Just for final clarification yes, we evolved from monkeys.

[mmksparbud]

You didn't answer his question. Why would God leave evidence that contradicts a literal interpretation of Genesis?

Yes, I did. Science has not caught up to God yet. He said He created light before He created the sun, everyone said that is against observable science, it therefore can not be a literal interpretation. Now science is changing it's mind about light. I take it you did not read the article, or you did not understand.

 

[bhsmte]

Yes, I did. Science has not caught up to God yet. He said He created light before He created the sun, everyone said that is against observable science, it therefore can not be a literal interpretation. Now science is changing it's mind about light. I take it you did not read the article, or you did not understand.

LOL

 

[mmksparbud]

LOL

My sentiments, exactly.

 

[bhsmte]

Two worlds, two different streams of evidence.

What about the evidence in this world? Did God create this world in your mind?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

He said He created light before He created the sun, everyone said that is against observable science, it therefore can not be a literal interpretation

It also says that plants were created before the sun as well.... Care to explain how plants performed photosynthesis without sunlight? It also says that there were just two humans on earth. Population genetics show that to be false.

Now science is changing it's mind about light. I take it you did not read the article, or you did not understand

Care to point out where in the article where it explains that they believe the creation account in Genesis is accurate?

 

[AV1611VET]

Care to explain how plants performed photosynthesis without sunlight?

Oooh! oooh! Can I? Can I?

 

[mmksparbud]

It also says that plants were created before the sun as well.... Care to explain how plants performed photosynthesis without sunlight? It also says that there were just two humans on earth. Population genetics show that to be false.

LOL---they're not going to die out over night!! The sun was the next day.
Population genetics show that there was no Adam and Eve? Ok---Whatever. Adam and Eve were crested perfect. They had no genetic flaws, neither did their children yet. Please do not tell me what that it was impossible for Adam and Eve to have brought about a bunch of people---I personally knew of 1 little Mexican lady that gave birth to 22 children--in about 35-40 years. With Adam and Eve, there was no struggle for food, like today, their were no floods or drought, great weather, plenty of food, no genetic flaws, perfect health---and several hundred years of giving birth. Let's see, 22 children in 35-40 years today---how many in about 800 years? In the meantime, their children would be producing children -- by the time Adam and Eve died, they were elbow deep in progeny!

Care to point out where in the article where it explains that they believe the creation account in Genesis is accurate?

Why would it day anything about Genesis??? It is an article about invisible light---that is all. It is about what scientists insisted could not be possible---it is about science gaining knowledge and now what was impossible, is now possible. God said He created light before He crested the sun, and there is no reason today, to not understand that it was not impossible.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

LOL---they're not going to die out over night!! The sun was the next day.

Ummmm, plants can't grow in the first place without sunlight. Unless you're going to appeal to magic. In which case....LOL!

Population genetics show that there was no Adam and Eve?

Yep, the lowest population for humans was between 3,000-10,000 during a population bottleneck. We've also traced genetics back to a mitochondrial Eve and a y-chromosome Adam. They weren't sexual partners and didn't during the same time or in the same place.

Ok---Whatever. Adam and Eve were crested perfect. They had no genetic flaws, neither did their children yet. Please do not tell me what that it was impossible for Adam and Eve to have brought about a bunch of people

Only two people on the planet would mean there is a lack of genetic diversity. It would just be inbreeding which would lead to genetic defects and eventually an extinct species.

With Adam and Eve, there was no struggle for food, like today, their were no floods or drought, great weather, plenty of food, no genetic flaws, perfect health

That is a lot of claims. Perhaps you'd like to support those claims with evidence?

It is an article about invisible light---that is all. It is about what scientists insisted could not be possible---it is about science gaining knowledge and now what was impossible, is now possible

That doesn't support the creation story in Genesis. You're trying to twist a study to make it mean what you want it to mean.

 

[mmksparbud]

Ummmm, plants can't grow in the first place without sunlight. Unless you're going to appeal to magic. In which case....LOL!



Yep, the lowest population for humans was between 3,000-10,000 during a population bottleneck. We've also traced genetics back to a mitochondrial Eve and a y-chromosome Adam. They weren't sexual partners and didn't during the same time or in the same place.



Only two people on the planet would mean there is a lack of genetic diversity. It would just be inbreeding which would lead to genetic defects and eventually an extinct species.



