Creation or Evolution

[gluadys]

I have not shown it because I don't think it's relevant. The genetic mechanisms that create adaptations have very little to do with random mutations.

Amazingly, you are right, but you don't understand that this undercuts your whole "most mutations are deleterious" argument. The fact that more mutations are harmful than beneficial is not relevant to evolution. Do you know why?

A harmful rather then an adaptive one.

Why? Remember we are talking a change in the distribution of alleles in the population here. You are basically predicting that more and more of the population would acquire and be harmed by a mutation that originally occurs in a single individual. What would cause that to happen? Why might it not happen?

It depends on the allele.

Indeed it does, and on the context in which the mutated allele occurs. Can you enlarge on this?

 

[mark kennedy]

Amazingly, you are right, but you don't understand that this undercuts your whole "most mutations are deleterious" argument. The fact that more mutations are harmful than beneficial is not relevant to evolution. Do you know why?

Because it's the only explanation you have?

Why? Remember we are talking a change in the distribution of alleles in the population here. You are basically predicting that more and more of the population would acquire and be harmed by a mutation that originally occurs in a single individual. What would cause that to happen? Why might it not happen?

I'm not following you here, your question seems incomplete. You seem to be looking for beneficial affects that result in a redistribution of an allele. Perhaps you would find it more interesting to explore Epigenetic mechanisms.

The modern usage of the word in scientific discourse is more narrow, referring to heritable traits (over rounds of cell division and sometimes transgenerationally) that do not involve changes to the underlying DNA sequence.[7] The Greek prefix epi- in epigenetics implies features that are "on top of" or "in addition to" genetics; thus epigenetic traits exist on top of or in addition to the traditional molecular basis for inheritance. Epigenetics​

I am intrigued by this because I nurse the rudiments of a theory that the originally created 'kinds' and filial first generations of living creators emerging from the Ark had pristine or nearly pristine genomes. They would not have to have hybrid offspring since there would be no misalignment of genes due to bottlenecks, there would simply be more variety and a wider array of random, or perhaps, catalyzed varieties.

Indeed it does, and on the context in which the mutated allele occurs. Can you enlarge on this?

I realize that I don't get to go around redefining scientific terminology but I really don't like the term, 'mutations', when it comes to adaptive evolution. In my simple mind a mutation is just another word for damage, as a matter of fact I think they do more to prevent adaptation then to aid it.

Epigenetics happens without the gene being altered, this is where I think the vast majority of adaptations are going to occur. That's one of the reasons I despise Darwinism, it keeps getting in the way of things I'm trying to learn about how populations adapt to new challenges and opportunities.

We know that natural selection is instrumental in the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest. I'm not trying to be cliche here, does it seem reasonable to speculate that there may well be a molecular mechanism that has external and internal triggers causing adaptations?

Just food for thought, which by the way, there is a line of thinking that what you eat can trigger adaptations.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

Overwhelmingly the deleterious affects of mutations make your make your theory of adaptation meaningless. Sure there is an occasional beneficial affect but they are vastly out numbered by neutral, deleterious and lethal mutations.
...
The statistics are a curiosity for me, nothing more.

It shows I'm afraid. I'm sorry if I appear rude but your attitude towards numbers is all wrong. You mistakenly assume that because deleterious mutations outnumber beneficial ones, then deleterious ones must be more influencial and thus are evidence against evolution. This is not the case.

The statistics you post aren't helping your argument much either. At first glance it seems that creationists outweigh evolutionists but closer inspection reveals this isn't the case. When this is pointed out you then deny the very same stats you yourself posted.

In my simple mind a mutation is just another word for damage, as a matter of fact I think they do more to prevent adaptation then to aid it.

A mutation simply means an alteration in the gene's message or code, it can be damaging, beneficial or lethal.

Epigenetics happens without the gene being altered, this is where I think the vast majority of adaptations are going to occur.
...
I'm not trying to be cliche here, does it seem reasonable to speculate that there may well be a molecular mechanism that has external and internal triggers causing adaptations?

