Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[Speedwell]

Well you didn't answer my lie question, but never mind.

Umm... I don't think they've existed for 2000 years as a church. But that aside. It doesn't matter a wit what they believe. Their belief is wrong. There is no reason to disbelieve in the literal, inerrancy, perspicuity etc etc inspiration. All these words came about from by erroneous teaching. As soon as church doctrines started saying we believe in inspiration but not the inspiration of the text, then verbal inspiration was born as a description to counter that teaching. Then some churches said that not all parts of the bible were inspired and so verbal, plenary inspiration was became a description to counter that belief. Its all so ridiculous.

Like I have said, "what does the bible say." It says what it says, it's truthful in what it says and there is NO REASON to believe otherwise. If the Orthodox Russian Church wants to believe that Genesis is not literal, then they are entitled to believe that, but to do so they have to disbelieve what the bible says.

One of the reasons that I like that essay is that it pretty much reflects my own feelings on the matter and what the church has taught since well before Darwin (2000 years may not be too much of an exaggeration; much of it can be found in the writings of the Fathers; that's what the author of the essay meant by "a Patristic understanding of scripture.") but if that's your story, you had better stick to it.
Sunday as usual I went to the weekly meeting of my Christ-denying Bible haters club. As I sat there I was moved to offer up a prayer of thanksgiving--not like the Pharisee because I am better than you (because I am not) but because by the Grace of God I have been spared the onerous burden you have to bear. Good luck with it.

 

[mmksparbud]

It means one species doesn't give birth to another species. That would falsify evolution. It takes place in populations over time. Let me offer an example.

You have a population of brown furred bears. Their environment now becomes snowy, but some of the offspring has a random genetic mutation that makes their fur white. This mutation puts them at an advantage when it comes to hunting food. The bears with the white fur survive to reproduce and pass this mutation onto their offspring. The brown furred bears either go extinct or they split off into a different environment. You now have an entire population of white furred bears. These changes happen over and over and over and over and over and over and over again throughout populations of species. That is how you end up with the diversity of life we see today.

And it starts with the one, individual bear.
If one species could not give birth to another in evolution, you would not be able to go from a fish to an ape.
See, we believe when God said to reproduce after it's kind, that made the dog/pig an impossibility. It does in no way mean they can not diversify within their own kind-----so you have a Great Dane and a Chihuahua---and if only Chihuahuas mate, eventually that is all you get. But at any time a Great Dane and a Chihuahua could mate and produce offspring---however, it would be best for the female to be a Great Dane and the Chihuahua a male---with a ladder.
This kind of diversity can take place very rapidly as any dog breeder will tell you. When I was a kid, it was different. It was if there ever was a dog/pig that it would prove evolution, not disprove it. Somewhere along the line, it flipped.
There is crossbreeding of same kinds,--like the Liger (tiger/lion) and many, many others. Some can reproduce others can not--like mules can not. That is why Noah didn't have to have all that many different kinds of animals, only wolves for dogs and so on.

 

[mmksparbud]

What we were trying to clear up is the common creationist misapprehension that an individual creature can change during its lifetime to become something else.

No, we don't believe that either---except, of course, for caterpillars that turn into butterflies.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Maybe you can clarify for me. How does that image show a common ancestor?

It's a phylogentic tree for spiders. The Araneae order has 35,000 different species of spiders with seventy different families. All those branches lead back to a common ancestor.

We don't believe that an individual creature can change during its lifetime to become something else.

Glad you cleared that up. Evolution doesn't state this either.

Because a common ancestor was 1 thing at 1 point in its life and slowly evolved into the millions or billions of things that have ever lived on this planet

Do you agree that species change over time with random genetic mutations within its population and those with the beneficial mutations are better suited to reproduce and pass down those mutations to its offspring? If so, what is the mechanism that stops these changes from happening in populations of species branching off from eachother?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

If one species could not give birth to another in evolution, you would not be able to go from a fish to an ape.

This is not how evolution works. You have no idea what you're talking about.

See, we believe when God said to reproduce after it's kind, that made the dog/pig an impossibility

What is a kind? Can you define it? No biologist uses this term. Is these the same kind?

It does in no way mean they can not diversify within their own kind-----so you have a Great Dane and a Chihuahua---and if only Chihuahuas mate, eventually that is all you get.

All dogs share a common ancestor with the grey wolf. We get our different breeds of dogs from artificial selection. Humans domesticated dogs and chose for the most desirable traits. Eventually you get all of the different breeds we see today.

When I was a kid, it was different. It was if there ever was a dog/pig that it would prove evolution, not disprove it

Whoever taught you that either doesn't know what they're talking about or is intentionally building a strawman to make evolution sound ridiculous. A pig is from the genus Sus and apart of the Suidae family. Its closely related to the wild boar along with other species outside the genus like the warthog. If you got a pig/dog it would falsify evolution as that is not what evolution predicts. You should really get yourself into a biology course.

