I may give evolution a shot.

[LorentzHA]

Wait... no you are badly mistaken. Lucaspa is saying that Genesis doesn't mean what it says... that the world wasn't created as God says, but the way he and his fellow fallilbe men say. He is a Bible-compromiser at best, and a wolf in sheep's clothing at worst.

Lucaspa is a Bible compromiser? LOL..He and Mike Flynn, Vance and a few others here are a BIG credit to Christianity! They gave me hope that Chritianity was not full of the types that claim to represent Christianity here, in the "Bible Belt".

Also you say that Genesis should be take literally? What part? There are TWO different modes of creation in Genesis. Which one should we take literally? Both?? What about the Earth being "unrolled" How about the Earth being non moving and at the center of everything? All literal? You Biblical literalist make your own hangman's noose and just ignore the questions that get too sticky. That is exactly how they talk here in Texas, anyone who is more intelligent than they or has more education they refer to as, "A wolf in sheeps clothing" or someone that posesses "dangerous knowledge of this world"

 

[Mike Flynn]

It also says that God created the universe in six days, and man and animal from the ground, seperately. But you aren't real fond of believing what God says if it disagrees with you.

You have ignored Jesus teachings on life and death. And you also ignore the scriptures where Jesus rebukes his disciples for interpreting life and death like you do.

Moreover, you pass judgement on others for taking them into consideration. Given this, I don't believe you are qualified (or credible) to make judgements against other people when they interpret the Bible. In fact, if you understood the scriptures, you would be better able to see your own hipocrasy in this thread.

You rationalize away God's Word to make it conform with yours. I don't know if you are a genuine Christian or not, but you clearly say and believe many things that are unchristian. I will pray for you, and hope that you are either exposed as a wolf in sheeps clothing, or that you come to start believing in God's infallible Word.

And I will pray for you and all of the other literalists. I will pray that they stop spreading stumbling blocks out into the world. I will pray that they learn the difference between their own fallible assumptions and the truth. Most of all, I will pray that they stop passing judgements on people on other Christians as is typical on forums like these.

All scripture is God breathed. "All Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness.." 2 Timothy 3:16

And human understanding is fallible. Including our understanding of scriptures. You seem to believe otherwise with regard to your own understanding, in contradiction to several scriptures. Nowhere in the Bible does it tell us that God intended the details of Genesis as literal history...and yet you have assumed this is the case. And you criticise others for using extrabiblical information. That is hipocrasy, plain and simple.

Now, apparently you don't consider Paul inspired by God.

No, Paul understood Jesus theology on death, the same ones you have chosen to ignore. In addition, there are several places in Paul's letters where he qualifies his statements as his own opinions.

Nor do you consider most of the Bible inspired by God, but you think your words are more true than those which were inspired by God.

A false judgement. And you tell me that the pharisee analogy was a 'horrible' one. Every one of your posts proves otherwise.

Don't be deceived, God is not mocked. And you are trying to mock Him by proclaiming you are smarter than the words which were inspired by Him.

You've got that backwards. You have made it clear that the only thing you are unwilling to compromise is your own fallible assumptions about the Bible. How is anyone mocking God by carefully considering both Biblical theology as a whole and evidence from God's creation itself when trying to understand God's word?

Your false judgements and accusations are indicative of assertions from Christians who truly mock God's Word.

Of course we sin on our own. But Adam's sin was passed to all men, and without him sinning, then what redemption would there be need for? There wouldn't have necessarily been any need for redemption. Through Adam all were made to be sinners, and so Christ made all free from sin by becoming sin for us. Romans 5:12 "Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned:"

And when you take into consideration what Jesus tells us about these concepts, then you could be able to understand the clear ramifications of Romans 5:12. Why have you chosen to ignore Jesus teachings on this subject?

dctalkexp...go back and look through your posts. You have not rebuked, or responded to any of the theological points that have been offered. Instead, you respond with nothing but unsubstantiated accusations and judgements: 'compromising God's Word', mocking God, not believing God's word, rejecting the truth, etc. You don't want to deal with the theology...you are just here to accuse and judge. I have asked you about several theological points...and you have responded with nothing but judgements. If you were here to 'rebuke', then you would do that...Your refusal to do that is quite telling.

