Evolution, Science, Creation

[gluadys]

Oh that is simple.................Creationists want to uphold the word of God.

And TEs want to do both.

 

[gluadys]

Hi everyone,

This my first time on the forum. Here's my take on this issue. Both evolution and creationism are scientific theories trying to validate their ultimate goals.

True. However as a scientific theory creationism has been falsified by the evidence.

Evolution is pro-atheistic while creationism is pro-theistic.

Not true. There is nothing about evolution that favours an atheistic stance. That is why millions of Christians (not to mention other theists) have no problem accepting the fact or theory of evolution.

What we must realise is that science in itself is not absolute in it's nature. Theories come and go based on our limited observation of the observable universe.

True, and scientists don't make the claim that it is. But they do claim that some theories are the best available to which to give provisional assent, and that some theories have been falsified. Evolution falls in the first group and creationism in the second.

However, from my personal convictions I can tell you that there is a GOD and his name is JESUS.

So can all of us here. Did you notice you are posting in the Christians Only section?

Merry Christmas and all the best for '06

And to you too. Hope to see you around again.

 

[Edmond]

1) Evolution and Creationism is not a true science.
It is more accurately called a religion. People put a "cap" (an end idea) like God created everything, or the Big Bang created everything and then try to find evidence in science that proves their "cap" to be true.

What people should do is look at true pure science and see where it leads. From my research the only thing that really makes the most sense out of pure science is creationism, pure science seems to go very much against Evolution.

For a true believer there can be no doubt about the reality of the supernatural. The true believer has a personal relationship with the supernatural, the person of God Himself through His son and our Savior Jesus Christ.

Jesus Himself authenticated the Creation event as an historic and real fact in Matt 19. If such an event where not true, then Jesus Himself would no longer be the Truth if He had validated a fallacy as being true.

It would be impossible because of man's limited knowledge to ever make a rational staement that would infer that we know God's supernaural abilities know any limits. It is impossible for man to even project or measure such capacities. Therefore, to deny or assume that the supernatural capacities of God where limited enough to disallow the occurances to take place that are recorded in Genesis 1, even within the literal time given, would be presumptuous and unmeasurable by man.

The time...the issue of time and the Creation really boild down to this question...is God limited by time? He lives beyond the boundaries of the physical universe he created, therefore He cannot be limited by time. Since He cannot be limited by time, how could His creative capacities then be limiteded by tiem? They could not be. Therefore, God could have chosen to created the entire universe and all that is in it in any incrimental segment of time He wished to. He could have taken one mirco-second or one thousand years. Neither would have been determined by His capacity to create.

Therefore what is recorded in Genesis is what was done, including the time that is recorded. What is it to God to have revealed it took six literal days to create all that is since He is the One who determined the amount of time He wanted to take.

Therefore what of the question of TRUE science? True science will always reveal and be consistant with the truth. False conclusion of the assmptions found within some sciences will either attempt to falsify the Truth or eventually be found to be false themselves.

The assumption made by Lyell, Darwin and others who formulated much of modern evolution were based exclusively on limited natural observations that were seen through a redisposed bias that disbelived and disapproved of the teaching of the Genesis account of creation. A clear and detailed study of these men will reveal the inherent presence of this bias and its commonality that ran prevasively within their comradeships. The ideologies that accompanied those biases became the ground on which those ideologies became the seed of the anti-thesis of creation...the ideologies that are found in the inclusive propositions of modern evolution (ME) (1850's until present).

The central organizing principles of both modern geology and modern biology are founded on the beliefs and teaching primarily of Charles Lyell ( geology) and Charles Darwin (biology). [see,http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution ,for related information on evolution] These are the two foundational disciplines from which all of the other disciplines in the study of the assumption of evolution emanate It is not difficult then to begin to see why the biases of these men contiue to permeate the persuations and perception of these disciplines and those that extend from their direct influences.

As you so rightly said at the outset of your staement... "What people should do is look at true pure science and see where it leads. From my research the only thing that really makes the most sense out of pure science is creationism, pure science seems to go very much against Evolution."

