Does believing Genesis is wrong make me a bad Christian?

[Brightmoon]

Here’s what chimpanzees look like if they have no hair. This guy has alopecia so he’s lost his hair but other than that he’s normal and healthy. Denial is a river in Egypt for people who don’t accept that humans are great apes

 

[Job 33:6]

Then you shouldn’t have any problem providing a list of peer-reviewed articles published by Project Steve members. There was no such list in your earlier posting.

I suppose I could, though it would be an extremely daunting task. I'm not sure that I even have the mental fortitude to scroll through the massive list, let alone scroll through all of their peer reviewed articles.

Ill list the first few for example:

List of Steves | National Center for Science Education

Stephen T. Abedon
Stephen T. Abedon - Google Scholar Citations

I wouldn't dare copy and paste all of the publications, but just glancing through we can see that he has many peer reviewed articles.


Steve Abel
Steven M. Abel - Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering


Steven G. Ackleson
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Ackleson


I don't really have anything to prove other than what we already know, that 95+% of scientists accept biological evolution, and that there are vastly large numbers of publications in support of the theory, including by scientists named Steve.

If I really wanted to, I could literally go through all 1,400+ Steve's, but I don't think it would tell me much more than what I already know. And of the 1,400 Steve's, collectively they probably have tens of thousands of peer reviewed publications (or at least over 10,000.

And I understand that not all articles written are in peer reviewed journals, but the above links list peer reviewed journals as well. For example:

The roles of the bacteriophage T4 r genes in lysis inhibition and fine-structure genetics: a new perspective
P Paddison, ST Abedon, HK Dressman, K Gailbreath, J Tracy, E Mosser, ...
Genetics 148 (4), 1539-1550, 1998

Why bacteriophage encode exotoxins and other virulence factors
ST Abedon, JT LeJeune
Evolutionary Bioinformatics 1, 117693430500100001, 2005

These are two articles listed for the first Steve (of many that I could copy and paste, if I really wanted to). And they are peer reviewed.

If my name was Steve, I'd join that list too.

 

[JulieB67]

If you simply read the story, there's no sign of Satan. It's just a snake. It's possible that the author was thinking of the snake as representing something more, but you can't say "read this" and expect us to find Satan in the text.

But that's why the bible should be read and taken as a whole.

"Revelation 20:2 "And he laid hold on the dragon, that old serpent, which is the Devil, and Satan, and bound him a thousand years,"

That verse definitely states that the serpent is Satan.

I didn't state it as an opinion, the bible states the fact.

 

[Job 33:6]

I suppose I could, though it would be an extremely daunting task. I'm not sure that I even have the mental fortitude to scroll through the massive list, let alone scroll through all of their peer reviewed articles.

Ill list the first few for example:

List of Steves | National Center for Science Education

Stephen T. Abedon
Stephen T. Abedon - Google Scholar Citations

I wouldn't dare copy and paste all of the publications, but just glancing through we can see that he has many peer reviewed articles.


Steve Abel
Steven M. Abel - Chemical & Biomolecular Engineering


Steven G. Ackleson
https://www.researchgate.net/profile/Steven_Ackleson


I don't really have anything to prove other than what we already know, that 95+% of scientists accept biological evolution, and that there are vastly large numbers of publications in support of the theory, including by scientists named Steve.

If I really wanted to, I could literally go through all 1,400+ Steve's, but I don't think it would tell me much more than what I already know. And of the 1,400 Steve's, collectively they probably have tens of thousands of peer reviewed publications (or at least over 10,000.

And I understand that not all articles written are in peer reviewed journals, but the above links list peer reviewed journals as well. For example:

The roles of the bacteriophage T4 r genes in lysis inhibition and fine-structure genetics: a new perspective
P Paddison, ST Abedon, HK Dressman, K Gailbreath, J Tracy, E Mosser, ...
Genetics 148 (4), 1539-1550, 1998

Why bacteriophage encode exotoxins and other virulence factors
ST Abedon, JT LeJeune
Evolutionary Bioinformatics 1, 117693430500100001, 2005

These are two articles listed for the first Steve (of many that I could copy and paste, if I really wanted to). And they are peer reviewed.