Ironically, such an approach is clearly in violation of the scriptures that you claim to cherish. Despite everything you say, this is the best evidence of all that your motivations are not good. IOW, you like to talk a good Christian line, but not practice it (does that sound familiar).

Matthew 7:5
"You hypocrite, first take the log out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to take the speck out of your brother's eye.

You are so transparent lucaspa.

As any good Christian should be.

 

[Mike Flynn]

No it doesn't. http://www.answersingenesis.org/docs/1272.asp

AiG? You should find better sources. They are guided by one sigle principle: their own fallible assumptions about the Bible.

Matthew 15:14
"...they are blind guides of the blind. And if a blind man guides a blind man, both will fall into a pit."

Wait... no you are badly mistaken. Lucaspa is saying that Genesis doesn't mean what it says... that the world wasn't created as God says, but the way he and his fellow fallilbe men say. He is a Bible-compromiser at best, and a wolf in sheep's clothing at worst.

Did God intend the Genesis account as literal history in every detail? You have simply assumed as much. Jesus rebukes his disciples for considering death and life the way you do. IOW, your accusations are not only false, but they are dripping with hipocrasy.

When you say that God's word is wrong in how God created, and that you are right, that is trying to mock Him.

Is anyone mocking Shakespeare by assuming Hamlet was not historically accurate? Not if Shakespeare never intended the play to be a historical account the in the first place.

Genesis is historical. But we need to interpret it using the theology Jesus gives us in the NT. Your accusations of 'mocking God' with this approach are false. Thats what literalists like you often do: dodge any discussion of the theology and try to attack the character of other Christians instead.

It is not an insult, he is transparent. You fundy evolutionists love to handout insults and criticism, but are so senstive when criticism is given. Stop the hypocracy and point games, and start taking God's Word seriously.

Perhaps you should start taking God's Word seriously as well. You can start by not pretending that your interpretations of the Bible are infallible. Or do you really beleive that when you read the Bible you are infallible?

Despite what you have said, you are the one who is handing out accusations, insults, and false judgements on almost every single post. What's worse, you are judging the faith of others...something that you yourself have said that you should not do. And now you accuse others of being hipocritical?

Why don't you prove to us that you are not hipocritical and judgemental and get back to a civil discussion around the theology. Show us why you disregard Jesus teachings on life and death when you read Genesis. Show us why there was a tree of life in Eden, while Adam, Eve, and the animals were formed immortal.

IOW, show us that you are here to defend your interpretation of the theology without attacking the character of other Christians in the process. If you can do that, it would do more to show that the literalists engender true Christian values than anything else you have posted so far. Its simple...focus on the theology...not the personal attacks.

I'm not saying that I am not guilty of the same from time to time. I know that I am...and to some degree its an easy trap to fall into on forumls like these. But you should know your last few posts amount to nothing more than petty insults and faith judgements...what good fruit can they possibly bear? Do you really believe that this how Christians are called to witness?

 

[Risen Tree]

Just to get everyone caught up to speed on where I am on this process, and to let you know that I really meant what I said at first....

I just went through my primary reference guide that outlines the many "evidences" of YEC: The Evolution of a Creationist by Dr. Jobe Martin. Many of his "evidences," which range from mistaken evidence for evolution to "evidence" for a young earth, are listed and refuted here.

YEC effectively refuted, my next move is to take a look at the evidence for evolution. Per suggestions from this forum, I am starting to peruse talkorigin.org's "Must-Read Files." One that just caught my eye a few minutes ago was this paragraph that refers to a picture of a snake fetus with leg and arm buds! Snakes with arms and legs! Eat that, Adam & Eve!