That is a truth that allows what we see and undersatnd to be scientifically true to be consistant with what we know is Truth. There is no dichotomy in such an existence. It is consistant with what is Truth. It is consistant with the way Jesus saw and knew the world. It is consistant with the way God created the world. Truth will never controdict itself. It cannot and still Be The Truth. ..

2) Creation/Evolution not a proven truth?
For people who have had true visions from God or have spoken to Him and have seen answers to prayer by Him have proof that there is a God so that Creation must be correct if there is a God. There is a problem... people lie far to much (one lie is far to much), so visions and answers to prayers that people tell others about are always subject to investigation... so sometimes the only person who has the pure evidence of the truth is the one who had the experience of the vision or answer to prayer. So therefore to truely know that God exists is to have communication with Him.

Within Evolution this kind of Evidence is impossible.

 

[The Lady Kate]

Oh that is simple.................Creationists want to uphold the word of God.

I've noticed that many people who "want to uphold the word of God" also want to be the ones who decide what the word of God means... really puts them in the driver's seat, don't you think?

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

For a true believer there can be no doubt about the reality of the supernatural. The true believer has a personal relationship with the supernatural, the person of God Himself through His son and our Savior Jesus Christ.

No disagreement there.

Jesus Himself authenticated the Creation event as an historic and real fact in Matt 19. If such an event where not true, then Jesus Himself would no longer be the Truth if He had validated a fallacy as being true.

A man listens to gossip and begins to doubt the faithfulness of his wife.
His friend takes him aside and says, " You are going down Othello's path."
Does the fact that the friend doesn't say "You are going down the path of the fictional character Othello" make his statement any less true?
The story, factual or otherwise, of Adam and Eve is meant to tell us certain truths.

It would be impossible because of man's limited knowledge to ever make a rational staement that would infer that we know God's supernaural abilities know any limits.

I am not aware of anybody suggesting limits for God's powers.

Gould's explanation of what a "fact" is in science may be of some use: it is possible the tomorrow apples will begin to fall upwards, but this is not something that should be taught on equal footing with Newton's Laws or
G.R..

Humans share broken DNA with the great apes, i.e. there is a DNA sequence in other animals, including lemurs that has been damaged, i.e. has been changed in a way that stops it from being accessed and activated, damage of the sort that can be observed occuring to DNA in the laboratory.

This is one of dozens of examples of evidence that doesn't make sense from a functional perspective. (The fact that our working DNA is similar to apes makes sense from a functional perspective since we are so similar to them)

No one is doubting that God could have created us seperately with broken DNA that looks as if it were passed down from a predecessor species. The question is why? If Genesis is literally factual then it looks as if God is a deceiver on a grand scale.

The only way most TEs who have dealt with this for a while limit God is to say that they can't imagine any reason a good and just God would engage in such deception, therefore he didn't.

I am fairly logical, I know others who are successful in various intellectual indevours, who believe in the salvation of Christ, some of whom have experienced God's certain touch. I and these people have come to the conclusion that a literal reading of chapters 1-11 of Gen. simply doesn't make sense.

If believing in a literal view of Genesis 1-11 is important to salvation then it appears that God doesn't want us to think, that God wants us to live hard lives, produce little art and die young, because if any significant number of people start to think in such a way to get us out of the most crude agricultural lives then a number of those people are going to conclude that Gen. is not literally true.

Not lose faith in the existance of God,
Not fail to worship him as a loving, just and living God who sent his only Son as a payment for our sins,
Not fail to repent of and turn from our sins,
But merely to conclude that the literal interpretation does not match the overall evidence.

Again I say that if you wish to believe in the literal interpretation, I have no beef with you, I disagree, but I won't argue the point. I will argue when others try to impose that belief on me or others, try to make that belief necessary for salvation, or try to argue that the physical evidence agrees with them.

 

[mark kennedy]

Humans share broken DNA with the great apes, i.e. there is a DNA sequence in other animals, including lemurs that has been damaged, i.e. has been changed in a way that stops it from being accessed and activated, damage of the sort that can be observed occuring to DNA in the laboratory.

