Evidence for human evolution

[Mechanical Bliss]

Today at 06:47 PM Wasp said this in Post #55 
The Hebrew work 'yom' used in this passage means a 24 hour day, not a period of millions of years.

If your interpretation of your holy book is correct, then why is there real-world evidence that falsifies the notion that the Earth is much older than a few thousand years?

Also, Romans 8:19-22 tells us that there was no death or blood shed until Adam's sin. How, therefore, could organisms have lived and died for millions of years if Adam had not yet sinned, and there was no death?

Why does the fossil record clearly contradict this scenario?

If you are not a christian, how can you support all of the fallacies of evolution?

What fallacies? So far, no creationist has offered any evidence that falsifies the theory by exposing these fallacies.

What explanation is there for the inconsistencies of carbon dating or the missing links of evolution?

What inconsistencies of C-14 dating? It is true that the method has limitations, but those limitations are known. Furthermore, there are many other methods of dating using radioactive decay principles than just C-14. Since C-14 dating is only accurate to about 50,000 years before present, it isn't useful for dating the majority of material on Earth from its long history.

It is time to realize that evolution is a dying theory. How long will secular scientists try to keep it alive to save their pride? In the end, science always points to God.

How can science point to God when it is a naturalistic methodology?

Your "arguments" are nothing most of us haven't heard before. They are mostly broad generalizations with nothing to back them up except your religious beliefs. Your "arguments" also illustrate that you don't understand how science truly works in the first place. If evolution is so blatantly false or radiometric dating so blatantly flawed, why is it even used and why is there supporting evidence? If your YEC ideas are true, why do they not withstand scrutiny and why are they falsified by real-world evidence? These are things you need to think about. And further, I suggest that you learn more about science before dismissing it based upon stuff you've read at creationism websites.

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Yesterday at 03:47 PM Wasp said this in Post #55 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684152#post684152)

First of all,
It saddens me to think that a "christian" could believe in evolution.

It personally saddens me that a Christian could choose to remain so willfully ignorant about science to deny any possibility that evolution and all the other theories that would contradict a literal reading of the Bible.

It also saddens me that a Christian would reduce the Bible from the deep spiritual document that it is to a shallow, boring, pathetic history and science book.

It saddens me even further that some would state that God is lying to us through nature to see how many he can trick into going to hell rather than admit that there might just be a slightly deeper meaning to the Bible than a simple history book.

If you are not a christian, how can you support all of the fallacies of evolution?

Could you name a few?

What explanation is there for the inconsistencies of carbon dating or the missing links of evolution?

Just take a few college level science courses or *gasp* read a real science book.

It is time to realize that evolution is a dying theory.

Oh it is, is it? What scientific journal stated that?

How long will secular scientists try to keep it alive to save their pride?

What about all the Christian scientists? Not the handful of creationists that have real PhDs but the tens of thousands of Christian scientists around the world that have no problem with evolution or the big bang?

In the end, science always points to God.

If you believe this why are you so afraid of it? Because it points to a bigger and more mysterious God than you believe in?

 

[Micaiah]

Today at 07:47 AM Wasp said this in Post #55 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684152#post684152)

First of all,
It saddens me to think that a "christian" could believe in evolution. God clearly states in Genesis 1 that he created the world in 6 days. The Hebrew work 'yom' used in this passage means a 24 hour day, not a period of millions of years. Also, Romans 8:19-22 tells us that there was no death or blood shed until Adam's sin. How, therefore, could organisms have lived and died for millions of years if Adam had not yet sinned, and there was no death?
If you are not a christian, how can you support all of the fallacies of evolution? What explanation is there for the inconsistencies of carbon dating or the missing links of evolution? It is time to realize that evolution is a dying theory. How long will secular scientists try to keep it alive to save their pride? In the end, science always points to God.

It is a matter of faith. Who are we prepared to trust - God, or man's musings!

 

[LewisWildermuth]

Today at 06:58 AM Micaiah said this in Post #63 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=685031#post685031)

It is a matter of faith. Who are we prepared to trust - God, or man's musings!