That is a lot of claims. Perhaps you'd like to support those claims with evidence?



That doesn't support the creation story in Genesis. You're trying to twist a study to make it mean what you want it to mean.

Like I said--it was only overnight--no big deal.

They have no way of finding out was preflood genetics--none, whatsoever. Adam and Eve were perfect, so were their offspring, no genetic flaws to pass down. Brothers and sisters marrying was not prohibited until the time of Moses by then there were genetic flaws to pass down. Adam and Eve were unigue--their genetic makeup was different from anyone else, they had in them all that was needed to bring about all the diversity required. They were created, they did not aquire a genetic code from parents, they had none, they were given the genetic code to produce diversity.
I'm not trying to twist anything. It is obvious that what scientistists thought was impossible about light, is totally different now. They can't even figure out what actually is happening now. You're an atheist--you're not going to think along the lines of a Supreme Creator so there is no way to have a discussion about something you can not believe in. All I am doing is giving you reason for my belive. If you're asking for proof, you're not going to get it. It's impossible to provide proof about anything that happened before the flood, anyway. It is called faith and you will not be able to comprehend it. It makes as much sense to you as a fish and gorilla being my ancestor does to me.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

They have no way of finding out was preflood genetics--none, whatsoever

There was never a global flood. All of the geologic evidence demonstrates this.

Adam and Eve were perfect, so were their offspring, no genetic flaws to pass down. Brothers and sisters marrying was not prohibited until the time of Moses by then there were genetic flaws to pass down. Adam and Eve were unigue--their genetic makeup was different from anyone else, they had in them all that was needed to bring about all the diversity required. They were created, they did not aquire a genetic code from parents, they had none, they were given the genetic code to produce diversity

Please provide evidence for your claims. Just saying these things don't make them true.

I'm not trying to twist anything. It is obvious that what scientistists thought was impossible about light, is totally different now. They can't even figure out what actually is happening now

How does this support the creation story?

If you're asking for proof, you're not going to get it. It's impossible to provide proof about anything that happened before the flood, anyway

Then why should I believe you? We know for certain that there was never a global flood.

It is called faith and you will not be able to comprehend it.

I comprehend it just fine. Faith is believing things without evidence. That isn't a good reason to believe something.

It makes as much sense to you as a fish and gorilla being my ancestor does to me.

Well we have an overwhelming amount of evidence for common ancestry.
99.9% of endogenous retrovirus insertions in the human genome insert in the exact same place in the chimpanzee genome. Shared ERVs also fall into a nested hierarchy. This is only possible if we share a common ancestor. There, I provided evidence for my claims. Can you do the same for yours?

 

[rjs330]

No, you don't. You deny God's creation and what it tells us.



Science is how we understand God's creation. The reason it tells a different story than your literal interpretation of Genesis is because a literal interpretation of Genesis is not supported by the evidence. Period.



Fewer times in the last 100 years than dishonest professional Creationists have been caught lying in the past 10 years.



Indeed. And God's creation isn't lying about deep time and evolution.

Man has made up evolution not God. God says evolution didn't happen. I believe him,over some men who want to believe they,are so intelligent,they can,ignore what God declared. God's creation does not lie. Men do and thus can't be trusted to properly understand his creation.

 

[Speedwell]

Man has made up evolution not God. God says evolution didn't happen. I believe him,over some men who want to believe they,are so intelligent,they can,ignore what God declared. God's creation does not lie. Men do and thus can't be trusted to properly understand his creation.

Suppose you did manage to disprove the theory of evolution? What do you think it would get you?

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

Man has made up evolution not God

The foundation of biology is supported by an abundance of evidence from several scientific disciplines. It isn't made up. It is one of the most tested theories in all of science.

God says evolution didn't happen.

Men wrote the bible. Genesis is exactly what i'd expect to be written in a primitive culture as they had no knowledge of biology. People also used to think that diseases were plagues sent by God. We now have the germ theory of disease...do you reject that also?

 

[bhsmte]

Man has made up evolution not God. God says evolution didn't happen. I believe him,over some men who want to believe they,are so intelligent,they can,ignore what God declared. God's creation does not lie. Men do and thus can't be trusted to properly understand his creation.

Man wrote all those bible stories as well.

 

[rjs330]

Suppose you did manage to disprove the theory of evolution? What do you think it would get you?