This is one of dozens of examples of evidence that doesn't make sense from a functional perspective. (The fact that our working DNA is similar to apes makes sense from a functional perspective since we are so similar to them)

No one is doubting that God could have created us seperately with broken DNA that looks as if it were passed down from a predecessor species. The question is why? If Genesis is literally factual then it looks as if God is a deceiver on a grand scale.

There is no broken DNA, there are only differences in the nucleotide seqeunces. Calling God a deciever because of how you perceive things is awfully circular. There are 40 million nucleotides that diverge between humans and chimpanzees and this happened in roughly 6 million years. That is 6.66 nucleotides being altered per year for 6 million years. If nature is adapting species from bacteria and fauna to the level of human complexity it is doing a great job of decieving us into believing that life is by design.

I am fairly logical, I know others who are successful in various intellectual indevours, who believe in the salvation of Christ, some of whom have experienced God's certain touch. I and these people have come to the conclusion that a literal reading of chapters 1-11 of Gen. simply doesn't make sense.

Where does it end in Genesis, do we stop at the call of Abram, the birth of Isaac? Where does it end period, the miracles of Elijah, the parting of the Red Sea, the miracles of Christ and the Apostles, the ressurection of Christ? Where does Christian doctrine have to draw the line?

Again I say that if you wish to believe in the literal interpretation, I have no beef with you, I disagree, but I won't argue the point. I will argue when others try to impose that belief on me or others, try to make that belief necessary for salvation, or try to argue that the physical evidence agrees with them.

The same power that raised Christ from the dead was used to create life from the dead darkness of primordial earth. The two concepts are strongly tied in the Bible and Christian theism. Do you accept the ressurection as an historical fact and do you believe that we will all be raised on the final day to face God's judgment? I am only asking because that is the Gospel and it relies on some very supernatural activity in the affairs of men.

Grace and peace,
Mark

 

[Edmond]

No disagreement there.
A man listens to gossip and begins to doubt the faithfulness of his wife.
His friend takes him aside and says, " You are going down Othello's path."
Does the fact that the friend doesn't say "You are going down the path of the fictional character Othello" make his statement any less true?
The story, factual or otherwise, of Adam and Eve is meant to tell us certain truths.
I am not aware of anybody suggesting limits for God's powers.

Gould's explanation of what a "fact" is in science may be of some use: it is possible the tomorrow apples will begin to fall upwards, but this is not something that should be taught on equal footing with Newton's Laws or
G.R..
Humans share broken DNA with the great apes, i.e. there is a DNA sequence in other animals, including lemurs that has been damaged, i.e. has been changed in a way that stops it from being accessed and activated, damage of the sort that can be observed occuring to DNA in the laboratory.

This is one of dozens of examples of evidence that doesn't make sense from a functional perspective. (The fact that our working DNA is similar to apes makes sense from a functional perspective since we are so similar to them)

No one is doubting that God could have created us seperately with broken DNA that looks as if it were passed down from a predecessor species. The question is why? If Genesis is literally factual then it looks as if God is a deceiver on a grand scale.

Similarity of design is evident throughtout every facet of the creation. The similarity of patterns was not used as a form of deception but rather as a signature of common design. One who is The Truth does not simultaneously participate in the practice of deception. Both are inversley inconsistant and opposite to one another.

The only way most TEs who have dealt with this for a while limit God is to say that they can't imagine any reason a good and just God would engage in such deception, therefore he didn't.

I am fairly logical, I know others who are successful in various intellectual indevours, who believe in the salvation of Christ, some of whom have experienced God's certain touch. I and these people have come to the conclusion that a literal reading of chapters 1-11 of Gen. simply doesn't make sense.

I understand that all believer are not going to accept the Genesis account in its literal form. My conclusion is that it is the only way to remain consistent with the accepted conclusion validated by the recorded words of Jesus about the creation event in Matt 19. If God did not personally created humankind as male and female from the beginning then what is recorded in MATT 19 as having been to said by Jesus is false.

If believing in a literal view of Genesis 1-11 is important to salvation then it appears that God doesn't want us to think, that God wants us to live hard lives, produce little art and die young, because if any significant number of people start to think in such a way to get us out of the most crude agricultural lives then a number of those people are going to conclude that Gen. is not literally true.

