Oldest rock in the world 2 days after creation (embedded age)

[AV1611VET]

It appears that you are not aware of what blasphemy is. To say your post was "empty" i.e. divisive, is not expressing disrespect for God. No one here, which includes me, was suggesting that "Adam is or was a mutant copy-error, made in the image and likeness of God.

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

According to evolution, Adam was a mutant copy error, made in the image and likeness of God.

Do you deny that?

Before you answer, qv this paragraph, from AI Overview:

Yes, in a sense, humans can be considered "mutant copy errors" because genetic mutations, which are essentially copying errors in DNA during replication, are a natural part of human evolution and occur in every individual, although most are harmless and some can even be beneficial, contributing to genetic diversity; however, it's important to remember that not all mutations are harmful and the term "mutant" is often used more dramatically than scientifically.

 

[truthpls]

You asked for my interpretation. I was not aware that you wanted a debate. Why debate? neither one of us is going to changer our understanding of the Bible.

There is no disagreement that Jesus is the creator of all things and the source of life.

What is your point?

Yes there is total disagreement. Either Jesus made all things including Adam and Eve, or not.

Whether science and the Bible contradict each other depends on how science and the Bible are interpreted.

Not at all. There is no other way to interpret the origin models of science except as diametrically opposed to the truth. As for the bible, creation is not subject to interpretation. He made all things and that is clear all over the bible. To claim stars or people or the warth came as a result of cosmic dust or blah blah is absolutely against the bible itself.

As I noted in several previous posts Christians, in general, do not consider science to be anti-Christian.

Me either. False science that deals with where we came from is though. Regardless of what anyone 'considers'

If true, you should be able understand how other Christians feel about your denominational interpretation of the Bible.

God did not ask us to vote whether He is a liar or not.

You are preaching to a fellow Christian who is of a different denomination than yours yet believes God created the universe and everything in it including the Earth. I posted similarly 3 or 4 times, perhaps more.

Great. So you do not accept the lies of science on the issue.

Your opinions come across as too provincial. There are millions of Christian scientists, notably, Francis Collins, a former director of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and leader of the Human Genome Project, identifies as an evangelical Christian.

So? I don't care if he identifies as a cat!

You are making an empty agreement which you appear to have realized.

The fact is that creation is all though the bible and that the natural only science methods used to cast doubt on it are wrong and baseless and half of the equation based.

 

[truthpls]

Please respect the fact that scientists, just like any other group of people, hold a wide range of religious beliefs, spanning from devoutly religious to staunchly atheist, and encompass all points in between; ..

And regardless of any stated other faith they all adhere to the natural only based beliefs of science. Reminds me of the guy in the old testament that wanted to worship in God's temple, and also a temple to an idol as well.
God says 'choose ye this day'. If the natural only is god, then worship it.

 

[Frank Robert]

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

According to evolution, Adam was a mutant copy error, made in the image and likeness of God.

Do you deny that?

Before you answer, qv this paragraph, from AI Overview:

Yes, in a sense, humans can be considered "mutant copy errors" because genetic mutations, which are essentially copying errors in DNA during replication, are a natural part of human evolution and occur in every individual, although most are harmless and some can even be beneficial, contributing to genetic diversity; however, it's important to remember that not all mutations are harmful and the term "mutant" is often used more dramatically than scientifically.

Appears you are going from the specific to the general. All of us have mutant copy errors.

Have you read the The Genealogical Adam and Eve by S. Joshua Swamidass? Dr. Swamidass is a Christian scientist? His book outlines how we can all be decedents of Adam and Eve.

 

[AV1611VET]

Appears you are going from the specific to the general. All of us have mutant copy errors.

Have you read the The Genealogical Adam and Eve by S. Joshua Swamidass? Dr. Swamidass is a Christian scientist? His book outlines how we can all be decedents of Adam and Eve.

I specifically mentioned Adam, because he was created on the earth without any mutations or copy errors; and also because God said He made Adam in His image and likeness.

Yes, his descendants are considered mutant copy errors in evolution theory; but evolution theory doesn't apply to Adam or Eve.