This is actually a good question.
There is some evidence that epigenetic changes can be passed on (this would follow Lamarckian evolution) but it is tenuous at best. There was one case reported in New Scientist which I'll see if I can dig up.

 

[gluadys]

Because it's the only explanation you have?

Are you being facetious or do you really not know?

I'm not following you here, your question seems incomplete.

No the question is not incomplete. If you don't understand it, you don't understand the most basic mechanism of evolution.

A damaging (but not lethal) mutation shows up in one individual out of thousands. What can we expect the distribution of that allele to be in the population 20 generations hence? Will the frequency of this allele in the population increase, decrease or remain the same? Why?

You seem to be looking for beneficial affects that result in a redistribution of an allele. Perhaps you would find it more interesting to explore Epigenetic mechanisms.

No, I am not interested in distractions. Even if epigenetic effects are passed on, we can ask the same question about them as about mutations. With what frequency do they occur and does that frequency increase, decrease or remain constant. Why?

I realize that I don't get to go around redefining scientific terminology but I really don't like the term, 'mutations', when it comes to adaptive evolution. In my simple mind a mutation is just another word for damage, as a matter of fact I think they do more to prevent adaptation then to aid it.

If you consider any change to be "damage" a mutation damages a gene. However, the "damage" to the gene does not necessarily have a damaging effect on the organism. If you define a mutation by its effect on the organism rather than on the gene, then it may be neutral, damaging or beneficial. And, of course, even in respect of the gene, "change" doesn't really mean "damage".

We know that natural selection is instrumental in the survival of the fittest but not the arrival of the fittest.

Actually, we don't know that. Especially as changing circumstances redefine what is "fittest".

Just food for thought, which by the way, there is a line of thinking that what you eat can trigger adaptations.

In the individuals who eat the food, or in the population as a whole? If in individuals, how does that relate to the evolution of the population?

 

[SkyWriting]

Why? Remember we are talking a change in the distribution of alleles in the population here. You are basically predicting that more and more of the population would acquire and be harmed by a mutation that originally occurs in a single individual. What would cause that to happen? Why might it not happen?

Because God is on one side and his Good Fairy Of Death (GFOD)is on the other side. God designed this to be mindless and (partly) random and The Lord God Almighty has assigned the GFOD to smite down all "bad" mutations to make more room for the better adjusted, or "good" mutants. This assures that the ecosystem has tons and tons of biological fodder for the scavangers to munch on while they wait the millions of years for some better mutant to show up.
Hopefully the lucky fellow happens to mutate into the correct environment to thrive in, else he'll have to wait another million years for his chance DNA event to happen again.
It would also be good if there is a "hottie" of compatible mutant status else he'll have to wait another million years for her to happen along.
Hopefully his genetic trait meets with a dominant DNA pairing, else he'll have to wait another million or so years.
The Good Fairy Of Death has job security all right.

 

[SkyWriting]

Just food for thought, which by the way, there is a line of thinking that what you eat can trigger adaptations.

Grace and peace,
Mark

Attitude influences specialization. In wolf experiments, the pups with different attitudes were breed. Which resulted in amazing changes to the bodies of the wolves. I think it was wolves.

 

[gluadys]

Because God is on one side and his Good Fairy Of Death (GFOD)is on the other side. God designed this to be mindless and (partly) random and The Lord God Almighty has assigned the GFOD to smite down all "bad" mutations to make more room for the better adjusted, or "good" mutants. This assures that the ecosystem has tons and tons of biological fodder for the scavangers to munch on while they wait the millions of years for some better mutant to show up.

Millions of years isn't long in geolgical time. In any case we know that evolution happens much faster than that.

Hopefully the lucky fellow happens to mutate into the correct environment to thrive in, else he'll have to wait another million years for his chance DNA event to happen again.

What do you think would happen to his species if he didn't? Do you think the whole population would suddenly die out if one individual didn't get the right new allele at the right time?

It would also be good if there is a "hottie" of compatible mutant status else he'll have to wait another million years for her to happen along.