Not loose faith in the existance of God,
Not fail to worship him as a loving, just and living God who sent his only Son as a payment for our sins,
Not fail to repent of and turn from our sins,
But merely to conclude that the literal interpretation does not match the overall evidence.

The literal view of the creation account does not agree with the inclusive conclusion of the theory or the porposition that are part of what defines the modern evolutionary theory. Go to .... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution .... then type evolution into the 'search window at the left of the screen for an objective and accepted definiton of the conclusions included in the propostions of the theory of modern evolution.

Again I say that if you wish to believe in the literal interpretation, I have no beef with you, I disagree, but I won't argue the point. I will argue when others try to impose that belief on me or others, try to make that belief necessary for salvation, or try to argue that the physical evidence agrees with them.

There has been no attempt to advice that the literal interpretation of Genesis is required or necessary in order to know Jesus Christ as one's personal Savoir.

Just as an introduction to such a presumptuous doctrine, if such a proposition had any possible merit, the Lord Jesus would have first had to clarify that the theif on the cross agree with such an interpretation of Genesis before he could be allowed to accept Christ as a valid offering for his sin and be with Jesus in paradise. ...

--------------------------------

 

[shernren]

For a true believer there can be no doubt about the reality of the supernatural. The true believer has a personal relationship with the supernatural, the person of God Himself through His son and our Savior Jesus Christ.

Jesus Himself authenticated the Creation event as an historic and real fact in Matt 19. If such an event where not true, then Jesus Himself would no longer be the Truth if He had validated a fallacy as being true.

Oh dear, not that strawman again. I shall show how TEism is not invalidated by the statement you are undoubtedly quoting:

And He answered and said to them, "Have you not read that He who made them at the beginning 'made them male and female,' and said, 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh'? (Matthew 19:4-5 NKJV)

God indeed created. We do not have any problem with that. For us TEs, He created us through evolution. And from when there were humans they have always been male and female. ... so you show how this statement cannot accommodate TEism.

It would be impossible because of man's limited knowledge to ever make a rational staement that would infer that we know God's supernaural abilities know any limits. It is impossible for man to even project or measure such capacities. Therefore, to deny or assume that the supernatural capacities of God where limited enough to disallow the occurances to take place that are recorded in Genesis 1, even within the literal time given, would be presumptuous and unmeasurable by man.

So basically you are saying, by invoking the supernatural, that things happened exactly how you read them from Genesis 1 - no matter what the evidence? Well, be my guest. YECism can only be true at the expense of being scientific.

Therefore what of the question of TRUE science? True science will always reveal and be consistant with the truth. False conclusion of the assmptions found within some sciences will either attempt to falsify the Truth or eventually be found to be false themselves.

Don't contradict yourself.

Science is a naturalistic exploration of the physical cause-effect relationships that govern the universe. Now, if you want to accept supernatural causes, as you said above, you will have to accept that the physical natural cause-effect relationships we observe sometimes break down. Therefore at points in a supernatural universe science will invariably be wrong.

It's only natural that creationism seems scientific to you if you define science however which way you want to.

The assumption made by Lyell, Darwin and others who formulated much of modern evolution were based exclusively on limited natural observations that were seen through a redisposed bias that disbelived and disapproved of the teaching of the Genesis account of creation. A clear and detailed study of these men will reveal the inherent presence of this bias and its commonality that ran prevasively within their comradeships. The ideologies that accompanied those biases became the ground on which those ideologies became the seed of the anti-thesis of creation...the ideologies that are found in the inclusive propositions of modern evolution (ME) (1850's until present).

So did Louis Agassiz (who found evidence against a global flood) and Georges Cuvier (famous for his talents at fossil reconstruction), who were devout Protestant Old-Earth Creationists, found their observations on "a redisposed (??) bias that disbelived and disapproved of the teaching of the Genesis account of creation"?

 

[MyChristianForumID]

I concede that we are all christians here in this particular forum (or at least we should be) and therefore the debate here is about origins not faithfulness. We all love God and share in the amazing grace of Jesus our saviour.