That's true, but do you trust in God or mans interpretation (or musings if you prefer) of the Bible.

 

[wblastyn]

It is a matter of faith. Who are we prepared to trust - God, or man's musings!

This is what annoys me about people like you, you try and guilt people into believing the same thing as you and you think your interpretation is superior to ours, and anyone who doesn't believe the same thing as you obviously lacks faith and is not as good a Christian as you are.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 06:09 PM joelazcr said this in Post #53

Naturalistic explanations rule out the supernatural, so the use of negative theological arguements show a different intent for their use.  


No matter what the genetic finding are, evolutionists will still believe that humans evolved from an ape like ancestor.  They will just adapt the theory to whatever non cooperative data is presented.

The first paragraph is untrue. This assumes a theological position of "natural means without God"  There is nothing in science to justify that.  What methodological materialism means is that science cannot, because of its methods, directly test for the supernatural. All hypotheses of the supernatural, such as creationism, involve the hypothesis that the supernatural mechanism used a particular natural mechanism.  If you postulate that the supernatural used evolution, what is the evidence to "rule out the supernatural"?

The second paragraph is also untrue.  Theories are adapted to data. That is true.  What's wrong with that?

However, every theory has some data that will completely falsify it. For instance, for natural selection Darwin noted:
"If it could be proved that any part of the structure of any one species had been formed for the exclusive good of another species, it would annihilate my theory, for such could not have been produced through natural selection."  Origin, pg 501.

But we haven't found such a structure yet, so natural selection is unfalsified.

There were several pieces of data that, if found, would have destroyed common ancestry.  None of those were found. Instead, the exact opposite was found, supporting common ancestry instead.

Several posters have noted that, if mammalian fossils were found in Pre-Cambrian strata, then common ancestry would be overthrown and it would not be possible to simply make minor modifications to the theory.

Note, however, that once a theory is falsified, it can never come back.  Creationism has been falsified.  Even if evolution were someday falsified, creationism is never coming back.

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 12:35 PM wblastyn said this in Post #65

This is what annoys me about people like you, you try and guilt people into believing the same thing as you and you think your interpretation is superior to ours, and anyone who doesn't believe the same thing as you obviously lacks faith and is not as good a Christian as you are.

Web, the problem is that Micaiah won't realize that his interpretation of Genesis is his musings and not Genesis or God.  Micaiah has confused himself with God. 

Lewis never said anything about not being as "good a Christian". That is creationists who keep saying that about theistic evolutionists. What we keep pointing out is that your interpretation of Genesis keeps pitting God against God. In that situation, God (and Christianity) can only lose.

Of course, you won't accept that, either.  Your (sinful?) pride keeps insisting that your interpretation must be correct despite all the evidence God is shouting at you that it isn't.  But, hey, if you want to ignore God, it's not my place to tell you whether you are being a "good" Christian or not.  I can only point out that your position harms Christianity and drives people away from it.  But, again, if that is your goal you are doing a good job.  I can only try to minimize your harm to Christianity.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 06:47 PM Wasp said this in Post #55

First of all,
It saddens me to think that a "christian" could believe in evolution. God clearly states in Genesis 1 that he created the world in 6 days. The Hebrew work 'yom' used in this passage means a 24 hour day, not a period of millions of years.

Then God turns around in Genesis 2:4b and says that he created the world within one day.  "beyom" = in the day.  So, what "clear" message is God stating? Most Christians decided the clear message is that the two creation stories are not to be read literally.

Also, Romans 8:19-22 tells us that there was no death or blood shed until Adam's sin.

It does?  Those passages are: "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.  For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from teh bondage of corruption inot the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together untill now."

I can't find your words of "no death or blood shed until Adam's sin" anywhere in there. For someone who talks about what God "clearly states", how you got your interpretation from those passages is truly baffling.

How, therefore, could organisms have lived and died for millions of years if Adam had not yet sinned, and there was no death?

Simple. You have constructed a false theology on your misinterpretation of the Bible. Both Genesis 3 and Genesis 5 clearly state that humans were mortal before Adam's sin.

