Evolution

[1whirlwind]

There seems to be a misunderstanding here: when I say all races came from Adam and Eve, and then from Noah and his family, I am referring only to human races- black folk, white folk, asian folk, arab folk, indian folk, etc. etc.

The misunderstanding is you are not understanding what is written. You see the "flesh" taken aboard as animals only. They weren't.

I maintain that all human races present on the earth before the flood did originally come from Adam and Eve. And then again, all human races after the flood (which means all the human races we see today on the earth) did come from Noah and his family.

You would be mistaken.

If we focus on Noah and his family, I am saying that at some point after the flood, the genetic make up of one of Noah's descendants changed- and a child was born that "looked" different than Noah or his offspring- and that difference was genetic; that is, when that child grew up and married and had kids, the children also "looked" the same as one of his parents, and totally different than Noah; a new race of people had begun.

Again, you are mistaken. All races were taken on board with Noah and all races disembarked with Noah. I know that as God instructed Noah to keep them alive. He did. No new race of people evolved. God created all races on what He terms, the sixth day.

That pattern continued- generation after generation, every new child had the same overall genetic make-up of its parents and "looked" generally the same- that is, was the same race as its parents.

But then at some point, there was a mutation (remember- this only means a change in genetic makeup- it doesn't imply something bad) and another new race began. Fast forward to the present, and this process of human evolution explains why we have the multitude of human races that we see today.

Please see what is written. There is no need to believe "at some point there was a mutation."

Yes- that is what I maintain is being said. That is what I believe, and what my study Bible teaches. First, let's use a modern translation of the Bible (the NIV in this case) to help us examine this passage more easily:

First...I would NEVER, EVER, use the NIV!!! It makes it easier for you to understand what they see as truth...that isn't God's truth. Tread carefully.

Read it again. It is not about animals being taken on board. Instead it is "flesh." All flesh with the breath of life, male and female.

Genesis 6:18-19:

18 But I will establish my covenant with you, and you will enter the ark—you and your sons and your wife and your sons’ wives with you. 19 You are to bring into the ark two of all living creatures, male and female, to keep them alive with you.

I read this to mean that there were only 8 human beings on the ark, and then two of all living creatures (i.e. animals), one male, one female. But note that the animals were special- since they were male and female, only those animals able to sexually reproduce were present. Also, none of the living creatures in the sea, such as fish, could have been present- after all, the flood wouldn't have affected them.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to believe that there were more than 8 human beings present on the ark- that all the other human races of mankind (besides those that Noah and his family represented) were part of the "living creatures" that came onto the ark. I don't believe this is the case.

Then I ask you to again....read His Words and ask Him for understanding, from the King James!

Well, again- there seems to be a misunderstanding- I was referring to the multitude of human races, and you seem to have assumed that I was using the term races to refer to all the living creatures on the earth, man and animals.

.

There is no misunderstanding on my part. I know what you are referring to and I am telling you....you aren't yet seeing what is there. Please look again.


.

 

[Polycarp1]

No, it's been over 500 posts of you insisting that you're right, while others explain to you why they disagree, and you call them fools (cf. post #1) for thinking that He could do what His creation testifies that He did, and instead throw out strawmen about cats not turning into rabbits -- which nobody but you has ever alleged that anyone ever said.

In short, if anyone wanted evidence that so-called 'scientific creationists' worshi the Bible and not its Creator, and refuse to follow His commandments, you have supplied them with plenty of such evidence.

 

[1whirlwind]

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.

I agree that there are many types of dogs, of cats, of cattle, of humans. But...cats don't give birth to dogs, dogs don't give birth to cows and APES DON'T produce man.

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.

.

That is impossible. Black folks don't give birth to white folks. Indian folks don't give birth to Oriental folks. They were created on the sixth day and "it was very good."


.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

Strange how that doesn't actually address the fact that I just refuted your claim of a bottleneck population event within the past few thousand years.

I wasn't the one arguing this, but since we are on the topic. It would seem you "refute" scripture with science. Noah wasn't real, and neither was the flood? Alright, you can choose to believe the opinion of science over the Word of God, that is your choice. It is clear in detailing every single living creature on the earth -and- sky was destroyed, hence anything but a global flood is out of the question. Yes, this is all just a giant, symbolic fanciful story. Jesus could not have possibly walked on water, and God could not have possibly split the Red Sea. Good job

Hello? I just demonstrated that dogs evolved from wolf-like ancestors and cattle are descended from Aurochs, and there wasn't a global flood resulting in a bottleneck population. Did you even notice that?