I realize that there is evidence out there in creation that can be interpreted as being caused by evolutionary processes. Enough so that alot of christians believe it. This evidence does not equal truth, only evidence. Obviously evidence does not equal truth. It is just evidence. I know you will argue a large body of evidence in the fossil record and DNA research. But there are many problems with evolution that the experts themselves cannot resolve. I concede that there are also problems that the creationists cannot currently resolve that we have to put in pigeon holes for now to be resolved later. In the end I believe the instantaneous creation view will prevail based on the evidence.

The giraffe is evidence for an instantaneous creation event in the sense of intelligent built-in design features. The giraffe is a wonderfully complex and unique creature. In fact the 8 foot long neck which makes it capable of reaching its food source is also a huge problem for the mammal type. How do you exhale enough carbon dioxide to prevent suffocation? In fact there is complex systems that allow the giraffe not only to breath but to thrive with beauty and grace, despite its inability to exhale enough CO2 for any other mammal to survive with an 8 foot long neck. There are inconceivable odds that small variations over millions of years have caused the long neck to appear in this species. Where are the intermediate forms of fossils with progressively longer necks? They don't exist. How would the atoms and molecules of an intermediate form know that a longer neck would be able to reach the tree tops so it could eat, and thus modify itself as such so as not to starve? None. Atoms and molecules are not aware of tree height.

How is it that evolutionary processes caused the giraffe to have roughly double normal blood pressure for a mammal (to support the job of pushing blood up to its head through a long neck)? What process of evolution would allow the heart muscles to simultaneously support the design feature of the neck by providing higher blood pressure? What process of evolution would simultaneously produce tougher skin and deeper veins to support higher blood pressure and prevent bleeding out(Just so the neck could be longer).

What about the special design features that prevent blood from flowing into its head when taking a drink, so it doesn't pass out. Somehow evolved from minute variations over millions of years? Or smaller red blood cells to allow blood to travel through the smaller capilliaries that are necessary to support the higher blood pressure and prevent bleeding out if cut. All in conjunction so the neck can be longer. I cannot conceive of it in any other fashion except by instantaneous created design.

Thanks,
MyChristianForumID

 

[gluadys]

This evidence does not equal truth, only evidence.

Evidence is the only truth science works with. No evidence, no science.

The giraffe is evidence for an instantaneous creation event in the sense of intelligent built-in design features. [snip] There are inconceivable odds that small variations over millions of years have caused the long neck to appear in this species.

I expect you are just speculating. I doubt you even know what data to use to come to this conclusion.

Where are the intermediate forms of fossils with progressively longer necks? They don't exist.

Have you looked? Have you done so much as a google search on fossils in the giraffe family?

How would the atoms and molecules of an intermediate form know that a longer neck would be able to reach the tree tops so it could eat, and thus modify itself as such so as not to starve? None. Atoms and molecules are not aware of tree height.

They don't need to know. Why would you think this necessary? Evolution is an automatic process. No knowledge required. We know a lot more about evolution than giraffes, but we don't consciously control the evolution of our species.

How is it that evolutionary processes caused the giraffe to have roughly double normal blood pressure for a mammal (to support the job of pushing blood up to its head through a long neck)? What process of evolution would allow the heart muscles to simultaneously support the design feature of the neck by providing higher blood pressure? What process of evolution would simultaneously produce tougher skin and deeper veins to support higher blood pressure and prevent bleeding out(Just so the neck could be longer).

The process that manages this is usually called natural selection. It operates through differential reproductive success. Those proto-giraffes that had higher blood pressure and stronger heart muscle, tougher skin and deeper veins, were those that survived long enough to produce viable offspring. And yes, natural selection can work on many features simultaneously.

What about the special design features that prevent blood from flowing into its head when taking a drink, so it doesn't pass out. Somehow evolved from minute variations over millions of years? Or smaller red blood cells to allow blood to travel through the smaller capilliaries that are necessary to support the higher blood pressure and prevent bleeding out if cut. All in conjunction so the neck can be longer. I cannot conceive of it in any other fashion except by instantaneous created design.