And you wonder why the rest of Christianity won't follow you into your heresy?  They have their own salvation to consider and have been warned against false prophets.

How long will secular scientists try to keep it alive to save their pride?

Considering that at least half the evolutionary biologists present and past, starting with Darwin, were Christians, what secular scientists are you referring to?

If you are not a christian, how can you support all of the fallacies of evolution? What explanation is there for the inconsistencies of carbon dating or the missing links of evolution?

Now we get to discuss science! Good.

All the inconsistencies of carbon dating are accounted for by the absorption of the organism of carbon from sources other than eating plants.  For instance, mollusks take carbonate -- CO3 -- out of water to make their shells. Since any C14 in the carbonate could be around in the carbonate for a long time, no wonder the mollusks look older than they are.

You have apparently swallowed the falsehood of professional creationists that there are no missing links. That is untrue. There are thousands of transitional series between fossil species, even linking species thru genera, family, order, and class. These are transitional individuals that are in-between.  I have several of those references if you are interested.  I've posted them several times but will gladly post them again so you can look for yourself.

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 06:09 PM joelazcr said this in Post #53[/URL
That estimate  was based on measuring the temperature at which matching DNA of two species comes apart.

The papers I referred to was done by comparing the exact sequence of two pseudogenes, not by the temperature method. Sorry.

The developer of that technique, Roy Britten of Caltech, had second thoughts about the often quoted figure, and checked it out with new methods, now that the chimpanzee genome has been published.

You should read the abstract. That's not how he did it. He didn't compare the whole genome. From the abstract:
"Five chimpanzee bacterial artificial chromosome (BAC) sequences (described in GenBank) have been compared with the best matching regions of the human genome sequence to assay the amount and kind of DNA divergence."

Read that carefully.  He took 5 regions of the chimp genome.  The abstract doesn't say how large. However, you say it is only 0.3% of the genome "three hundredths of a percent of the genome".  The whole genome could yield figures either larger or smaller.  Please try to refrain from false witness on items we can check out. It's must be embarrassing for you to learn that you bore false witness. We'd prefer that you wouldn't embarrass yourself.

Comparing insertions and deletions yields a figure three times bigger, over 5% difference, and that only after comparing about three hundredths of a percent of the genome.

Again, not what the abstract says (which, unless you have a subscription to PNAS, is all you've got)
"For this sample, a better estimate would be that 95% of the base pairs are exactly shared between chimpanzee and human DNA. In this sample of 779 kb, the divergence due to base substitution is 1.4%,"

The rest of the difference is due to "indels". Indels are regions that don't hybridize, thus they don't line up enough for the melting test.  Many of these indels consist, according to the paper, of Alu and SVA repeats. Thus, if they are off by only a base or two between the strands, you will get an indel.

At the conclusion he states, “One interesting observation is that the sequence divergence between chimp and human is quite large, in excess of 20% for a few regions.  Some of the larger gaps are broken by regions within them that align with appropriate segments of the other species’ DNA sequence but only have distant similarity.  These observations suggest that complex processes, presumably involving repeated sequences and possible conversion events, may occur that will require detailed study to understand"

Here is an example of a misquote. Joel didn't give the complet paragraph because it didn't fit his thesis.  The full paragraph is below, and I have bolded what Joelazcr left out:
"One interesting observation is that the sequence divergence between chimp and human is quite large, in excess of 20% for a few regions. Some of the larger gaps are broken by regions within them that align with appropriate segments of the other species’ DNA sequence but only have distant similarity. These observa-tions suggest that complex processes, presumably involving repeated sequences and possible conversion events, may occur that will require detailed study to understand. The uncertainty in the estimate of 3.4% indels on Table 1 cannot be directly evaluated. In the first place, the sample of 779 kb is small, and the variation between the different BACs is large. Further, there may be large gaps that were missed as part of chimpanzee BAC sequences that could not be aligned with the human genome.  Nevertheless, the conclusion is clear that comparison of the DNA sequences of closely related species reflects many events of insertion and deletion.