If my name was Steve, I'd join that list too.

@Archivist

And based on the quoted above post, I think that young earth Creationists may just not be aware of...the sheer number and frequency in which articles are published. As a geologist, there might be ~10 journals just here in the US that are commonly known big named journals (though perhaps a couple hundred in total) that publish countless articles, usually quarterly or bi-monthly, and you might see 30-40 articles come out per publication depending on the journal. And of those, pretty much 100% are based on concepts accepted through a uniformitarian paradigm.

I'm not a biologist and am not familiar with all of their journals, but I'm sure it's similar.

We're talking about a sincerely massive number of scientists and an even greater number of publications in favor of the theory.

Here is one journal, Paleontology of Cambridge:
Content listing

You can just scroll through the list.

236 pages x 20 articles per page / 50 years = 93 articles per year at what is likely 99% in favor of old earth geology/paleontology. And that's just one journal. 15 publications bi-monthly.

And compare this to...young earth creation geologists like Steve Austin. His ideas are like an ant under a mountain of research. And articles on the theory of evolution are in the same situation.

But if we only listened to creation scientists, you would think it might be a 50/50 fair fight between Ali and George Foreman, a rumble in the jungle.

But that's what they want. They want to be vocal and want to flap their feathers around to look as robust as they can.

 

[Favoredclay]

KomatiiteBIF
Defining the point of origin is also in contention between science and theology. I guess for the sake of agreement I should say science and theology basically agrees after the arrival of modern man. So I guess that would require a young earth creation....

Scientists might lie ( rarely) or be mistaken but they’re usually found out eventually.

I chuckled a little when I read this. I have done my share of research and sat in peer review. It is astounding how much bias I have seen in papers submitted for publishing or recording. I have thrown more than a few back at their authors.

You are correct, they are usually found out, but a whole lot of research is submitted to continue funding and thus the money is spent before the errors ever come to light. Most of my reviews were a part of continued funding request, as I was part of the funding group.

 

[NBB]

Here’s what chimpanzees look like if they have no hair. This guy has alopecia so he’s lost his hair but other than that he’s normal and healthy. Denial is a river in Egypt for people who don’t accept that humans are great apesView attachment 278170

We have a soul and spirit the rest is just the carcass, i don't see evolutionists noting this big difference.
Its not even comparable. If christians believe our intellect evolved like evolutionists say, then this is so wrong, our intellect comes from our spiritual side.

 

[eleos1954]

Interesting that the author is an adjunct professor at two universities but isn’t full-time.

and so ????

 

[section9+1]

If you simply read the story, there's no sign of Satan. It's just a snake. It's possible that the author was thinking of the snake as representing something more, but you can't say "read this" and expect us to find Satan in the text.

My point is the story doesn't call it a snake. It's a serpent which was not a snake. It was something else.

 

[section9+1]

Right, but we should be fools because of our confidence in God, not because we refuse to believe things that are obviously true. It it were just evolution, the damage would be limited, but it seems that once you accept the idea that people who spend their lives trying to be objective are actually engaged in a conspiracy against Christians, the results aren't limited to evolution. It starts to extend to global warming, vaccines, sexual orientation, and all kinds of other things. Not all conservative Christians have all of these problems, but few limit their rejection of truth to evolution.

Does anyone remember Frances Shaeffer? When I was younger, he was a big voice among evangelicals. This was the period when evangelicals were accusing "liberals" of "postmodernism," an unwillingness to accept objective truth. At the time I dismissed this. I'm starting to think he had a point, but was looking in the wrong direction.

What's worse, the problem is getting worse. Vaccines were fairly uncontroversial until recently. Even the flat earth is making a comeback.