Then you should learn more about natural selection. It is quite fascinating and fully capable of doing all this.

You can get an idea of how it works on this thread.
http://www.christianforums.com/t1368403-natural-selection-and-genetics.html

 

[MyChristianForumID]

I expect you are just speculating. I doubt you even know what data to use to come to this conclusion.

No I am not. It is a very well known problem with evolution theory. You should consider it.

Have you looked? Have you done so much as a google search on fossils in the giraffe family?

I have not personally looked for fossils. But obviously there are people to do that. There is no fossil record of a gradual increase in the giraffe neck.

http://www3.telus.net/csabc/Giraffe.html

The process that manages this is usually called natural selection. It operates through differential reproductive success. Those proto-giraffes that had higher blood pressure and stronger heart muscle, tougher skin and deeper veins, were those that survived long enough to produce viable offspring. And yes, natural selection can work on many features simultaneously.

Yes I already know that theory. It is a weak arguement for giraffe evolution. In evolutionary theory there is no known directing force to coordinate all those biological changes.

Then you should learn more about natural selection. It is quite fascinating and fully capable of doing all this.

The evidence for evolution is dismally thin here in the case of the giraffe. The giraffe stands out as evidence of instantaneous creation.

Thanks,
MyChristianForumID

 

[MyChristianForumID]

The fossil record reveals a complete absence of evidence for feather evolution in birds. Yet the fact that birds use feathers to fly affects virtually every aspect of their anatomy (like the giraffes long neck affects so many parts of its anatomy). Feathers are the most complex epidermal appendages found in animals. During molting flight and tail feathers are lost in exact pairs, one from each side, so that balance is maintained. Feathers are a major problem for evolution theory, just like the giraffes long neck.

Birds are living evidence to instantaneous creation.

Thanks,
MyChristianForumID

 

[gluadys]

No I am not. It is a very well known problem with evolution theory. You should consider it.

What I am wondering is whether you understand it. Can you present any data supporting this "problem"?

I have not personally looked for fossils. But obviously there are people to do that. There is no fossil record of a gradual increase in the giraffe neck.

http://www3.telus.net/csabc/Giraffe.html

Says your creationist source. Now have you checked to see if they are right? Even as a google search? (I am not expecting you to become a professional paleontologist overnight.)

btw, the article you linked to would be more credible if it presented relevant objections to natural/sexual selection.

Yes I already know that theory. It is a weak arguement for giraffe evolution. In evolutionary theory there is no known directing force to coordinate all those biological changes.

Natural selection is the directing force and it is perfectly capable of co-ordinating biological changes. If you don't understand that, you don't understand how natural selection works.

The evidence for evolution is dismally thin here in the case of the giraffe. The giraffe stands out as evidence of instantaneous creation.

The fossil evidence may be slim (you can determine if it is when you check it out), but fossil evidence is not the only evidence for evolution by a long shot. The recurrent laryngeal nerve of the giraffe is a very good piece of evidence that it evolved. Check that out too.

 

[gluadys]

Feathers are a major problem for evolution theory, just like the giraffes long neck.

Not since we learned that feathers first appeared in dinosaurs and that some dinosaurs exhibit primitive feathers.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

Yes I already know that theory. It is a weak arguement for giraffe evolution. In evolutionary theory there is no known directing force to coordinate all those biological changes.

Actually there is, sexual selection. http://www1.pacific.edu/~e-buhals/GIRAFFE2.htm gives a fairly brief overview of the various theories and provides references.

The evidence for evolution is dismally thin here in the case of the giraffe. The giraffe stands out as evidence of instantaneous creation.

Go to the local forest preserve and dig up a half dozen 1m x 1m squares down to a depth of 2 meters, let us now how many skeletons of squirrels, deer, rabbits, etc. you dig up.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

There is no broken DNA, there are only differences in the nucleotide seqeunces.

When something that worked, that produced something, that caused events to occur changes in such a way that it ceases to do anything it is commonly called broken.

We can observe DNA "break" in the laboratory.

By any reasonable definition the GLO producing sequence in monkeys is broken DNA.