Even if all human genes which code for proteins were different from those of a chimpanzee, the DNA could still be 98.5 percent similiar if the non-coding DNA of humans and chimps was identical.

Joel, this is where I emphasized that the tests were done on non-coding but that tests of coding regions were much closer. For instance, in the FOXP2 gene -- a coded one -- there is only one base difference.  In Britten's paper, the difference in the coding regions were on the order of 1.4%.

They will just adapt the theory to whatever non cooperative data is presented.

Just what non-cooperative idea do you think was here?  The Britten work shows that the genetic difference between humans and chimps is larger than thought, but most of these differences were in the non-coding regions since they are where there are repetitive (non-coding) sequences.  Alu is not coded.  Read the article again. 

 

[Wasp]

Today at 01:17 PM lucaspa said this in Post #68

Yesterday at 06:47 PM Wasp said this in Post #55

It does?  Those passages are: "For the earnest expectation of the creature waiteth for the manifestation of the sons of God.  For the creature was made subject to vanity, not willingly, but by reason of him who hath subjected the same in hope, Because the creature itself also shall be delivered from teh bondage of corruption inot the glorious liberty of the children of God. For we know that the whole creation groaneth and travaileth in pain together untill now."

I can't find your words of "no death or blood shed until Adam's sin" anywhere in there. For someone who talks about what God "clearly states", how you got your interpretation from those passages is truly baffling.

How, therefore, could organisms have lived and died for millions of years if Adam had not yet sinned, and there was no death?

Simple. You have constructed a false theology on your misinterpretation of the Bible. Both Genesis 3 and Genesis 5 clearly state that humans were mortal before Adam's sin.

And you wonder why the rest of Christianity won't follow you into your heresy?  They have their own salvation to consider and have been warned against false prophets.

First of all, Lucaspa, I suggest that you invest in a more modern translation of scripture, in order that you can clearly understand God's word.  The NIV and NLT are both excellent choices.  King James Version is an outdated text, and may inhibit your ability to see God's Word clearly.

Where in Genesis 3 or 5 does it say that man was mortal before Adam's sin?  I could not find that.

In the text of Romans it says that all of creation groans because of Adam's sin.

I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be.  However, God's word clearly states the truth of a young earth.  There have been a multitude of Godly men throughout time who have opposed tainted view points, such as evolution, and there will continue to be.  Therefore, are scientists such as Russell Humphreys and Ken Ham false propets as well?  Is relying on God's word as the most authoritative document heresy?  I, along with all other Young Earth Creationists, am now a heretic because I do not see your blind allegience to science? 

I am very intrigued, Lucaspa, as to your theological beliefs.  I assumed you to be a nonchristian, however I have a feeling that you believe that you are a christian after reading your latest post.  I know that this is a science forum, but I would greatly appreciate it if you would tell me what denomination or church you belong to, unless I am incorrect in my presumptions.  If one does not have the faith to believe that the universe was created in six days, how could he/she fathom the resurrection of Christ? 

 

[lucaspa]

Today at 02:19 PM Wasp said this in Post #70

First of all, Lucaspa, I suggest that you invest in a more modern translation of scripture, in order that you can clearly understand God's word.  The NIV and NLT are both excellent choices. 

Fine. NIV says:
"<SUP>19</SUP>The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed. <SUP>20</SUP>For the creation was subjected to frustration, not by its own choice, but by the will of the one who subjected it, in hope <SUP>21</SUP>thatthe creation itself will be liberated from its bondage to decay and brought into the glorious freedom of the children of God.
<SUP>22</SUP>We know that the whole creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time."

Where is Adam's sin mentioned?&nbsp; Are you equating "decay" with death? Why?

NLT
"<SUP>19</SUP>For all creation is waiting eagerly for that future day when God will reveal who his children really are. <SUP>20</SUP>Against its will, everything on earth was subjected to God's curse. <SUP>21</SUP>All creation anticipates the day when it will join God's children in glorious freedom from death and decay. <SUP>22</SUP>For we know that all creation has been groaning as in the pains of childbirth right up to the present time. "

Ah, this one supports your contention. So, you search for the translation that means what you want it to mean?&nbsp; Interesting.&nbsp; Now, is picking and choosing a translation to fit a heretical theology any better than constructing the heretical theology in the first place?