 

[Astrophile]

If you have not read the article then there is nothing to talk about---besides---how can faith in God and His word be debated with an atheist? What is there to say--Yes He is---No He isn't........without end. You can not convince me, and there is nothing I can say to convince you. God can only be understood by those who experience Him, without that---there is nothing to relate to.

I am doubtful about replying to these posts about the cosmic UV background because they have nothing to do with human evolution. However, I think that you have misunderstood what the paper is about.

First, the UV background flux at high redshifts (z = 2-4) derived from the properties of the Lyman-alpha forest is in good agreement with the flux predicted from the known UV sources. It is only at low redshifts (z = 0.1) that there is a UV excess. A redshift z = 0.1 corresponds to a look-back time of about 1.4 billion years, less than the age of the Sun (4.57 billion years) and the Earth, and very much less than the age of the oldest known stars (about 13 billion years). Therefore this excess UV flux is not due to light that existed before the formation of the first stars. Moreover, the agreement between the observed and predicted UV fluxes at high redshifts implies that that there was no UV excess before the first stars were formed.

Second, the authors suggest that this low-redshift UV excess could be produced by a population of low-luminosity active galactic nuclei or by core helium-burning stars (horizontal branch stars) or post-AGB stars in early-type galaxies. These are only hypotheses at present, but if they are correct, the UV excess would be due to known sources, and, in part, to known populations of stars. If so, the UV excess would certainly not be evidence of a light source that existed before the formation of stars.

 

[SteveB28]

Us creationists follow along very well. We don't believe that an individual creature can change during its lifetime to become something else. We don't think evolution is some cartoonish metamorphosis or anything silly like that. We do not agree that we all came from a common ancestor. Because a common ancestor was 1 thing at 1 point in its life and slowly evolved into the millions or billions of things that have ever lived on this planet. We utterly reject that because God says he did not do it that way. He created all living things as what they are: a spider, a bird, a lizard, a monkey and a human. These creatures may "evolve" because of environment or a need to survive such as a bear "evolving" a white coat instead of a brown one or a fish developing a mechanism to live in a certain environment. But it was always a fish and the bear was always a bear from the beginning. It was never anything else and never will be anything else.

So, to be clear, you do not accept that life could have commenced with a single cell which then, over time, was able to develop and modify and become more complex, finally reaching the point of a modern human, is that right?





.

 

[bhsmte]

So, to be clear, you do not accept that life could have commenced with a single cell which then, over time, was able to develop and modify and become more complex, finally reaching the point of a modern human, is that right?





.

It appears his world would come crumbling down, so no, he can't accept it.

 

[pat34lee]

What is a kind? Can you define it? No biologist uses this term. Is these the same kind?

Scientists made up their own terms. That doesn't make other
terms wrong or bad. Species is no more exact than kind.

If you go by the way that 'kind' is used in the bible, it would
mean the parent and all genetic offspring of a certain animal.
Take dog for instance. The kind would be dog, or canine, and
include every breed that came from the originals, whether or
not they can still interbreed with other breeds or the original.
Dogs will always produce dogs, and nothing else.
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/variety-within-created-kinds/

 

[mmksparbud]

What is a kind? Can you define it? No biologist uses this term. Is these the same kind?

Yes, those are the same kind---they are both felines, my little kitty and the tiger sre both felines---all horse types are equines and so on.

This is not how evolution works. You have no idea what you're talking about.

That is what I said. However, that is what I was taught, some little cell developed into a fish, eventually developed legs and went on land and eventually became an ape which eventually became a man----how that is not changing from one species to another is beyond me.

Whoever taught you that either doesn't know what they're talking about or is intentionally building a strawman to make evolution sound ridiculous. A pig is from the genus Sus and apart of the Suidae family. Its closely related to the wild boar along with other species outside the genus like the warthog. If you got a pig/dog it would falsify evolution as that is not what evolution predicts. You should really get yourself into a biology course.

I don't know how old you are. I am 65 and that is what evolution was when I was a kid. We came from fish which turned into apes--over millions and miilions of years. Things chsnge, science changes, knowledge chsnges. I was a dialysis tech for 20 years, every 5 years we got a new machine to learn. What I first learned on they don't even make any more. No, I doo nlt widh go and find out what the new theories are, thank you. I'll stick to we are made in the image of God, and this ain't it.

 

[pat34lee]

So, to be clear, you do not accept that life could have commenced with a single cell which then, over time, was able to develop and modify and become more complex, finally reaching the point of a modern human, is that right?

The funny thing is that those who believe in a single molecule
billions of years ago becoming us tend to make fun of those who
believe that we came from 2 people with perfect genes only six
thousand years ago, and then a small group with nearly perfect
genes four thousand years ago.

 

[SteveB28]

Yes, those are the same kind---they are both felines, my little kitty and the tiger sre both felines---all horse types are equines and so on.



That is what I said. However, that is what I was taught, some little cell developed into a fish, eventually developed legs and went on land and eventually became an ape which eventually became a man----how that is not changing from one species to another is beyond me.



