controversial? Nonsense!

As jvpiter pointed out, mark's conclusions don't match the papers he cites for them, and are resolved by natural selection anyway.

However, even if the real research did support mark's (and Greg's) point that the mechanism of gene duplilcation is insuficient to give the changes in the genome we observe, then that simply means that mark and Greg are inadvertently arguing in favor of theistic evolution.

Why? Because many lines of evidence show that common descent is clear, yet mark and Greg argue that mutation is not able to provide the changes for natural selection work with to give our present genomes. Thus, even accepting mark and Greg's argument means that God may have supplied the beneficial mutations during the evolutionary process, which is the theistic evolution position suggested by the Pope and others.

Looking back, I realize that this applies to many of mark's arguments, showing his points can often support a conclusion of theistic evolution, even if they are fallacious, and that he surely doesn't intend to support theistic evolution.



Papias
​

 

[mark kennedy]

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Mutations)

What is expected, observed and non-controversial from mutations is disease and disorder, cancer, Fragile X Syndrome, Polyglutamine Diseases, Muscular Dystrophy, sickle-cell disease, cystic fibrosis.

Evolutionists know this, have no real argument for it, and resort to fallacious ad hominem fallacies for that reason.

 

[gluadys]

In the living cell, DNA undergoes frequent chemical change, especially when it is being replicated (in S phase of the eukaryotic cell cycle). Most of these changes are quickly repaired. Those that are not result in a mutation. Thus, mutation is a failure of DNA repair. (Mutations)

What is expected, observed and non-controversial from mutations is disease and disorder, cancer, Fragile X Syndrome, Polyglutamine Diseases, Muscular Dystrophy, sickle-cell disease, cystic fibrosis.

Evolutionists know this, have no real argument for it and resort to fallacious ad hominem fallacies.

Apparently you still do not understand the difference between organism and species. That is not an ad hominem fallacy. It is an observed fact.

Yes, many mutations do produce the diseases and disorders you name---in the organisms who inherit the genes with those mutations.

But evolution is a change in a species, not a change in an organism. Which of the diseases or disorders you deplore has changed the species these afflicted organisms belong to?

When you can do that, we can talk about the evolutionary effects of mutations, instead of only the organismal effects.

 

[mark kennedy]

Apparently you still do not understand the difference between organism and species.

I don't understand the difference between an individual and a group...seriously?

That is not an ad hominem fallacy. It is an observed fact.

The misuse of an observed fact is often fallacious, your arguing in circles here.

Yes, many mutations do produce the diseases and disorders you name---in the organisms who inherit the genes with those mutations.

No, mutations do not have to be inherited in order to produce disease and disorder. Cancer can either be inherited or it could be the result of exposure to radiation or something else causing mutations, the point being, somatic mutations result in disease and disorder as well.

But evolution is a change in a species, not a change in an organism. Which of the diseases or disorders you deplore has changed the species these afflicted organisms belong to?

Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, your still trying to correct a statement I never made. Diseases and disorders are what is expected when there is a copy error that is not corrected and actually has an effect.

When you can do that, we can talk about the evolutionary effects of mutations, instead of only the organismal effects.

Mutations happen on a molecular and cellular level, cells are populations as well. When you finally understand that, then we can talk about the expected, observed and non-controversial effects of uncorrected copy errors on populations over time.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[gluadys]

I don't understand the difference between an individual and a group...seriously?

Seriously....apparently.

No, mutations do not have to be inherited in order to produce disease and disorder. Cancer can either be inherited or it could be the result of exposure to radiation or something else causing mutations, the point being, somatic mutations result in disease and disorder as well.

That's true. Can we agree that somatic mutations have no relevance to evolution which depends on mutations which are inherited via the germ cells.

Evolution is the change of alleles in populations over time, your still trying to correct a statement I never made.

Actually, as I said earlier, it is not so much a change in the alleles as a change in the how the alleles are distributed across the population.

Diseases and disorders are what is expected when there is a copy error that is not corrected and actually has an effect.

Sometimes. And in organisms. That is still irrelevant to an evolutionary change in a population. It doesn't change the way the alleles are distributed across the population from one generation to another. So what point are you trying to make?

Mutations happen on a molecular and cellular level, cells are populations as well.

Some organisms are unicellular, so the population in this case consists of cells. But mutations in some of these organisms, whatever the effect on the organism itself, still has little if any bearing on a change in the population.

So again, what is the point you are trying to make?

 

[Greg1234]

No, mutations do not have to be inherited in order to produce disease and disorder. Cancer can either be inherited or it could be the result of exposure to radiation or something else causing mutations, the point being, somatic mutations result in disease and disorder as well.

Exactly. The only thing acquired mutations have been shown to cause is disease. At a time when we had no mechanism to reconcile that with germ line adaptation, we would had to squeeze in random mutations. Since we are now aware of the cell's programmed ability to induce adaptation, such an incorporation isn't required.

As you mentioned, a mutation is a failure of the repair system. It's also interesting to note that when the repair mechanism misses a mutation, it can correct it over the succeeding generations. For example, in the case of the fruit fly experiment,

"One experiment produced fruit flies without eyes. Yet, after a few life cycles, flies with eyes began to appear. Some kind of genetic repair mechanism took over and blocked any possibility of evolution."​

It's quite a feat for a random mutation to be continually overlooked by repairing agents. In somatic mutations, its the same thing. For daughter cells to continually perpetuate a mutation right under the nose of a competent repair system is quite suspicious. Unless the repair system itself is the one at fault. For example, Cancer may be caused by damage being missed by a competent repair system, or by damage being promoted and induced by a defective repair system.

If the building up of random mutations is actually the result of a repair system becoming more and more defective, then Darwinian evolution would ultimately result in a repair system completely incongruent with the rest of the genome.