Wolf-like ancestors --> dogs
Aurochs --> cattle

Where are there any large scale changes in regards to over all morphological, structural, or anatomical identity? There are none, and seeing how the reality of large scale evolution is what is in question, it stands to say it remains unproven by you.

Except, I kind of just did prove it. Sorry lol, you don't just get to dismiss genetic studies with a wave of your hand.

Genetic studies don't prove that the actual "evolutionary mechanisms" that supposedly are responsible for large scale evolution exist.

So you want to deny the fact that large scale evolution takes place concurrently over millions/billions of years, and think that you can prove it exclusively in this fraction of time with some genetics research. Good job

 

[1whirlwind]

No, it's been over 500 posts of you insisting that you're right, while others explain to you why they disagree, and you call them fools (cf. post #1) for thinking that He could do what His creation testifies that He did, and instead throw out strawmen about cats not turning into rabbits -- which nobody but you has ever alleged that anyone ever said.

In short, if anyone wanted evidence that so-called 'scientific creationists' worshi the Bible and not its Creator, and refuse to follow His commandments, you have supplied them with plenty of such evidence.

I ask you too to understand the point of this thread. The lie of evolution, as taught in schools and as understood by the vast majority of people means....apes to human. So, if you wish to consider a true fact, such as cats do not turn into rabbits just as apes do not turn into humans, as a strawman then...okay.

You should also realize...I never referred to anyone as a fool. Rather, those were God's Words...."Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."



.

 

[Happy Hearts Club]

I ask you too to understand the point of this thread. The lie of evolution, as taught in schools and as understood by the vast majority of people means....apes to human. So, if you wish to consider a true fact, such as cats do not turn into rabbits just as apes do not turn into humans, as a strawman then...okay.

You should also realize...I never referred to anyone as a fool. Rather, those were God's Words...."Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."



.

Maybe just to make it clearer for you, a "straw man" is simply a -false- representation of what it is you are trying to argue against.

Evolution does not operate on the premise that anything can give birth to anything, thus saying a cat giving birth to a rabbit is a straw man representation of evolution.

Evolution does not claim humans evolved from modern apes, but from earlier primate species that came before them.

In a way, it is like saying a banana is blue --> and thus you begin arguing against a blue banana, which doesn't exist.

Anyways, I am on the same side of the fence as you to be honest, I do not see universal common descent nor human evolution as being justifiable whatsoever in light of any scripture.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

I read both of those and a few other links, and I think I get the gist here, though the lack of a LUCA doesn't dsprove evolution in this case, there may not be a LUCA because of gene transfer it be more likly a entire comunity of species sharing their DNA and such. Though this isn't saying that everything didn't evolve from this group, or that we didn't evolve down the line from bacteria and such.

You're right- all this does is suggest that all living organisms today may not have one common original single celled ancestor.

And another point you raise in another post: I have never questioned that evolution is a fact of life that explains genetic variation- the only question in my mind is how far it has gone to explaining how the multitude of living entities that we see today came to be. Or how life started in the first place from one cell that was given the breathe of life, and at exactly the same instant, the ability to reproduce itself.

And then there are the faith questions that science can't- and shouldn't address: are human beings special; that is, did God, in one instant of creation, create Adam as a fully-formed human being? As a Christian, I believe He did- but this is a matter of faith; I can't- and would never try to- offer scientific evidence to support this belief.

Or another question: evolution requires mutations to produce genetic variety. Biologists claim that these mutations are accidental- but could they also be attributed to the hand of God? Again, this then is a matter of faith, and not science.

 

[1whirlwind]

Maybe just to make it clearer for you, a "straw man" is simply a -false- representation of what it is you are trying to argue against.

Evolution does not operate on the premise that anything can give birth to anything, thus saying a cat giving birth to a rabbit is a straw man representation of evolution.

Evolution does not claim humans evolved from modern apes, but from earlier primate species that came before them.

In a way, it is like saying a banana is blue --> and thus you begin arguing against a blue banana, which doesn't exist.

Anyways, I am on the same side of the fence as you to be honest, I do not see universal common descent nor human evolution as being justifiable whatsoever in light of any scripture.

The theory of evolution, as understood by most, as taught in schools from the poster depicting knuckle dragging apes walking up the evolutionary scale to man, as shown on television, is....evolution of ape to man.

That is what I am arguing against. So, to me....for evolutionist to say, "oh but man didn't evolve from MODERN apes," is silly. Man didn't evolve from anything.

I'm glad you're on this side of the fence. It isn't at all justifiable by Scripture or by common sense. I used to simply accept it as I was taught by people I trusted. I was wrong. Now that I see I think...how could I ever have actually believed that.



.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Oh and on your dogs are just dogs, watch the last half of this video, first bit is mostly poking at creationists, but the rest points out the phylogeny tree both current and past of dogs tracing back to bears/seals and further.