The biggest remaining holdover that I have is the social implications of evolution. However, I am starting to realize that true Darwinism encourages cooperation, not "survival of the fittest"--a saying that Darwin never coined.

That's all for now. Stay tuned to your local forum for any updates.

 

[gaetan8888]

Hi

An old earth don't mean no God and creation, it's mean an old creation,
a 15 bilion year old universe are just a 15 billion years old creation by God...

If God use step by step evolution in it's creation that show a God using
a long and slow way to create the universe, to much arround us show the hand of a divine artist in the universe.

Bye

Gaetan

 

[USincognito]

Rising tree. Still inclining towards TH?

 

[Nathan Poe]

The biggest remaining holdover that I have is the social implications of evolution. However, I am starting to realize that true Darwinism encourages cooperation, not "survival of the fittest"--a saying that Darwin never coined.

It would be absurd to judge the accuracy of a scientific theory on its "social implications." Any idea, discovery, or invention can be twisted by people with their own agenda. That doesn't make the idea any less valid.

Wouldn't that be like rejecting the theory of gravity because of lynch mobs? After all, people can be hung and killed because "gravity" pulls them down...

That's all for now. Stay tuned to your local forum for any updates.

Looking forward to it...

 

[Ondoher]

to much arround us show the hand of a divine artist in the universe.

Can you be specific. Also, how can you tell the difference between something intellligently designed, and something coming about through natural processes?

 

[Dragar]

The biggest remaining holdover that I have is the social implications of evolution. However, I am starting to realize that true Darwinism encourages cooperation, not "survival of the fittest"--a saying that Darwin never coined.

Rising Tree, evolution is a statement of how the universe does work. It is not a statement of how we would best like it to work, nor is it a statment of how we should try to make it work.

I mean, theory of gravity tells us mass attracts mass. But that doesn't mean we should run around helping it along.

Dragar

 

[Jet Black]

whoo it smells of the dead in here. who has been digging up these ancient threads?

 

[Vinegar]

Just a couple of points on a tangent to the original question about mutation rates.
Firstly, mutations rates can be readily observed by comparing DNA samples of parents and offspring. This way, genetic "clocks" can be derived that tell you how many mutations are likely to occur over so many generations. This has been done with humans and chimpanzees. Human and chimp DNA is very similar (meaning that most of the genes - over 95% - in humans and chimps are identical). Winding back the DNA clock in each species to a time when the DNA of both species could, consistent with the known behaviour of DNA, have come from the same ancestor, yields a date of between 5 and 8 million years ago. This matches the date ranges (dated by multiple, consistent and reliable techniques) and physical structures of hominid fossils.

We can't be absolutely certain from such observations that humans and chimps evolved from a common ancestor - for that we would need preserved bodies or reliably certified birth records going back to whenever. But being reasonable, it appears likely.

Similarly, we cannot "prove absolutely" that most observed genetic differences within a population - the alleles (or variant genes) for hair colour, for example, originally derived from a single type of gene, but evidence to suggest this is the case for all alleles includes (a) observed mutations in some genes that have resulted in distinct physiological characteristics, (b) population distribution and patterns of migration that match with allele distribution. The conclusion that "evolution did it" is therefore reasonable and defensible, supported both by a demonstrable mechanism, and physical evidence.

Secondly, what turns out to be a "beneficial" mutation, and what turns out to be a "harmful" mutation, can be environmentally specific. A mutation that leads to death before an organism reaches reproductive age is not environmentally specific, because it would mean that such an individual would fail to reproduce in any environment. Such mutations are rare, because they are not directly heritable but depend upon a latent potentiality in the genome pool of a population.

Genetic mutations behind (for example) sickle-cell are environmentally specific, because they accord a slight advantage to a person born in a heavily malaria-prone area, but are relatively disadvantageous in an area that is free from or has little malaria. Provided than beneficial mutations are heritable, their frequency in a population will reflect their relative advantage against the alternative alleles.