The entire biography of Jesus is about as far fetched a story as you can get. If I believed only in what's obviously true I would immediately reject his life as an impossible lie.

 

[Archivist]

and so ????

It means, at least in the US, that he isn't a highly regarded faculty member.

 

[eleos1954]

It means, at least in the US, that he isn't a highly regarded faculty member.

does that matter?

 

[Archivist]

does that matter?

Yes.

 

[eleos1954]

Here’s what chimpanzees look like if they have no hair. This guy has alopecia so he’s lost his hair but other than that he’s normal and healthy. Denial is a river in Egypt for people who don’t accept that humans are great apesView attachment 278170

I don't look like this (perhaps you do) ... nor do I know any human being that does look like this.

 

[Job 33:6]

Here’s what chimpanzees look like if they have no hair. This guy has alopecia so he’s lost his hair but other than that he’s normal and healthy. Denial is a river in Egypt for people who don’t accept that humans are great apesView attachment 278170View attachment 278182

View attachment 278182

Here's another one:
Amazing Closeup Photo of Gorilla With Vitiligo Reveals Pink Fingers.

Is that a human hand?! Wait no! It's a gorilla!

But nope, as far as I'm concerned, that beast looks no more like me than a fish does! No way there is any resemblance at all.

Nevermind the fact that I randomly get hickups and goosebumps for no apparent reason, and nevermind that my wisdom teeth don't fit in my jaw and I have this bizarre tail bone thing, nevermind that whales and snakes have leg bones or that Australian birds have wings but don't fly..nope, no relation to any animal at all.

But seriously though,

Maybe we should have a contest to see who can differentiate between human bones and chimpanzee bones. I'm sure we would all fail to guess either or.

 

[nolidad]

Perhaps things are different in Australia. In the US adjuncts are not that highly regarded. Too bad because I’ve known some good ones, but I’ve also known lots who are not that good.

Well He abandoned full professorship to be free to travel and speak the good news of God as Creator and Redeemer in his teachings!

 

[nolidad]

Well of course you and I both know that nothing is ever proven in science with respect to theories. Even the theory of plate tectonics is not proven (as obvious as it is to be true).

And yet we scientific laws that have been tested over and over and over and are proven true still every time!

The talking heads of Evolution (Dawkins et. al.) all have declared to the world evolution is a fact! And yet the main driver of evolutionary change (random mutations) speak against macro evolution ever taking place!

 

[nolidad]

Did I mention Theistic evolution?

Well that is one school of thought in the evolutionary camp. Like Darwinian evolution, neo-Darwinian evolution,punctuated equilibria, Goldscmidts hopeful monster theory, and theistic evolution. Different modes of how evolution took place, but it is all evolution.

 

[Andre_b]

Here it is:

I actually really like the natural history museum in new York by the way. I've been to many museums and have looked at many fossil collections and presentations and the museum in new York probably has the best collection of any museum potentially in the US. Assuming their models originate from their own collection at least.

It's a pretty thorough museum, so much respect for the makers of this video.

Dead fossils do not prove anything many, certainly people using artists to make up what it would look like. That's not science, even though it is claimed to be science. That's the sad part of the lie, that it's attached to science.

People have different skulls and even in a large group of people. deformities happen and skulls of humans have lots of differences.

I can't imagine what scientists would do to find these people buried and didn't know who they were:
There's even more than this with major differences that are still humans. Just because they may have called it something else doesn't mean they weren't really humans. Are Caucasoid humans? What about Mongoloid? It's called VARIETY in the kind, that's it. Micro evolution is adaptation. Since we adapt why didn't we all get wings? Why can't there be 20ft humans?

or

or

 

[Andre_b]

What is your problem with Lucy?

It's a fabricated story that's the problem. Pure fiction which is then called science. Whatever title you put on it doesn't mean it's true.

 

[Brightmoon]

I don't look like this (perhaps you do) ... nor do I know any human being that does look like this.

. He looks like a human bodybuilder gym rat except for the face .