Why? do you think a single allelic difference makes an individual incapable of mating with any one else in the local population he is part of?

Hopefully his genetic trait meets with a dominant DNA pairing, else he'll have to wait another million or so years.

Why? What does it matter if a genetic change is dominant, co-dominant or recessive? You do know that people with dominant genes (as for brown eyes) can marry people with recessive genes (as for blue eyes). And their grandchildren can have blue eyes. Recessive alleles don't disappear from the population.

Attitude influences specialization. In wolf experiments, the pups with different attitudes were breed. Which resulted in amazing changes to the bodies of the wolves. I think it was wolves.

I remember that. It was foxes. The researchers rewarded people-friendly behavior and it not only changed the behaviour but the body-form as well. e.g. upright fox ears became floppy dog-like ears.

btw, you know that is an example of evolution under artificial conditions, right?

 

[mark kennedy]

It shows I'm afraid. I'm sorry if I appear rude but your attitude towards numbers is all wrong. You mistakenly assume that because deleterious mutations outnumber beneficial ones, then deleterious ones must be more influencial and thus are evidence against evolution. This is not the case.

First and foremost you need to define evolution. The fact of the matter is that adaptive evolution based on random failures of DNA repair is wrong. If there is a challenge for my computer it probably wouldn't help much to start randomly deleting and inserting binary code.

The statistics you post aren't helping your argument much either. At first glance it seems that creationists outweigh evolutionists but closer inspection reveals this isn't the case. When this is pointed out you then deny the very same stats you yourself posted.

First of all it's not an argument, it's a clear statement of fact which is something TEs don't seem to appreciate. The original contention was over most evolutionists being Christians then some random conversation about how many millions of them there are. That's not an argument, it's silly semantical bickering. At this point no one has made a serious effort to understand that most people conclude a Creator.

A mutation simply means an alteration in the gene's message or code, it can be damaging, beneficial or lethal.

By far the largest number of them do nothing at all. Then there are the rare ones that actually have an affect and the largest number of them are deleterious if not lethal. Then the smallest percentage have a beneficial affect but those are usually not strong enough for selection to act. That is not how living things adapt the vast majority of the time, in fact, the gene sequence doesn't have to change at all.

This is actually a good question.
There is some evidence that epigenetic changes can be passed on (this would follow Lamarckian evolution) but it is tenuous at best. There was one case reported in New Scientist which I'll see if I can dig up.

I haven't really researched it in quite some time but there are strong indications that there are far better mechanisms for adaptation then random mutation.

I remember I tracked down the good ole' nylon bug, a bacteria that adapted to digest nylon. It was originally thought to be an indel but what had happened was a reading frame had swapped out a functional sequence. I've wondered ever since if there was some kind of a mechanism that is responsible.

I might get into this again but I haven't decided yet, thanks for the exchange.

 

[Notedstrangeperson]

First and foremost you need to define evolution. The fact of the matter is that adaptive evolution based on random failures of DNA repair is wrong.
...
By far the largest number of them do nothing at all. Then there are the rare ones that actually have an affect and the largest number of them are deleterious if not lethal. Then the smallest percentage have a beneficial affect but those are usually not strong enough for selection to act.

I've already done this for you, and you're still mistaken about mutations. They are not merely 'failures in DNA repair' nor are the beneficial ones the least influencial. We've already had this conversation.

The original contention was over most evolutionists being Christians then some random conversation about how many millions of them there are. That's not an argument, it's silly semantical bickering. At this point no one has made a serious effort to understand that most people conclude a Creator.

Your original link was to show that creationists outnumber evolutionists. When others, including myself, pointed out not only that evolutionists outnumber theists but that TEs outnumber AEs, you dismiss your own data.

I remember that. It was foxes. The researchers rewarded people-friendly behavior and it not only changed the behaviour but the body-form as well. e.g. upright fox ears became floppy dog-like ears.

The Fox Farm Experiment. I find this intriguing - why should their personalities affect the way they look?