Where in Genesis 3 or 5 does it say that man was mortal before Adam's sin?&nbsp;

Didn't look hard, did you? Try Genesis 3:22 and Genesis 6:3. Let me help you out.

NLT of 6:2-3 "<SUP>2</SUP>the sons of God saw the beautiful women of the human race and took any they wanted as their wives. <SUP>3</SUP>Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not put up with humans for such a long time, for they are only mortal flesh. In the future, they will live no more than 120 years."
NIV "<SUP>2</SUP> the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were beautiful, and they married any of them they chose. <SUP>3</SUP> Then the LORD said, "My Spirit will not contend with <SUP>[1]</SUP> man forever, for he is mortal <SUP>[2]</SUP> ; his days will be a hundred and twenty years."

Since there is no mention of Fall in this creation story, humans were mortal from the beginning and children by the "sons of God" were going to change that.

In the text of Romans it says that all of creation groans because of Adam's sin.

It just says that creation groans.&nbsp;

I am not a scientist, nor do I claim to be.&nbsp; However, God's word clearly states the truth of a young earth.&nbsp;

Not "God's&nbsp;word", but your, human interpretation&nbsp;of the Bible.&nbsp; Just where do you get the arrogance to equate your opinions with God's&nbsp;word?&nbsp; There are 3 creation stories in Genesis and they all contradict if you read them literally.&nbsp; That should be enough to show you than none of them were to be read literally.

&nbsp;Therefore, are scientists such as Russell Humphreys and Ken Ham false propets as well?&nbsp;

Absolutely.&nbsp; Their false witness, characteristic of false prophets, is completely documented.

Is relying on God's word as the most authoritative document heresy?&nbsp; I, along with all other Young Earth Creationists, am now a heretic because I do not see your blind allegience to science?&nbsp;

I am very intrigued, Lucaspa, as to your theological beliefs.&nbsp; I assumed you to be a nonchristian, however I have a feeling that you believe that you are a christian after reading your latest post.&nbsp;

Figure it out for yourself.&nbsp; Testing specific claims and assertions can be done both if and if you don't share the the worldview of the person making the claims. It's what scientists do all the time.

&nbsp;If one does not have the faith to believe that the universe was created in six days, how could&nbsp;he/she&nbsp;fathom the resurrection of Christ?&nbsp;

Why are these connected? Creation and resurrection are two separate events.&nbsp; All 3 creation stories assert that God created the universe.&nbsp; Nothing in science contradicts that.&nbsp; Most Christians view what science has found as simply how God created?

It is this non-sequitor of tying the existence of God and the salvation of Jesus to one particular, testable, falsifiable how of creation (creationism) that is the main danger of creationism to Christianity.&nbsp; Tying those two ideas is fine as long as the testable statements are supported. But when the testable statements -- creationism -- are falsified, then your personal faith and Christianity are in trouble.&nbsp;

Your personal salvation is your own problem.&nbsp; Given your stubborness, I doubt there is much anyone can do for you.&nbsp; However, for Christianity I am concerned.&nbsp; Whether God exists or does not exist is a reality beyond anyone's belief in the matter.&nbsp; I am concerned that no idea get falsely falsified.&nbsp; That is, shown to be wrong when it isn't.&nbsp; It's like convicting an innocent man of a capital crime.&nbsp; And that is what creationism does: it convicts Christianity of being wrong when it may not be.&nbsp;

 

[Wasp]

Today at 02:43 PM lucaspa said this in Post #71

Today at 02:19 PM Wasp said this in Post #70&nbsp;



&nbsp;Therefore, are scientists such as Russell Humphreys and Ken Ham false propets as well?&nbsp;

Absolutely.&nbsp; Their false witness, characteristic of false prophets, is completely documented.