 

[AV1611VET]

Have you read the The Genealogical Adam and Eve by S. Joshua Swamidass? Dr. Swamidass is a Christian scientist? His book outlines how we can all be decedents of Adam and Eve.

No, I haven't.

 

[Frank Robert]

And regardless of any stated other faith they all adhere to the natural only based beliefs of science.

First, lets take all out of your claim.

There are many Christian scientists who accept the science of a natural world while also believing God was the first cause. They believe God created the process of evolution, allowing the natural world to develop according to scientific principles while maintaining a belief in a divine creator.

Before you object, think about the multitude of Christian denominations that hold similar views.

Reminds me of the guy in the old testament that wanted to worship in God's temple, and also a temple to an idol as well.
God says 'choose ye this day'. If the natural only is god, then worship it.

Sounds like you are claiming that Christians can only worship God in the temples of your denomination.

It also appears that you are married to the idea that the only people worthy of claiming themselves Christians are limited to your peculiar denominational beliefs.

Just for record. There are no such thing as "beliefs" in science that are in way similar to religious beliefs. If you have taken a science course in HS you should have learned that scientific knowledge is not absolute or final, but rather is subject to change and refinement based on new evidence.

 

[Frank Robert]

I specifically mentioned Adam, because he was created on the earth without any mutations or copy errors; and also because God said He made Adam in His image and likeness.

Yes, his descendants are considered mutant copy errors in evolution theory; but evolution theory doesn't apply to Adam or Eve.

That is a religious belief which is likely shared by some Christian scientists.

 

[AV1611VET]

That is a religious belief which is likely shared by some Christian scientists.

I know.

And no matter who shares it, it smacks of blasphemy.

Adam was the first man on earth, and until Christian scientists acknowledge that and drop their y-Adam and mtDNA Eve bologna, they'll never understand the implications of their doctrine.

 

[truthpls]

First, lets take all out of your claim.

There are many Christian scientists who accept the science of a natural world while also believing God was the first cause.

The issue is not whether we believe in the obvious-the natural world. The issue is whether we toss the bible and Jesus's words out about how He is the creator or not. The natural world does not lead anyone to believe God is not the creator. Erasing God and using ONLY the natural processes in the natural world is what the problem is. That is about like saying 'my toenail grows, so the universe must have been self created, and man must have monkey ancestors' When questioned about this, they indignantly yell at us that they accept the natural world and their toenails really did grow measurably etc.

Having a natural world along with it's workings and processes doe not mean there is nothing else, or that this alone can and does tell us where the universe and man came from.

They believe God created the process of evolution, allowing the natural world to develop according to scientific principles while maintaining a belief in a divine creator.

Any process that exists does not tell us about creation! No more than the growing toe nails did. If Adam evolved during his 9000 plus year lifetime, to have, say, some darker skin, and more tolerance for a colder climate etc..so what?? If moths at the time changed colors over several generations so what? That does not even relate to the issue of how creation happened, when it happened or if it happened!

Before you object, think about the multitude of Christian denominations that hold similar views.

That has no weight for me at all. No more than 10,000 flies circling some brown stuff means the stuff must be good.

Sounds like you are claiming that Christians can only worship God in the temples of your denomination.

Only in His temple. Or, in the case of Scripture, believing it or go elsewhere. We do not get to say, Jesus never really created all things as it says, but I want to be seen as a bible believer as well as my other belief systems, so I will lay a claim to believing some of the rest of Scrupture, as it suits me

It also appears that you are married to the idea that the only people worthy of claiming themselves Christians are limited to your peculiar denominational beliefs.

I have no denomination and creation in Scripture is married to Scripture.

Just for record. There are no such thing as "beliefs" in science that are in way similar to religious beliefs.

Yes when all we use is the natural and we are trying to use it to tell us where man came from, or the world, that is belief. The belief in not that there IS a natural world, but that the natural is all that is needed to tell us how we were created.

If you have taken a science course in HS you should have learned that scientific knowledge is not absolute or final, but rather is subject to change and refinement based on new evidence.

Firstly, what they say about themselves is not important. The fruit growing on the tree tells us what tree it is.

 

[BCP1928]

You can't have your cake and eat it too.