I think you addressed this post to the wrong person- I have never claimed that dogs are just dogs.

Quite the contrary, I maintain that the genetic variation in the genus Canis is proof-positive of evolution. Again, the only question in my mind is how far evolution has gone to producing the variety of living entities that we see today.

 

[Cabal]

The theory of evolution, as understood by most, as taught in schools from the poster depicting knuckle dragging apes walking up the evolutionary scale to man, as shown on television, is....evolution of ape to man.

They're still not modern apes.

That is what I am arguing against. So, to me....for evolutionist to say, "oh but man didn't evolve from MODERN apes," is silly. Man didn't evolve from anything.

No, it means if you're going to denounce something as evil and lies, at least know what it actually IS to begin with, otherwise there isn't much reason to take you seriously.

I'm glad you're on this side of the fence. It isn't at all justifiable by Scripture or by common sense. I used to simply accept it as I was taught by people I trusted. I was wrong. Now that I see I think...how could I ever have actually believed that.

No wonder - you accepted it for the wrong reasons - science is based on what is evidenced, not who said what.

 

[Cabal]

You should also realize...I never referred to anyone as a fool. Rather, those were God's Words...."Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools, And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things."

If you're going to refer to people as fools, at least have the decency to stand by your personal choice to use those verses to do so. Stop passing the buck onto God.

 

[1whirlwind]

They're still not modern apes.

Okay...let me rephrase that. Evolutionist believe man evolved from ancient apes.

No, it means if you're going to denounce something as evil and lies, at least know what it actually IS to begin with, otherwise there isn't much reason to take you seriously.

I don't ask you to take me in any way...serious or not. I ask you to pay attention to what is written.

No wonder - you accepted it for the wrong reasons - science is based on what is evidenced, not who said what.

I accepted it as it is what was taught. I was foolish but I didn't remain so.

If you're going to refer to people as fools, at least have the decency to stand by your personal choice to use those verses to do so. Stop passing the buck onto God.

I don't refer to people as fools....God did. The choice of verses was mine. Now, why don't you have the decency to stand by your choice of evolution being what is taught instead of passing it off as "your idea of evolution was for the wrong reason," or "it's not modern apes," etc.


.

 

[matthewgar]

I think you addressed this post to the wrong person- I have never claimed that dogs are just dogs.

Quite the contrary, I maintain that the genetic variation in the genus Canis is proof-positive of evolution. Again, the only question in my mind is how far evolution has gone to producing the variety of living entities that we see today.

heh well those two videos go to show a pretty good idea of how "cats and dogs" created each other *If you loosely call the original prodginy a cat dog thing heh* it shows how that ancestor led on down to, bears, wolves, foxes, seals, cats, meerkats, hyena, and so on. Pretty interesting especially the fact that cheetahs originate from north america, I knew that cheetahs were between big and small cats in their own group and can't breed with either, could explain why. heh and sorry I just saw your posts on questioning full evolution and was tired so mistook you for the other people :>

PS WW go watch those two videos, I'm sure you will just ignore their content, but there is the information you keep complaining about that evolution doesn't have, that shows dogs weren't always just dogs :>

 

[Servant of Jesus]

No wonder - you accepted it for the wrong reasons - science is based on what is evidenced, not who said what.

Very good point. And I love your Carl Sagan quote too!

 

[Papias]

First, I hope to get back to answer WW's last post to me, I've been very busy.

However, I had to quickly comment on this:
Servant of Jesus wrote:

evolution requires mutations to produce genetic variety. Biologists claim that these mutations are accidental- but could they also be attributed to the hand of God? Again, this then is a matter of faith, and not science.

The Pope has stated that he believes that God guided and supported evolution by miraculously supplying the many beneficial mutations that have happened and continue to happen. Regardless of whether one is Catholic or some other type of Christian, this is a position which both fits the real world as well as the divine role of God.

And then there are the faith questions that science can't- and shouldn't address: are human beings special; that is, did God, in one instant of creation, create Adam as a fully-formed human being? As a Christian, I believe He did- but this is a matter of faith; I can't- and would never try to- offer scientific evidence to support this belief.

I must have posted it a dozen times, but the Catholic view is that Adam and Eve were indeed literal, single human beings - simply the first transitional ape-humans who were the first to evolve sufficientily to be able to think enough to rebel against God (causing the fall). So, Adam and Eve are literal, first humans, and at the same time, the evidence from science is accepted that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor.

The bottom line is that one can quite easily accept science while still upholding Adam and Eve as the single first humans, and the fall as a literally true event (though no magical fruit is needed).