&nbsp;If one does not have the faith to believe that the universe was created in six days, how could&nbsp;he/she&nbsp;fathom the resurrection of Christ?&nbsp;

Why are these connected? Creation and resurrection are two separate events.&nbsp; All 3 creation stories assert that God created the universe.&nbsp; Nothing in science contradicts that.&nbsp; Most Christians view what science has found as simply how God created?

It is this non-sequitor of tying the existence of God and the salvation of Jesus to one particular, testable, falsifiable how of creation (creationism) that is the main danger of creationism to Christianity.&nbsp; Tying those two ideas is fine as long as the testable statements are supported. But when the testable statements -- creationism -- are falsified, then your personal faith and Christianity are in trouble.&nbsp;

Your personal salvation is your own problem.&nbsp; Given your stubborness, I doubt there is much anyone can do for you.&nbsp; However, for Christianity I am concerned.&nbsp; Whether God exists or does not exist is a reality beyond anyone's belief in the matter.&nbsp; I am concerned that no idea get falsely falsified.&nbsp; That is, shown to be wrong when it isn't.&nbsp; It's like convicting an innocent man of a capital crime.&nbsp; And that is what creationism does: it convicts Christianity of being wrong when it may not be.&nbsp;

The translation of my study bible, Lucaspa, is NLT, therefore it was the version that I read.&nbsp;

Your verses do not prove, in any way, that man was created mortal.&nbsp; Both of the texts you use occur after Adam's sin.&nbsp; Man was created, initially, to live eternally on earth alongside God.&nbsp; However, because of Adam's sin, death, disease, and decay entered the world.&nbsp; That is why the only means to heaven, and the only way to escape the sting of death,&nbsp;is through Jesus Christ, God's perfect son, who died on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice for all of those who would put their faith in him.&nbsp; It is the only way to save us from an enternity in hell that we have earned.

It saddens me to think that you would claim that such God-fearing men as the aforementioned scientists are false witnesses as well.&nbsp;

Do not fear for my eternal salvation, because I am a new being in Christ and I am assured of my christianity through the Holy Spirit which guides and directs me.

Lucaspa, I do not have the power to show you God's truth, because only&nbsp;God can soften your heart.&nbsp; I fear for your eternal salvation, and I hope that you have strong christians in your life who will be an example and teach you what true christianity is.&nbsp; I will pray for you, and I hope that one day you will see the error of your thoughts and that we will worship the one true Savior in heaven together.

This will be my last post in this thread.

 

[wblastyn]

Lucaspa, I do not have the power to show you God's truth, because only God can soften your heart. I fear for your eternal salvation, and I hope that you have strong christians in your life who will be an example and teach you what true christianity is. I will pray for you, and I hope that one day you will see the error of your thoughts and that we will worship the one true Savior in heaven together.

"True Christianity" what do you mean? Is a true Christian someone who believes Genesis is literal? I don't remember reading anyhere in the Nicene Creed that you have to take Genesis literally. Are you trying to re-define what a true Christian is all on your own?

 

[eutychus37]

I believe what Wasp is saying in regards to "True Christianity" is that true Christians live by faith, and not by sight. They're changed and fully dependent on God's wisdom, not man's.

And one who doesn't take Genesis literally might as well not take the Gospel literally. God had what was written because that's how he wanted it to be stated, and we shouldn't take God's word into our own hands to manipulate it.

I actually see the connection between the literal Genesis vs. the acceptance of the resurrection. If one can't believe that a sovereign, supreme God can not do everything that he did in Genesis, then how can one believe that the word became flesh, and lived a sinless life to be crucified by peers, only to rise three days after death?

You either accept all of God or none of him.

 

[Tau]

Today at 09:49 PM eutychus37 said this in Post #74 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=685465#post685465)

I believe what Wasp is saying in regards to "True Christianity" is that true Christians live by faith, and not by sight. They're changed and fully dependent on God's wisdom, not man's.

And one who doesn't take Genesis literally might as well not take the Gospel literally. God had what was written because that's how he wanted it to be stated, and we shouldn't take God's word into our own hands to manipulate it.