According to evolution, Adam was a mutant copy error, made in the image and likeness of God.

Do you deny that?

Before you answer, qv this paragraph, from AI Overview:

Yes, in a sense, humans can be considered "mutant copy errors" because genetic mutations, which are essentially copying errors in DNA during replication, are a natural part of human evolution and occur in every individual, although most are harmless and some can even be beneficial, contributing to genetic diversity; however, it's important to remember that not all mutations are harmful and the term "mutant" is often used more dramatically than scientifically.

What you call "mutant copy errors" can also be seen as a process of perfecting the genome.

 

[BCP1928]

I have no denomination and creation in Scripture is married to Scripture.

Do you worship in a church with other people?

 

[truthpls]

Do you worship in a church with other people?

If I was in one, sure, why not?

 

[BCP1928]

If I was in one, sure, why not?

Have you ever been in one?

 

[AV1611VET]

What you call "mutant copy errors" can also be seen as a process of perfecting the genome.

Adam's genomes didn't need perfecting.

As God put it ...

Genesis 1:31a And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

 

[truthpls]

Have you ever been in one?

Yes. But even though your argument failed, there is no need to be personal

 

[BCP1928]

Adam's genomes didn't need perfecting.

As God put it ...

Genesis 1:31a And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good.

I was speaking from the point of view of a person, say a theistic evolutionists, who believes that Adam, the first man, came to be as the result of the gradual perfection of the genome. You seem to want Adam to have been proofed into existence instantaneously, but that is not even the way the Bible describes it.

 

[Frank Robert]

I specifically mentioned Adam, because he was created on the earth without any mutations or copy errors; and also because God said He made Adam in His image and likeness.

Yes he could have.

Yes, his descendants are considered mutant copy errors in evolution theory; but evolution theory doesn't apply to Adam or Eve.

Seem like creationists have found a new phrase to play with. (I know it may be late to say it but let the games begin.

Let's assume your are correct about A&E. I have some questions:

What particular "mutant copy errors" did they not receive?​

Where do we find such a theory in Genesis?​

Did God create A&E ex nihilo​

If you take 2-3 seconds to look it up, this what you will find:​

​

the concept of "mutant copy errors" isn't explicitly mentioned in the Genesis creation story, as it presents a different view of how life originated, with no mention of genetic mutations or evolutionary processes.

​

Not only is it not in Genesis but Genesis gives a completely different view of how life originated. Source...

​

I specifically mentioned Adam, because he was created on the earth without any mutations or copy errors; and also because God said He made Adam in His image and likeness.

Yes, his descendants are considered mutant copy errors in evolution theory; but evolution theory doesn't apply to Adam or Eve.

It just struck me:. You may not realize it but we may be on the same page. I proposed a "a genealogical a and e" who God created and who we all decedent from. This would have eliminated any mutant errors. Please note, I didn't make this concept up. It came from a published book by S. Joshua Swamidass, who is a Christian scientist. You can read a review of book here....

 

[Frank Robert]

The issue is not whether we believe in the obvious-the natural world. The issue is whether we toss the bible and Jesus's words out about how He is the creator or not.

My major, major problem with fundamentalists is they are stuck solidly in a particular interpretation of the Bible that is meant to eliminate any reading of the Bible that they do not agree with.

The natural world does not lead anyone to believe God is not the creator.

Agree.

Erasing God and using ONLY the natural processes in the natural world is what the problem is. That is about like saying 'my toenail grows, so the universe must have been self created, and man must have monkey ancestors' When questioned about this, they indignantly yell at us that they accept the natural world and their toenails really did grow measurably etc.

There are a range of people's beliefs go from devote Christians to atheists and agnostics and former Christians who are now atheists or agnostic and to atheists/agnostics who are now Christian

There is also a range of Christians from scientifically knowledgeable to Christians who believe science to be evil.

 

[BCP1928]

Yes. But even though your argument failed, there is no need to be personal

No, I'm just interested. Christianity allows for a wide range of religious beliefs, some of them quite eccentric, and it is interesting to learn about their origins. AV recently posted some links about how his beliefs developed and some of the major contributers to them. I thought you might do the same.