I don't know how old you are. I am 65 and that is what evolution was when I was a kid. We came from fish which turned into apes--over millions and miilions of years. Things chsnge, science changes, knowledge chsnges. I was a dialysis tech for 20 years, every 5 years we got a new machine to learn. What I first learned on they don't even make any more. No, I doo nlt widh go and find out what the new theories are, thank you. I'll stick to we are made in the image of God, and this ain't it.View attachment 182950

Nonsense. I am 87 years old, and evolution has NEVER been explained in those crude terms in my lifetime.




.

 

[SteveB28]

The funny thing is that those who believe in a single molecule
billions of years ago becoming us tend to make fun of those who
believe that we came from 2 people with perfect genes only six
thousand years ago, and then a small group with nearly perfect
genes four thousand years ago.

I didn't ask about molecules. I asked about his view of a single CELL eventually developing into a modern human being.





.

 

[SteveB28]

Scientists made up their own terms. That doesn't make other
terms wrong or bad. Species is no more exact than kind.

If you go by the way that 'kind' is used in the bible, it would
mean the parent and all genetic offspring of a certain animal.
Take dog for instance. The kind would be dog, or canine, and
include every breed that came from the originals, whether or
not they can still interbreed with other breeds or the original.
Dogs will always produce dogs, and nothing else.
https://answersingenesis.org/creation-science/baraminology/variety-within-created-kinds/

What "kind" is a koala? A platypus? A scorpion? A centipede?

 

[mmksparbud]

Nonsense. I am 87 years old, and evolution has NEVER been explained in those crude terms in my lifetime.

.

Well, what can I say----they were not consistent, I guess! 'cause that is what I got--complete with a little chart from sludge to cell to fish to land creature to ape to man.

This isn't very clear as the one I had

 

[rjs330]

One of the reasons that I like that essay is that it pretty much reflects my own feelings on the matter and what the church has taught since well before Darwin (2000 years may not be too much of an exaggeration; much of it can be found in the writings of the Fathers; that's what the author of the essay meant by "a Patristic understanding of scripture.") but if that's your story, you had better stick to it.
Sunday as usual I went to the weekly meeting of my Christ-denying Bible haters club. As I sat there I was moved to offer up a prayer of thanksgiving--not like the Pharisee because I am better than you (because I am not) but because by the Grace of God I have been spared the onerous burden you have to bear. Good luck with it.

Im not sure why you had to go there. I did say I look forward,to meeting you in heaven so I certainly don't think you,deny Christ. And I don't think I'm better than you. You claim I'm wrong to believe that Genesis is literal and I state you are wrong to believe it's not. I don't know what onerous burden you refer to but I carry plenty of burdens. I don't think you hate the bible, you don't believe the literacy of it. There's a difference. To me it's,much more freeing to believe what it says than to disbelieve and fall back on man's uninspired writings,to try and justify why not.

 

[rjs330]

It's a phylogentic tree for spiders. The Araneae order has 35,000 different species of spiders with seventy different families. All those branches lead back to a common ancestor.



Glad you cleared that up. Evolution doesn't state this either.



Do you agree that species change over time with random genetic mutations within its population and those with the beneficial mutations are better suited to reproduce and pass down those mutations to its offspring? If so, what is the mechanism that stops these changes from happening in populations of species branching off from eachother?

The common ancestor of a spider is not the same common ancestor of us. And how do you know there was one common ancestor of spiders. Could there not have been a,lot of spiders in the beginning? How do you know there was only one type way back when?

 

[Astrophile]

I have no idea what SN 1987A is.

Briefly, SN 1987A was a supernova that exploded in the Large Magellanic Cloud in February 1987. It was the brightest supernova observed since the invention of telescopes, and the only one known to have appeared in the LMC. I can tell you more about it if you like, but I want to keep this short, and this is not the right thread for a discussion about supernovae.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Yes, those are the same kind---they are both felines, my little kitty and the tiger sre both felines---all horse types are equines and so on

But they can't interbreed and are not the same species. They are closely related though and share a common ancestor.

However, that is what I was taught, some little cell developed into a fish, eventually developed legs and went on land and eventually became an ape which eventually became a man

Were you taught the mechanisms of how populations of species change over time? Are you under the impression that an ape like species gave birth to a human? Just answer yes or no, I want to see what your understanding of it is.

how that is not changing from one species to another is beyond me.

Do you understand what it means when I say that evolution takes place in populations and not individuals? If you are confused, ask a question.

I don't know how old you are. I am 65 and that is what evolution was when I was a kid

Whoever taught you had no idea what they were talking about. Or had a religious agenda and intentionally beat a strawman to make it sound ridiculous to you. Or you just didn't comprehend it. I don't know. I wasn't in your class.

 

[pat34lee]

I didn't ask about molecules. I asked about his view of a single CELL eventually developing into a modern human being.

Be glad I didn't choose rocks or hydrogen, both of which are
supposedly our direct ancestors also.