I actually see the connection between the literal Genesis vs. the acceptance of the resurrection. If one can't believe that a sovereign, supreme God can not do everything that he did in Genesis, then how can one believe that the word became flesh, and lived a sinless life to be crucified by peers, only to rise three days after death?

You either accept all of God or none of him.

Take Genesis literally, you say? Okay, let's look at Genesis 1:6-10

Gen 1:6 And God said, Let there be a firmament in the midst of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.
Gen 1:7 And God made the firmament, and divided the waters which [were] under the firmament from the waters which [were] above the firmament: and it was so.
Gen 1:8 And God called the firmament Heaven. And the evening and the morning were the second day.
Gen 1:9 And God said, Let the waters under the heaven be gathered together unto one place, and let the dry [land] appear: and it was so.
Gen 1:10 And God called the dry [land] Earth; and the gathering together of the waters called he Seas: and God saw that [it was] good.

So Heaven is a firmament which divides the waters. And the waters under the heaven are the Seas. Okay. Now where are the waters above Heaven? There must be some, because Heaven divided the waters, and one part is under, so the other must be over. Where are they?

They aren't there. We can observe that there are no waters above Heaven. Verses like these, when taken literally, can be demonstrated to not fit with reality. Which is why the Bible has to be interpreted.

 

[Arikay]

Of course you are then stuck with a major problem. Gods creation (the earth) says a different story than that of literal Genesis. So why did god create the earth to lie to us?

 

[Smilin]

1st March 2003 at 06:47 PM Wasp said this in Post #55 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684152#post684152)

First of all,
It saddens me to think that a "christian" could believe in evolution.

Why? Even uneducated migrant workers in the horticulture industry here do not deny where the new species of plants they dig up originated from.
(hybrid speciation). If you have landscaping and decorative trees in your yard, they're most like there due to Evolutionary Science.

Do Selective Reproduction and the continuing emergence of new breeds of horses, cattle, cats, and dogs sadden you as well? Hint: Evolution at work.

How do you explain the racial diversification of the human race without Evolution? (Isolation)

But, antibiotic-resistant strains of bacterium do frighten (and sadden me). Selective Reduction is the culprit. (Evolution again at work)

1st March 2003 at 06:47 PM Wasp said this in Post #55 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684152#post684152)

If you are not a christian, how can you support all of the fallacies of evolution? What explanation is there for the inconsistencies of carbon dating or the missing links of evolution? It is time to realize that evolution is a dying theory. How long will secular scientists try to keep it alive to save their pride? In the end, science always points to God.

First, I'm a Christian, please list what fallacies you are referring to.

Second, what inconsistencies of carbon dating? Carbon dating has been calibrated over it's entire range. Believe it or not, people who use measurement techniques/devices do learn from the measurement error and make the necessary calibrations.

Third, Proof that Evolution is a dying theory? I'd argue it's a profitable one in my area... given the number of tree farms, greenhouses, and the horticulture industry.

Perhaps you don't realize that you owe the majority of your food supply to Evolution?????

 

[Smilin]

1st March 2003 at 07:04 PM Wasp said this in Post #57 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=684167#post684167)

Well what about the coconino sandstone formation in the grand canyon? It covers 250,000 km and is 100 m thick. The large scale cross-bedding shows that it was laid down by water in a matter of days. Do secular scientists have an answer for that?

Wasp,
If your contention is that the Grand Canyon was formed by a 'global deluge', I'll glady point you to other threads where we've debated this before.

Do you have any idea how long it takes for a sedimentary layer to form?

 

[Smilin]

Yesterday at 03:49 PM eutychus37 said this in Post #74 (http://www.christianforums.com/showthread.php?postid=685465#post685465)

And one who doesn't take Genesis literally might as well not take the Gospel literally. God had what was written because that's how he wanted it to be stated, and we shouldn't take God's word into our own hands to manipulate it

First, I'm a Christian...

Second,,,let's address this 'literalism' thing. The Gospel states we can 'literally take up serpents and drink poison without being harmed'. Are you prepared to defend this literally?