 

[SkyWriting]

<snip>

btw, you know that is an example of evolution under artificial conditions, right?

Yes. It's a perfect example of how a given set of DNA has all the information needed to allow drastic changes in any "kind" of animal. The mistake is in stringing the various kinds of animals into a continuous line (real or conceptual) that doesn't actually exist.

 

[gluadys]

The Fox Farm Experiment. I find this intriguing - why should their personalities affect the way they look?

Hard to say. To me the most likely explanation is that the researchers unconsciously selected for appearance as well as behaviour. OTOH there might also be some gene linkage between behavioral and morphological traits.

 

[gluadys]

Yes. It's a perfect example of how a given set of DNA has all the information needed to allow drastic changes in any "kind" of animal.

Yes, most of it provided by gene duplications and modifications that maintain levels of variability in a species. Btw do you understand the difference between a genome and a gene pool? You do know the variation is in the gene pool, not in any one copy of a genome, right?

You didn't comment on the rest of my post. Are you going to drop the false images of evolution such as:

Hopefully the lucky fellow happens to mutate into the correct environment to thrive in, else he'll have to wait another million years for his chance DNA event to happen again.
It would also be good if there is a "hottie" of compatible mutant status else he'll have to wait another million years for her to happen along.
Hopefully his genetic trait meets with a dominant DNA pairing, else he'll have to wait another million or so years.

See my previous post for why these are false ideas about evolution.

 

[gluadys]

First and foremost you need to define evolution. The fact of the matter is that adaptive evolution based on random failures of DNA repair is wrong.

First and foremost adaptive evolution is not based on mutations.

First of all it's not an argument, it's a clear statement of fact which is something TEs don't seem to appreciate. The original contention was over most evolutionists being Christians then some random conversation about how many millions of them there are. That's not an argument, it's silly semantical bickering. At this point no one has made a serious effort to understand that most people conclude a Creator.

Of course, since TEs agree with most people on that point. So are you lumping TEs in with YECs for statistical purposes?

Do that and what your statistics tell you is that most people who conclude a Creator also accept evolution. And that agrees with the statement that most evolutionists in the U.S. are Christians.

Then the smallest percentage [of mutations] have a beneficial affect but those are usually not strong enough for selection to act.

Do you have information on the minimum level of effect required for selection to act?

That is not how living things adapt the vast majority of the time, in fact, the gene sequence doesn't have to change at all.

If you mean the gene sequence does not need to change in the same time frame as the adaptations occur, you are correct. But there does need to be variability in the gene pool and that is provided by mutations at some point in time prior to the onset of adaptation.

I haven't really researched it in quite some time but there are strong indications that there are far better mechanisms for adaptation then random mutation.

Of course, you already rule out a priori the most powerful mechanism for adaptation. (You are right, it is not random mutation.)

I remember I tracked down the good ole' nylon bug, a bacteria that adapted to digest nylon. It was originally thought to be an indel but what had happened was a reading frame had swapped out a functional sequence. I've wondered ever since if there was some kind of a mechanism that is responsible.

Are you not forgetting that a frameshift is caused by an indel?

 

[shernren]

The Fox Farm Experiment. I find this intriguing - why should their personalities affect the way they look?

Seems that the increased tame-ability of the foxes was due to a kind of pedomorphosis - selection for, or retention, of juvenile features into adulthood, and it's logical that having droopy ears would be a result of a more "juvenile" physiognomy. In general heterochrony is one of the big evolutionary mechanisms for radical changes and that kind of developmental tinkering can have a lot of superficially unrelated side-effects. For example, the pigmentation differences turn out to be related to how certain cells (melanoblasts) migrate during the embryonic development, which has been altered as a result of heterochrony / pedomorphosis.

 

[Papias]

Mark wrote:

Overwhelmingly the deleterious affects of mutations make your make your theory of adaptation meaningless. Sure there is an occasional beneficial affect but they are vastly out numbered by neutral, deleterious and lethal mutations.