Further along with people who believe such nonsense now. Disproving evolution would turn science on its head and show once again how flawed man's ways are and how right God is. I don't know if it would change many hard hearts, but I think it would change a few who had softer hearts. The seed and the sower comes to,mind. If it means just one more soul saved that would be awesome.

As we know from scripture there will be many who refuse to believe and will,curse God in the last days even though they believe in his existence.

 

[rjs330]

The foundation of biology is supported by an abundance of evidence from several scientific disciplines. It isn't made up. It is one of the most tested theories in all of science.



Men wrote the bible. Genesis is exactly what i'd expect to be written in a primitive culture as they had no knowledge of biology. People also used to think that diseases were plagues sent by God. We now have the germ theory of disease...do you reject that also?

It may be tested but evolution as presented has never been proven by the testing. The evidence is nothing more than "we believe this shows evolution" but none of it can be shown to actually be evolution as presented of all,things coming from a common ancestor.

 

[bhsmte]

Further along with people who believe such nonsense now. Disproving evolution would turn science on its head and show once again how flawed man's ways are and how right God is. I don't know if it would change many hard hearts, but I think it would change a few who had softer hearts. The seed and the sower comes to,mind. If it means just one more soul saved that would be awesome.

As we know from scripture there will be many who refuse to believe and will,curse God in the last days even though they believe in his existence.

150 years later and evolution just keeps getting stronger as a theory. DNA, was really the final nail in the coffin, so you can keep denying, but well evidenced reality is still there.

 

[Speedwell]

Further along with people who believe such nonsense now. Disproving evolution would turn science on its head and show once again how flawed man's ways are and how right God is. I don't know if it would change many hard hearts, but I think it would change a few who had softer hearts. The seed and the sower comes to,mind. If it means just one more soul saved that would be awesome.

As we know from scripture there will be many who refuse to believe and will,curse God in the last days even though they believe in his existence.

If the theory of evolution was overturned, science would just start looking for another theory. The paradigm shift would be tremendous, on a par with the shift that occurred when Newton's theory was overturned by Einstein; it does happen from time to time in science, but science marches on.

But proving evolution wrong wouldn't prove your Bible doctrine right. People who reject it now do so largely for reasons having nothing to do with evolution. Take the Oriental churches (Copts, Armenians, etc.) for example. They generally have no use for evolution, but they have no use for your Bible doctrine, either. Do you really think they would take it up just because evolution was shown to be false?

And you would still have the age of the Cosmos to deal with.

 

[JonFromMinnesota]

It may be tested but evolution as presented has never been proven by the testing

Science doesn't deal in proof. It deals in evidence. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. DNA slammed the door shut on any doubt. But you can keep denying it all you want. The evidence won't magically disappear.

The evidence is nothing more than "we believe this shows evolution"

Ummm no. The evidence demonstrates exactly what we'd expect if evolution is true. Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. Taxonomic groups fit perfectly and completely inside other taxonomic groups. Exactly what we should expect to see when we examine the evidence.

but none of it can be shown to actually be evolution as presented of all,things coming from a common ancestor

DNA evidence demonstrates overwhelming evidence of a common ancestor. Shared ERVs among species only makes sense if we share a common ancestor.

Disproving evolution would turn science on its head and show once again how flawed man's ways are and how right God is

False dichotomy. Overturning evolution would not demonstrate Genesis to be true. Both would be wrong.

 

[rjs330]

Science doesn't deal in proof. It deals in evidence. The evidence for evolution is overwhelming. DNA slammed the door shut on any doubt. But you can keep denying it all you want. The evidence won't magically disappear.



Ummm no. The evidence demonstrates exactly what we'd expect if evolution is true. Evolution predicts a nested hierarchy. Taxonomic groups fit perfectly and completely inside other taxonomic groups. Exactly what we should expect to see when we examine the evidence.



DNA evidence demonstrates overwhelming evidence of a common ancestor. Shared ERVs among species only makes sense if we share a common ancestor.



False dichotomy. Overturning evolution would not demonstrate Genesis to be true. Both would be wrong.

Evidence of what. Since science doesn't prove anything then how can thecdood slam shut on anything. Evidence then is only good for something you believe to be true, but since it can't be proven it still is only a belief system. Nothing can slam shut you can't definitively say anything after all you have no proof. Its wishful thinking based upon things you want to believe is evidence of something that cannot be proven.

What was a spider before it was a spider?