Did you not read my post at all? Or, if you did...did you not accept it? In it our Father explained the others on the ark.
.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Small point to clarify: what I was trying to say was that there was a fairly limited genetic pool on the Arc, because three of the people on the Arc were sons of Noah and his wife.
But just as the offspring of Adam and Eve eventually produced people with an altered genetic makeup, which explains how the different races came to be, so it was also with the people on the arc- their offspring must also have eventually produced genetically-distinct entities that in turn led to the creation of the various races that we see today.
And I use the term "creation" in the last sentence deliberately since ultimately, by whatever process we envision, it is God that creates all living things.
On that point, I think we can all agree.
.
You asked why I do not hold TE and I answered, and it is the main reason why. The inception of biological life as per Genesis refutes any notions of UCD.
I am not inventing another "reality", I am referring to the reality of the Scriptures. What are you rambling on about?!
Talk about double standards, you can very well believe Jesus walked on water or that God can make a metal axe head float, yet you cannot believe what He tells us took place at the inception of the universe?
I agree, but you evade the point I was making.
God can do whatever He pleases, and in the same manner that salvation cannot be fully understood by the human mind, neither can the creation mechanisms he employed to create all things.
Did you not read my post at all? Or, if you did...did you not accept it? In it our Father explained the others on the ark.
.
Both the creation account and the scientific account are attempting to describe the same reality. Claiming that one is describing one reality and the other another is simply fallacious
When all the evidence is in, I am 100% confident that there will be no conflict between what science tells us about the history of life, and how God made that happen.
Science will eventually get it right, and our interpretation of the Bible will accurately portray what God actually meant. But until that happens, we have to remain open minded, cautious, and humble in our analysis of these matters, and respectful of those who have a different viewpoint to our own.
Huh? Maybe I missed something- are you saying there were more than 8 people on the Arc, a married couple from every race present on the earth up to that time; representing all of mankind?
In a nutshell, what did I miss?
You missed that a male and female with the breath of life of all flesh was kept alive on the ark with Noah and his family.
.
You mean that within Noah's genetic code, there were genes for every type of race that we presently see?
Of course, the Bible isn't a textbook on genetics- but wouldn't it be just as plausible to believe that as Noah and his family's offspring flourished, their genetic codes were at some later time modified (through mutations) to produce the different races that we see today?
Again, I'm not at all saying that it wasn't God who allowed those mutations to happen- of course He did- but why couldn't that have been His way of producing the variety of races that we see today? And the variety of flowers, dogs, cats, bacteria, viruses, etc. etc.
The only question in my mind is how far does evolution go- is it only restricted to species, or go farther; and if so, how far?
.
.As for Noah...I agree. All races did not, could not, come from he and his family. And, they didn't...anymore than all races were from Adam.
Genesis 6:18-19 But with thee will I establish My covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Genesis 7:15-16 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.We have been programmed to see "all flesh" as elephants, giraffes, dogs, cats, lions, tigers, etc walking up the plank to enter the ark two by two. But, is that what is being said?
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.Here we see "all flesh" as man and then suddenly all flesh becomes animals only when they enter the ark.
Genesis 6:12-13 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Flesh with the breath of life, two by two, male and female...were taken aboard the ark with Noah and kept alive. God didn't destroy all the races He created.
Please get the idea of evolution out of your head and read His Words.
Please consider the possibility that God creates new life forms by altering the genetic code of an existing life form- something biologists call evolution.
How else do you explain how drug-resistant pathogens come about? Or how we are able to breed new varieties of wheat, dogs, flowers, fruit, cattle etc. etc.- each with their own unique genetic make-up and characteristics that are passed on to future generations.
.
The dogs that are bred are still...dogs.
The spectacular diversity in size, conformation, and pelage that characterizes the domestic dog reflects not only the intensity of artificial selection but ultimately the genetic variability of founding populations. Here we review past molecular genetic data that are relevant to understanding the origin and phylogenetic relationships of the dog. DNA-DNA hybridization data show that the dog family Canidae diverged about 50 million years ago from other carnivore families. In contrast, the extant canids are very closely related and diverged from a common ancestor about 10 million years ago. The evidence supporting a close relationship of dogs with gray wolves is overwhelming. However, dogs are remarkably diverse in mitochondrial and nuclear genes. Mitochondrial DNA analysis suggests a more ancient origin of dogs than has been indicated by the fossil record. In addition, dogs have originated from or interbred with wolves throughout their history at different times and different places. We test the possibility of an independent domestication event in North America by analysis of mtDNA variation in the Xoloitzcuintli. This unusual breed is believed to have been kept isolated for thousands of years and may be one of the most ancient breeds in North America. Our results do not support a New World domestication of dogs nor a close association of the Xoloitzcuintli with other hairless breeds of dogs. Despite their phenotypic uniformity, the Xoloitzcuintli has a surprisingly high level of mtDNA sequence variation. Other breeds are also genetically diverse, suggesting that dog breeds were often founded with a large number of dogs from outbred populations.