Mark, we've seen that natural selection weeds out harmful mutations while amplifying the numbers of the beneficial mutations, even if there are hundred harmful mutations to each beneficial one. We worked out an example to help you understand this back at post #75 here:

http://www.christianforums.com/t7512492-8/

you did see and understand that, right?

Mark wrote:

I wrote, when asked for definitions.
Christian:

A person for whom Jesus is centrally important to their religion. I generally avoid the "I'm Christianer than thou" approach, because that judgement is up to God, not me.

That's not a definition, that's a vague generality.


​

OK, so Mark, so give your definition. Here is one from the dictionary:

&#8211;noun
7. a person who believes in Jesus Christ

mark wrote:

Papias wrote: A change in allele frequency in a population over time. Note that this includes a change from an initial frequency of 0.
​

So you realize that the genuine article of science not define evolution as the a priori assumption of universal common descent. That leads to the question of why you equivocate the two.

I don't equivocate between the two. Neither evolution nor common descent are assumptions. They are conclusions based on overwhelming data. We have better support for the ideas of evolution and common descent than we do for the idea that the Roman Empire existed, or that the earth goes around the sun.

Papias wrote:

In modern times, person with all of the following:

1. A Ph.D or equivalent degree from an accredited University
2. years of research in either industry or academia
3. publications of said original research in peer-reviewed scientific journals

​

So I guy with a masters in Biology isn't a real scientist his first day in the lab after graduation until he has a PHD, has been published and has years of research.

You asked for a definition, and I gave one. If you don't like it, you can propose your own. The definition of science or the scientific method is not sufficient in modern times, because even my 9 year old knows and uses the scientific method. In current useage, "scientist" is similar in meaning to "expert".

Papias wrote:

Evolutionist: In common usage, one who accepts the evolution of humans from earlier, chimp-like primates. I think this definition is more useful than just whether or not they deny evolution (see above), because a minority of YEC creationists also accept speciation, mistakenly calling it microevolution.

That is not what your definition says, by your definition everyone is an evolutionist. You make it propositional truth without a proper definition or a substantive reason for the change in meanings.

No, everyone is not an evolutionist by my defintion. As your own statistics showed, an overwhelming majority of creationists deny that speciation happens. Remember? Here's your own data:

<B>

History of humans and other species: whether they "...have existed in their present form since the beginning of time," or have evolved over time."
​

• Existed in present form only: 42% (Creationist); cf. 45% for Gallup.
• Evolved via natural processes: 26% (Naturalistic evolution); cf. Gallup's 13%
• Evolved via God's guidance:: 18% (Theistic evolution); cf. Gallup's 38% for
• Don't know: 14%

(2005-JUL-7 and 17, Pew Research)

</B>

​

Nearly all creationists (arond 42/45 or so) say that all species have existed in their present form (have not evolved from other species, or speciated) since the beginning of time. Because nearly all creationists are Christians, that means that the data is in direct contradiction to your statement that:

Mark wrote:

there are a very few Christians that deny speciation, that's just plain silly.

Mark wrote:

Papias wrote:

Mark, I didn't ignore them. I showed that they supported my statement that the majority of evolution supporters in the US are Christian. In fact because not only most of the founders of the field were Christian, and because most of the evolution supporters in the US are Christian today, it seems that Evolution is mainly a Christian idea.

Your all over the road with this one, see why you have to define your terms?

I did define my terms. I'm sorry that you want to exclude so many of our brothers and sisters in Christ, but if you want to deny the bolded statement above, you'll have to exclude dozens of millions of professed Christians from what you'd consider to be Christian.

​

Mark, again, as I've shown, using your numbers over and over, the majority of those who support evolution are Christian. Do you still disagree that the majority of those who support evolution are Chrisitan? If so, on what basis, since your own statistics show it?

I disagree because for one thing you have shown me no numbers and the ones I have shown are very different from what you are saying.

Mark, your post was in response to post #37, in which I cut and pasted your exact numbers. How could my numbers have been different from yours, when I cut and pasted your exact numbers? I'm sorry that you don't like what your own numbers say.
​

Academia isn't a democracy, it's an oligarchy.