It is very similar to the working sequences in lemurs and other mammals, and the differences include a change in startup sequence that renders it non-starting.

As an aside the fact that in general those differences in DNA that don't effect fuctionality (e.g. changes involved in cytochrome c) largely match the morphological organization of species is strong evidence of evolution.

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

There are 40 million nucleotides that diverge between humans and chimpanzees and this happened in roughly 6 million years. That is 6.66 nucleotides being altered per year for 6 million years.

I'm curious, did your source for that mention that nucleotides are not necessarily changed one at a time? That in fact there is at least one instance where 54000 nucleotides were changed in an insertion/deletion?

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v429/n6990/full/429353a.html

 

[Robert the Pilegrim]

The similarity of patterns was not used as a form of deception but rather as a signature of common design.

That is certainly one interpretation, another might be that it is a sign of how God went about creating species, i.e. via evolution.

One who is The Truth does not simultaneously participate in the practice of deception. Both are inversley inconsistant and opposite to one another.

Agreed

I understand that all believer are not going to accept the Genesis account in its literal form. My conclusion is that it is the only way to remain consistent with the accepted conclusion validated by the recorded words of Jesus about the creation event in Matt 19. If God did not personally created humankind as male and female from the beginning then what is recorded in MATT 19 as having been to said by Jesus is false.

I understand but disagree with that interpretation.

There has been no attempt to advice that the literal interpretation of Genesis is required or necessary in order to know Jesus Christ as one's personal Savoir.

Just as an introduction to such a presumptuous doctrine, if such a proposition had any possible merit, the Lord Jesus would have first had to clarify that the theif on the cross agree with such an interpretation of Genesis before he could be allowed to accept Christ as a valid offering for his sin and be with Jesus in paradise. ...

Thank you for the laugh!

(I realize it may not have meant to be funny, but the image of Jesus holding forth at length on proper theology while he and his audience are nailed to a cross produces either laughter or tears for me, and I choose laughter)

Unfortunately there are creationists who don't agree with that position.

(Of course there are also dunderheads among those who agree with evolution)

Peace be with you
Robert

 

[shernren]

This is a good example of what happens when people quote sites without sitting down to understand their content.

The site in question, http://www3.telus.net/csabc/Giraffe.html, simply shows that textbooks misrepresent the current status of scientific opinion on giraffe necks.

It does not show (or tries to show, feebly) that evolution couldn't have done it.

Point 1 shows that Darwin didn't use giraffes in evolution discussions. And? Darwin didn't use DNA in evolution discussions either.

Points 2 and 3 show that feeding advantage is not a valid explanation for the giraffe's long neck evolution. And? In fact point 3 acknowledges that there is a valid reason: sexual competition due to giraffe "necking".

Point 4 is an attempted argument-from-silence: just because we have not found any fossils means that there are no fossils. Hmmm. In any case, quoting Gould for that point seems a bit biased because Gould tends towards a punctuated-equilibrium view of evolution: he is biased towards there being no transitional fossils.

Point 5 is an attempted ID point, but it doesn't really pack a punch because this is precisely what evolution predicts too. It would be maladaptive to evolve a long neck without all that other stuff, and it would be neutral at best and probably maladaptive to evolve all that other stuff without the long neck. But it is adaptive for all that to evolve simultaneously (which can and does happen), and that is precisely what evolution predicts ...

 

[MyChristianForumID]

It does not show (or tries to show, feebly) that evolution couldn't have done it.


It would be maladaptive to evolve a long neck without all that other stuff, and it would be neutral at best and probably maladaptive to evolve all that other stuff without the long neck. But it is adaptive for all that to evolve simultaneously (which can and does happen), and that is precisely what evolution predicts ...

I have emmence doubts that the neck could evolve with all the other features at the same time. Which pattern do you suggest:

1) Adaptation - Organism adapts for survival by natural selection.

2) All sized necks creatures existed but only long necked varieties survived.


If you have time could you post some links for me to study as well. What is the theory for the long neck being selected. It seems a shorter neck like the other animals would be a more likely candidate for survival. It seems more like created design to me.

Thanks,
MyChristianForumID