Cattle is still....cattle.
The nature of domestic cattle origins in Africa are unclear as archaeological data are relatively sparse. The earliest domesticates were humpless, or Bos taurus, in morphology and may have shared a common origin with the ancestors of European cattle in the Near East. Alternatively, local strains of the wild ox, the aurochs, may have been adopted by peoples in either continent either before or after cultural influence from the Levant. This study examines mitochondrial DNA displacement loop sequence variation in 90 extant bovines drawn from Africa, Europe, and India. Phylogeny estimation and analysis of molecular variance verify that sequences cluster significantly into continental groups. The Indian Bos indicus samples are most markedly distinct from the others, which is indicative of a B. taurus nature for both European and African ancestors. When a calibration of sequence divergence is performed using comparisons with bison sequences and an estimate of 1 Myr since the Bison/Bos Leptobos common ancestor, estimates of 117-275,000 B.P. and 22-26,000 B.P. are obtained for the separation between Indians and others and between African and European ancestors, respectively. As cattle domestication is thought to have occurred approximately 10,000 B.P., these estimates suggest the domestication of genetically discrete aurochsen strains as the origins of each continental population. Additionally, patterns of variation that are indicative of population expansions (probably associated with the domestication process) are discernible in Africa and Europe. Notably, the genetic signatures of these expansions are clearly younger than the corresponding signature of African/European divergence.
Evolution of man from apes is a lie.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...nt/oup/jhered/1999/00000090/00000001/art00071
Mitochondrial diversity and the origins of African and European cattle â PNAS
Sorry, looks like I've found not only evidence that cows and dogs haven't always been dogs and cows, but they haven't had a common ancestor within the time frame you suggest.
Most straw men of evolutionary theory are.
As for Noah...I agree. All races did not, could not, come from he and his family. And, they didn't...anymore than all races were from Adam.
Genesis 6:18-19 But with thee will I establish My covenant; and thou shalt come into the ark, thou, and thy sons, and thy wife, and thy sons' wives with thee. And of every living thing of all flesh, two of every sort shalt thou bring into the ark, to keep them alive with thee; they shall be male and female.
Genesis 7:15-16 And they went in unto Noah into the ark, two and two of all flesh, wherein is the breath of life. And they that went in, went in male and female of all flesh, as God had commanded him: and the LORD shut him in.We have been programmed to see "all flesh" as elephants, giraffes, dogs, cats, lions, tigers, etc walking up the plank to enter the ark two by two. But, is that what is being said?
Genesis 2:7 And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.Here we see "all flesh" as man and then suddenly all flesh becomes animals only when they enter the ark.
Genesis 6:12-13 And God looked upon the earth, and, behold, it was corrupt; for all flesh had corrupted his way upon the earth. And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before Me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.
Flesh with the breath of life, two by two, male and female...were taken aboard the ark with Noah and kept alive. God didn't destroy all the races He created.
He created the "multitude of races that we see today." And, they were created that way in the beginning.
.
The dogs that are bred are still...dogs.
Cattle is still....cattle.
Evolution of man from apes is a lie.
.
But a German Shepard is genetically distinct from a Border Collie, and from a Poodle, etc. etc. They all have a common ancestor- but through evolution, that common ancestor produced the variety of dogs that we see today. Same with cattle.
And as for apes evolving to become human beings- well, some evolutionary biologists may theorize that to be the case, and use the fossil record, DNA, and other evidence to make their case- but I don't believe that, and since it is just a theory, don't believe that every biologist has to accept that theory as being the truth either.
Only a few years ago, biologists widely believed that all living organisms descended from a common ancestor- the so-called "last universal ancestor" or LUA- which then must have originated as the one single living cell that then evolved to give rise to all life on earth. Well, now we know that this is not the case- there is no single LUA, and life on earth did not have to start with one single celled common organism, able to reproduce itself.
So I take the Bible literally on the point of how human beings started: they are special, and I do believe they were made by God in one special act of creation. But the first two human beings that were created- Adam and Eve- then evolved to produce the multitude of human races that we see today.
.
Ehhhh can you tell me where you get this claim of no LUA?
You just prove how evolutionary theory runs on variations of internal logic. It first "creates" the necessary definitions, and builds evolutionary cases around these definitions.
Dogs remain dogs, and cattle remain cattle in terms of over all morphological, anatomical, and structural identity. Variations in a few morphological aspects and mitochondrial DNA do not prove dogs/cattle are able to evolve into something that aren't dogs/cattle.
You are trying to pass "proof" for something that cannot be proven, as large scale evolution seemingly takes "too much time" to be able to even observe it exists.
http://www.ingentaconnect.com/conte...nt/oup/jhered/1999/00000090/00000001/art00071
Mitochondrial diversity and the origins of African and European cattle — PNAS
Sorry, looks like I've found not only evidence that cows and dogs haven't always been dogs and cows, but they haven't had a common ancestor within the time frame you suggest.
Most straw men of evolutionary theory are.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?