So you agree that the 700 (which is 0.0002% of the population) that you mentioned is irrelevant, as I've stated?


​

OK, since there are around 300 million Americans, that comes to around 300 * 0.45 ~ roughly 140 million. Why is that relevant to the statement that the majority of those who support evolution are Christian?

People who have an actual opinion are close to evenly split on the subject of origins, half being TE and the other half being Creationist or ID of some kind. That does not make evolution (the change of alleles...) a Christian concept.

So, you agree that the majority of evolution supporters in the US are are theistic evolutionists, and you don't think they are Christian? What are they, Jewish? Or is this Mark again saying that he's Christianer than thou?

​

Papias wrote:

OK, I will again for people like Mark who need the details spelled out for them. Of those who support evolution, we have 39+115=155 million.

Of those, 115 million are theistic evolutionists, Christians.

So of those who support evolution, 115/155 = over 70% are Christians. See how clear it is that the majority of those who support evolution are Christian? It's not even close, 70 is much more than 50%. If that were an election, we'd call it a landslide.

For one thing ID and TE are not necessarily Christian, unless we use your definition. With such a fast and loose definition anyone who thinks Jesus is 'important' to their religion is a Christian. That' really not the kind of a definition you would get from the New Testament.

Ah, so we are back to Mark saying he's Christianer than thou. Mark, we agree that nearly all the TE's claim to be Christian, right? So basically, even if someone says they are a Christian, you don't consider them Christian, because they aren't Christian enough for you?

​

The statistics are a curiosity for me, nothing more.

Do you find it curious that the % creationists in the US appears to be dropping?

​

Theistic Evolution fully agrees with Hebrews 1:1-3 (and the rest of one's chosen Bible as well, for that matter). We do understand that the universe was formed at God's command. Are you saying that God's command is not powerful enough to have used evolution as that formation mechanism in the case of life?

That's a rationalization not a profession of faith.

Hey, look everyone! Mark is not only Christianer than thou, he's also the supreme judge of what qualifies as a profession of faith! All hail Mark! Do not bow to any other!

​

says the person who ignores the Gospels of Mt and Lk in claiming that they say one gives the geneology of Mary, when they both say Joseph, and who further ignores the clear text of 1 Cr, which gives additional generations as compared to the geneology in the Gospel of Mt.

A point of contention I defended successfully, reasonably and succinctly. That is exactly what the differences between the two genealogies mean and the fact is both are a genealogy of Jesus. You mimic an argument that unbelievers have used for a hundred years to undermine confidence in the Scriptures. Then when an answer to your shallow skepticism is refuted you go right back to the original argument as if it were defensible. Typical.

No Mark, you abandonded the discussion of this point in the Adam thread, and again offer no biblical support for your unscriptural "Mary" idea, while completely ignoring the contradiction with 1st Chr. Successfully, no. Succinctly, OK.

I'll post the list again, and we can go from there.


​

OK, to be clear I will affirm that Adam as a single, real individual, who was the first human, transitional between ancient ape and human, and that it was his sin that brought about the need for Jesus' sacrifice. It fully agrees with Christian doctrine, as well as reality, right Mark?

No, it denies the clear testimony of the Scriptures in favor of a worldly philosophy that rejects God as an explanation for anything.

You ignore the text of both Luke and Mt, and then say that I deny the clear testimony of scripture? Wow. Plus, you say that my statement that God created the world somehow "rejects God as an explanation for anything"? Wow again. You do understand that God can act in the world using natural processes as his tools, right?


​

The argument is flawed.