Are you prepared to 'literally' chop off your hand, or pluck out your eye when they 'offend you' as well?

 

[lucaspa]

Yesterday at 03:13 PM Wasp said this in Post #72

Your verses do not prove, in any way, that man was created mortal.&nbsp; Both of the texts you use occur after Adam's sin.&nbsp;

The second said "I made man mortal."&nbsp; Not, "man was immortal but sinned and is not mortal"

Man was created, initially, to live eternally on earth alongside God.&nbsp;

Where in Genesis 1 or 2 does it say that? That is your theology, developed later, but I don't see where that is backed in the original document.

However, because of Adam's sin, death, disease, and decay entered the world.&nbsp;

Again, not backed by the text.&nbsp; THere is nothing in the consequences of Genesis 3 that says diseases were created. In fact, they cannot have been, because creation ended before the "Fall". So all the infectious organisms that cause disease had to be already in place.&nbsp; Nor is there any indication that God changed the immune systems to make Adam and Eve vulnerable to microbes or introduce autoimmune diseases.&nbsp;

That is why the only means to heaven, and the only way to escape the sting of death,&nbsp;is through Jesus Christ, God's perfect son, who died on the cross as the ultimate sacrifice for all of those who would put their faith in him.&nbsp;

Tying two different ideas together.&nbsp; One is that salvation can come only thru Jesus. The other is that Adam had to be real for Jesus to die for you sins.&nbsp; But isn't&nbsp;it also taught that&nbsp;Jesus died for your sins? You, Wasp, and&nbsp;no one else.&nbsp; Are&nbsp;you trying to tell me that you sin only because Adam did?&nbsp;&nbsp;That Wasp, on his/her own never&nbsp;disobeys God but is a puppeteer of&nbsp;the genes you got from Adam?&nbsp;

It is the only way to save us from an enternity in hell that we have earned.

Yes, that you have earned.&nbsp; If it is all due to Adam, then you haven't "earned" anything, have you? The Bible says clearly that children can't be punished for the transgressions of their parents:&nbsp; Deut. 24:16 "The fathers shall not be put to death for the children, neither shall the children be put to death for the fathers (2Chron.25:54) :every man shall be put to death for his own sin." (2 Kings 14:6)

Ezek. 18:20 "The soul that sinneth, it shall die. The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son: the righteousness of the righteous shall be upon him, and the wickedness of the wicked shall be upon him."

It saddens me to think that you would claim that such God-fearing men as the aforementioned scientists are false witnesses as well.&nbsp;

Their false witness is well-documented, including the quotation of others out of context to have them apparently say the opposite of what they really said.&nbsp; You can be saddened all you want. It makes me sad, too. But it doesn't change the reality.

Do not fear for my eternal salvation, because I am a new being in Christ and I am assured of my christianity through the Holy Spirit which guides and directs me.

Your eternal salvation is a subject between you and God.&nbsp; After all, God has to decide it, not me.&nbsp; However, I do fear for all those you may lead astray.

Lucaspa, I do not have the power to show you God's truth, because only&nbsp;God can soften your heart.&nbsp; I fear for your eternal salvation,

&nbsp;&nbsp; Ever read Matthew 7:5?&nbsp; You don't fear for your salvation but fear for mine?&nbsp; You might want to reflect on that parable of the speck of dust and the log in eyes.&nbsp; Again, my salvation is between God and me.&nbsp; I have had several examples, both living and dead, to teach what true Christianity is.&nbsp; And it's not the bibliolatry of literal interpretation nor the pitting of God vs God of creationism.&nbsp;&nbsp;There's no way you can say&nbsp;you have "God's truth" when you turn your back on God's Creation.&nbsp;

I know creationists look upon themselves as the good guys, and your post here shows that self-image. But Wasp, I question that image.&nbsp; From what I can see you are not the good guys but the most dangerous enemy Christianity has.&nbsp;

This will be my last post in this thread.

I'm sure we'll meet in other threads, Wasp.&nbsp; The ideas are out there, and ideas are independent of the people.&nbsp; You are going to have to face the ideas again.&nbsp;