Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
It’s the same evolutionary PR
Are you as sure of this as you are of your claims about genetics?But Jesus spoke Hebrew, not English.
Kind of you, and unusual for a creationist. But the truth is, that there are a variety of interpretations of Genesis held to by different Christian groups and they all lead to the faith position you outline above. In fact, it is for all practical purposes the same as that contained in the Nicene Creed, which is a statement of belief adhered to by close to two billion Christians around the world--most of whom reject your interpretation of Genesis. Personally, I don't care what creationists believe about the Bible, any more than I care that Seventh-Day Adventists don't eat meat or that Mormons wear special underclothing. I do care about the hostility and bumptiousness which seems an ill fit with the message of the Gospel.If you have faith in Christ who was God the Son manifest in the flesh, who died on the cross for your sins, and believe He rose bodily from the grave on the third day... then I absolutely regard you as a fellow Christian and a brother. But I'm still going to love my brother and tell him the truth when I have to.
Jesus spoke Aramaic as His native language and undoubtedly Koine Greek as well. He may have spoken Hebrew, though it was rapidly becoming a dead language; as a Torah scholar He could at least read it.But Jesus spoke Hebrew, not English.
Why yes, three of them are interbreeding so profusely, they term it merging into one. That they havent yet, officially recognized it as a new one is understandable, being they’ll first argue amongst themselves for years, before finally declaring a new species.
But remember, every single one of those “claimed” species, is no longer the same as what Darwin originally recorded, because of interbreeding.
I’m not sure if you can distinguish the subtlety, but I’ll try. Africans have not inbred for multiple specific traits like we have with dogs. So when an African and Asian mate the difference in offspring is more subtle, but still distinct. Not like dogs which have repeatedly been bred for specific traits. So that when Mastiff and Husky mate, the difference is more dramatic. Each one contains less overall variability.
The same with finches, man has not interfered, so like all animals subspecies tend to mate only within the same subspecies for survival reasons. So when they do interbreed, the differences are also less dramatic.
But why are you asking, read the grants paper yourself.
Or the others where they too observed it right before their eyes. Granted they are simply confused about species and subspecies, but since you asked.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolibrary/news/100201_speciation
But let’s notice with those finches it required a different subspecies to make it happen....
The above seems a very "classical" way of viewing the universe, but may not apply based on what we know these days.
1) Laws in physics have specific scope in which they apply. They aren't necessarily universal in scope. For example, Newtonian physics break down at the quantum level; consequently, if the universe began as a singularity then traditional Newtonian physics laws like the laws of motion wouldn't apply.
2) Law of universal causation isn't a physical law. And in fact, when dealing with quantum mechanics, it's possible that classical views of causality may not even apply: Quantum correlations with no causal order
3) The idea of something being "external" to the universe if the universe is space-time itself doesn't really make much sense. Furthermore, you haven't really necessitated the existence of anything "outside" of the space-time.
Kind of you, and unusual for a creationist. But the truth is, that there are a variety of interpretations of Genesis held to by different Christian groups and they all lead to the faith position you outline above. In fact, it is for all practical purposes the same as that contained in the Nicene Creed, which is a statement of belief adhered to by close to two billion Christians around the world--most of whom reject your interpretation of Genesis. Personally, I don't care what creationists believe about the Bible, any more than I care that Seventh-Day Adventists don't eat meat or that Mormons wear special underclothing. I do care about the hostility and bumptiousness which seems an ill fit with the message of the Gospel.
Why would you believe they were identical? Half the chromosomes were removed from Adam and placed into Eve.Shows you want to add confusion factors when you cannot answer the questions.
If the people that existed prior to the flood were all descendants of 2 identical created middle eastern humans with perfect genomes (your words), then how did any new variants arise?
Their combined genomes held every racial attribute.
We don't have to defend the Bible. It stands just fine all on its own. God created the heavens and the earth and did all of His work in six days and rested on the seventh day.
According to Francis Collins DNA is the language God uses to Create Life.But Jesus spoke Hebrew, not English.
I think in science we are supposed to base things mostly on observations aren't we?
According to Francis Collins DNA is the language God uses to Create Life.
Sure, but I'm still waiting to learn what a "phonetic trait" is...I see you've stopped with the "inbreeding" stuff. It's good to see you can take correction even if you can't bring yourself to admit it.
Actually, there have been some examples of species interbreeding, although it is very rare. An example of such is the discovery of a small population of sharks that bred from both black tip sharks and Australian black tip sharks. The resulting sharks, and they are still being studied, although I haven't found any recent literature, have the best of both species and are superbly adapted to changes in the Pacific ecosystem. Another example is found in poison dart frogs in which some species have been found to have the attributes and genetics of two other species.Nope, nothing there that says closely related species can't interbreed.
Francis Colliins also wrote this in the book you refer to:
"While the precise mechanism of the origin of life on earth remains unknown, once life arose, the process of evolution and natural selection permitted the development of biological diversity and complexity over very long periods of time. Once evolution got under way, no special supernatural intervention was required. Humans are part of this process, sharing a common ancestor with the great apes. But humans are also unique in ways that defy evolutionary explanation and point to our spiritual nature. This includes the existence of the Moral Law (the knowledge of right and wrong) and the search for God that characterizes all human cultures throughout history.”
"As our closest relatives, they (chimpanzees) tell us special things about what it means to be a primate and, ultimately, what it means to be a human at the DNA level."
And especially:
"This evidence alone does not, of course, prove a common ancestor; from a creationist perspective, such similarities could simply demonstrate that God used successful design principles over and over again. As we shall see, however, and as was foreshadowed above by the discussion of "silent" mutations in protein-coding regions, the detailed study of genomes has rendered that interpretation virtually untenable—not only about all other living things, but also about ourselves."
so.... Maybe not so smart to keep quoting or referring to him?
Amen....however, we still live at Genesis 1:27 because God is STILL creating Adam/mankind in His Image or in Christ Spiritually. Genesis 1:28-31 is prophecy of events which take place AFTER Jesus returns at Armageddon. God's rest from ALL of His work of creating is therefore future to our time. Amen?
It's actually the theistic evolutionists who have the difficulty with the theology. They are the ones "interpreting". They are the ones with a real theological difficulties. I have never seen so much theological gymnastics in my life than I have seen from the theistic evolution crowd. In fact they don't really have a theological argument. Their only argument is literary. Which IS subject to personal interpretation.Of course I believe God did it; I just don't believe he did according to the creationists' shallow and theologically inadequate interpretation of Genesis.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?