Lastly, to WW's defense, I don't object to anyone saying that humans evolved from apes. Though of course this isn't modern apes, the common ancestor of humans and apes, around 6 million years ago, was quite similar to a modern chimpanzee, and it were around today, could be commonly called "an ape". So I try not to correct creationists who use the "apes evolving into humans" line - it's pretty much how it happened.

Of course, if they then use the silly "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" line, then I correct them by pointing out that I descended from french people, so why are there still french people in france?

Papias

 

[matthewgar]

First, I hope to get back to answer WW's last post to me, I've been very busy.

However, I had to quickly comment on this:
Servant of Jesus wrote:



The Pope has stated that he believes that God guided and supported evolution by miraculously supplying the many beneficial mutations that have happened and continue to happen. Regardless of whether one is Catholic or some other type of Christian, this is a position which both fits the real world as well as the divine role of God.





I must have posted it a dozen times, but the Catholic view is that Adam and Eve were indeed literal, single human beings - simply the first transitional ape-humans who were the first to evolve sufficientily to be able to think enough to rebel against God (causing the fall). So, Adam and Eve are literal, first humans, and at the same time, the evidence from science is accepted that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor.

The bottom line is that one can quite easily accept science while still upholding Adam and Eve as the single first humans, and the fall as a literally true event (though no magical fruit is needed).

Lastly, to WW's defense, I don't object to anyone saying that humans evolved from apes. Though of course this isn't modern apes, the common ancestor of humans and apes, around 6 million years ago, was quite similar to a modern chimpanzee, and it were around today, could be commonly called "an ape". So I try not to correct creationists who use the "apes evolving into humans" line - it's pretty much how it happened.

Of course, if they then use the silly "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" line, then I correct them by pointing out that I descended from french people, so why are there still french people in france?

Papias

heh the video I posted has a great response to that, we know that wolves couldn't have evolved into dogs, because there are still dogs out there despite, the genetic information the fact they can still breed and produce fertile offspring and so on....

Or one of my favorite, "If you were really descendant from your great great great great grandparents, then explain why your cousins are still around? Or if you descended from euorpeans then why are there still europeans why arn't they all Americans, or australians or where ever someone is from.

 

[1whirlwind]

Very good point. And I love your Carl Sagan quote too!

Here is another wonderful quote....


Proverbs 4:5 Get wisdom, get understanding: forget it not; neither decline from the words of My mouth.


.

 

[1whirlwind]

First, I hope to get back to answer WW's last post to me, I've been very busy.

However, I had to quickly comment on this:
Servant of Jesus wrote:



The Pope has stated that he believes that God guided and supported evolution by miraculously supplying the many beneficial mutations that have happened and continue to happen. Regardless of whether one is Catholic or some other type of Christian, this is a position which both fits the real world as well as the divine role of God.





I must have posted it a dozen times, but the Catholic view is that Adam and Eve were indeed literal, single human beings - simply the first transitional ape-humans who were the first to evolve sufficientily to be able to think enough to rebel against God (causing the fall). So, Adam and Eve are literal, first humans, and at the same time, the evidence from science is accepted that humans evolved from an ape-like ancestor.

The bottom line is that one can quite easily accept science while still upholding Adam and Eve as the single first humans, and the fall as a literally true event (though no magical fruit is needed).

Lastly, to WW's defense, I don't object to anyone saying that humans evolved from apes. Though of course this isn't modern apes, the common ancestor of humans and apes, around 6 million years ago, was quite similar to a modern chimpanzee, and it were around today, could be commonly called "an ape". So I try not to correct creationists who use the "apes evolving into humans" line - it's pretty much how it happened.

Of course, if they then use the silly "if humans evolved from apes, why are there still apes?" line, then I correct them by pointing out that I descended from french people, so why are there still french people in france?

Papias

Have the French folks in France become ape, elephant, giraffe or have they evolved into some superhuman or...are they still French folks...just like you're still of French descent?

The point is...you're still a person as your ancestors were people...whether or not you speak French.


.

 

[Servant of Jesus]

Have the French folks in France become ape, elephant, giraffe or have they evolved into some superhuman or...are they still French folks...just like you're still of French descent?

The point is...you're still a person as your ancestors were people...whether or not you speak French.


.

So evolutionary theory would predict that there is no reason why we couldn't one day have a new race of superhuman beings.

Now whether they would come from French stock or some other race is not known. Some claim that the Chinese, Japanese, and Jewish people are on average smarter than the rest of us- so maybe we should be looking out for that new superhuman race in one of those countries.

 

[Cabal]

So evolutionary theory would predict that there is no reason why we couldn't one day have a new race of superhuman beings.

Well, depends if the environment favours it.