Another bare assertion. Succinct, yes - successful, no.
​

Papias

 

[Papias]

Mark, to help jog your memory, since your are still ignoring the contradiction between the geneology in 1 Cr and Mt, here they are, as we were discussing them in the other thread:

You ignored the contradiction between Mt and 1 Cr. Both give the descendants from Solomon leading toward Jesus. But Mt has apparently cut out several people to make his 14, 14, 14 theological point work. Here they are, side by side:

Mt Gen# ...................Gospel of Matthew has ......................................1st Chron. Has:
1 ..................................7Solomon the father of Rehoboam, .........................10 Solomon's son was
2 .....................................Rehoboam the father of Abijah, ..............................Rehoboam,
3 ........................................Abijah.............................................................. Abijah his son,
4 ..........................................8Asa................................................................. Asa his son,
5 .......................................Jehoshaphat .....................................................Jehoshaphat his son,
6 ............................................Jehoram.......................................................... Jehoram his son
............................................Skipped....................................................................................... Ahaziah his son,

..............................................Skipped ....................................................................................Joash his son,
..............................................Skipped ......................................................................................12 Amaziah his son,
7 .................................9Uzziah the father of Jotham, .......................Azariah his son,
8........................................... Jotham .......................................................Jotham his son,
9 ........................................Ahaz ..........................................................13 Ahaz his son,
10 ..................................10Hezekiah .......................................................Hezekiah his son,
11 .....................................Manasseh ..........................................................Manasseh his son,
12 ...........................................Amon........................................................... 14 Amon his son,
13................................... Josiah the father of Jeconiah,.................................... Josiah his son.


Do you agree that Mt cut out these people to make his 14 thing work? That shows it is a figurative geneology, not a literal one.

Papias

 

[Faith.Man]

Mark, to help jog your memory, since your are still ignoring the contradiction between the geneology in 1 Cr and Mt, here they are, as we were discussing them in the other thread:

See above.

Papias

I wrote a response yesterday but somehow in got lost in cyberspace. All I really want to add is the Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience. For some reason, I do not know why, the Jews place a lot of trust/faith in numbers. There are several books written on this subject that I've come across. It is possible, in my mind, that Matthew intentionally omitted some ancestors to make a numerical point.

How long is a generation? Because the genealogy detailed in Matthew differs in the genealogy detailed in Luke not just in lineage, but also in generational length. Generation as Matthew is expressing it here must have a different meaning.

 

[Papias]

Faith.man wrote:

I wrote a response yesterday but somehow in got lost in cyberspace.

Ouch. I've had that happen to me too. What a pain.

See above.

This refers to the lost response, right?

All I really want to add is the Matthew was writing to a Jewish audience. For some reason, I do not know why, the Jews place a lot of trust/faith in numbers. There are several books written on this subject that I've come across. It is possible, in my mind, that Matthew intentionally omitted some ancestors to make a numerical point.

yes, that seems clear. Since we know that the Holy Spirit is behind the writing of the gospel of Matthew, it cannot be in error. If it seems there is an error, it must be with our interpretation. We also know that the Holy Spirit, being also behind 1 Cr, would know if 1 Cr was symbolic, not literal, and could thus tell us about how to interpret 1 Cr by what is written in Mt. Since they both literally list the generations, and Mt clearly skips people, the Holy Spirit seems to be clearly telling us that the geneology in 1 Cr (and by necessity then in Mt) is figurative, and not literal, and hence that Ussher and YECs are in error in using it to establish a 6,000 year age for the earth.

How long is a generation? Because the genealogy detailed in Matthew differs in the genealogy detailed in Luke not just in lineage, but also in generational length. Generation as Matthew is expressing it here must have a different meaning.

Mt doesn't say "generation", but rather explictly says who was who's son, and so on. So the Holy Spirit appears to be telling us it symbolic, not literal.

Peace and happiness-

Papias

 

[Kennesaw42]

Very fine argument. I'm a young earth creationist too, and new to this forum.

 

[Ethan Osgoode]

The fossil you are referring to was Nebraska Man... Unlike Piltdown Man, it was not a hoax

Piltdown man was not a hoax, it was a fraud. Nebraska man was not a misidentification or a hoax, it was a fraud concocted by Henry Fairfield Osborn to discredit William Jennings Bryan.

There are actually only about three major hoaxes relating to evolution.

Eugenics was a huge fraud relating to evolution. Add that to the fraud list.