questions about evolution?

[Defiance]

Hey miniverchivi,

in recent years, scientists have found bones from a prehistoric mammal that humans AND primates are linked to through DNA evidence, this seems to discredit the Bible and what it teaches as far as creation. I'm beginning to lean toward the theory that maybe the Bible wasn't intended to be the answer to all of life's questions, but maybe just maybe a book that has made-up stories that give people good advice on how to handle some situations in life. Am I wrong for thinking along these lines.


I don't know where I was when they discovered this "prehistoric mammal that humans and primates are linked to through DNA evidence." Could you name the "prehistoric mammal" and possibly provide a link or two so we can read what the evolutionists have to say?

The following information is from The Updated & Expanded Answers Book by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland (edited by Don Batten) of Answers in Genesis, 2002:

As for similarities in DNA between humans and primates, it is true that we are similar in many respects to animals, especially the apes, and evolutionists argue that therefore we are related to them; we must have a common ancestor with them. The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA is often claimed to prove that humans evolved from apes. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98% or even 99% similarity, depending on who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims, and do the data mean that there really is not much difference between chhimps and people? Are we just slightly evolved apes?

Firstly, similarity is not necessarily evidence for common ancestry (evolution), but may be due to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and a Volkswagen "Bettle" car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rea, independent rear suspension, two doors, boot in the front, and many other similarities. Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Beacuse they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological or biochemical is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

Let's think about this briefly for a minute here. If humans were entirely different to all other living things, or indeed every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the creator to us? No! We could logically think that there must have been many creators rather than one. In fact, the unity of creation is testimony to the one true God who made it all (Romans 1:20).

So returning to the DNA similarity argument, the figures quoted do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications and even some science journals. DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as necleotides, abbreviated C, G, A and T. Complex translation machinery in the cell 'reads' a series of three-letter 'words' of these chemical 'letters' and translates these into the sequences of the 20 different amino acids in proteins (a typical protein has has hundreds of amino acids). The human genome has over 3 billion nucleotides.

So where did the 97% similarity claim come from? It was inferred from a crude technique called DNA hybridization, where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to reform double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity.

Interestingly enough, Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in the way Sibley and Ahlquist generated their data as well as their statistical analysis. The 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.%, not 97%. However, teh work lacked true replication, so no real meaning can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist. Even if human and chimp DNA were even 96% similar, this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to about 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

Also, a high degree of similarity does not mean that DNA sequences have the same meaning or function. For example, compare:
1. There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
2. There are not many scientists today who question teh evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

Both sentences 1 and 2 have 97% simlarity, yet they have totally different meanings. There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.

So, the methods used to generate the figures so often quoted and misquoted are very clumsy. They do not legitimize the claim that people and chimps are related in an evolutionary sense.

For the latest information, I suggest Chimp Genome Sequence Very Different From Man [available on the Answers in Genesis website] by Dr David DeWitt.

Lastly, I am not quite sure on how they can make such statements unless they knew the genome of the 'prehistoric mammal.' I would have thought that you need to know what its genome is before you can do any comparing.

As to the last part of your opening post, I'm of the belief that the Bible is the history book of the universe and is not just a 'religious' or 'moral' book. What is contained within its pages are the history of the universe, this includes Genesis. It also outlines the future of the universe and of us. If there is any evidence that the Bible, especially in Genesis, should not be taken as a historical document, I'd really like to hear it from anyone.

It's all easy to say that Genesis isn't God telling us how he made everything, just that it is a symbolical picture and so on. It's another thing to provide biblical evidence that supports this stance. In fact, there is absolutely none. There is not one verse or other in the Bible that supports this symbolical view. The only, the only reason why many think this is because they are intimidated by 'science' that they believe has proven the Bible to be wrong. Instead of critically evaluating what 'science' (evolution) claims from God's word taking it as historical truth - which is how it was meant to be taken for the better part of it - they compromise the truth of the Bible and in doing so they have "exchanged the glory of the immortal God for images made to look like mortal man and birds and animals and reptiles" (Romans 1:23, NIV). What people who hold such beliefs are actually saying is that they place and give science authority over the Bible - the Word of God - when in fact, it should be the total opposite. Everything should be tested against God's word to determine its truth and worth.

I just find it sad that many people believe the word of fallible and sinful men who weren't there over the eternal and all knowing and all powerful God who was there and who knows how he created everything. Genesis literally means 'origin' - and when you are talking about the origin of something you generally don't use symbology. If God did create using evolution, then he would have stated so and not said that everything was 'very good' in which all animals and humans originally ate plants, fruit and so on. For what purpose would such verses have if it is just a symbology? A symbology that describes what? According to evolution, animals ate other animals right from the beginning. Death has always been. But that isn't what the Bible records (Paul's writings strongly support that death - both physical and spirtual death - is a direct result of Adam's sin). There is so much more that I could bring up, but I have already written too much.

Also, I would have simply posted links, but I can't! I don't have enough posts or something like that.

Resource:
Batten, D., Ham, K., Sarfati, J., Wieland, C., 2002. The Updated & Expanded Answers Book, Answers In Genesis Ministries, Acacia Ridge, p. 105.

 

[Rafael]

Or I could just have looked at better sources.

And you have read the book, then?

I can't think of a single actual biologist who has any doubts about the basic theory of evolution at this point. There may have been some in the past. Once, a long time ago, I could have named you a creationist geologist, Glenn Morton. He presented lectures and papers on the key questions creationist geologists had to look into, and found that no one had the slightest interest in trying to develop a workable scientific theory; eventually, he admitted that the world was as old as it looked, and that he needed to rethink his approach to the Bible.

Then this means you know all biologists and have seen all the evidence, being an expert of chemical and biological engineering? The author questioned a person who has co authored with many other people and has researched his conclusions. How can you bad mouth him or be sickened without looking first? Is that fair? If the matter that was used in the big bang was compressed at a density so great as to warp time, thousands of years could have passed in a day from any given point of reference that God or man may stand to measure by. The theory of relativity tells us this, and when we understand the string or M-theory better, the implications leave the doors wide open for One with power and knowledge over these things to accomplish what He says even if we have don't as of yet understand what He communicates to us in the Genesis account of creation. We are told we will know as we are know some day, but some cannot accept that fact and must be equal with God in order to have faith. That is not going to happen in the short life of a man, and the resurrection, the hope of the Christian, will take faith in God, not the knowledge of man in so-called science that strays from definition when it rules God out and denies Him in full or in part the power He alone has.

God can do anything. God can give us all an ice cream cone every day. Do you deny that God can give us an ice cream cone every day? The Bible says ask, and it shall be given. I am sure that at least one child has earnestly asked that everyone get an ice cream cone every day. So, are you denying that God can do what God says?
Or are you, perhaps, going to argue that God could do that, but that it was not actually what God said would happen, and I should accept the plain evidence before me?

Yes, but is it God's will to give us all an ice cream cone everyday? Evidently He has better things in mind that bringing up what only could bring ridicule to His name as an argument.
It seems to me that my first post was advice to read Lee Strobel's book with my comment taken from the book about macroevolution and the origins of life and of man - not microevolution and the bilogical mechanisms associated to that. Neither did I invite debate or start it over the author's comment, but you did. As far as God doing anything goes, Yes, I believe that He has the power to use and work interdimensionally in ways we have barely imagined, and that He can employ that knowldege and power no matter what pride men may bring in ignorance to limit such power and bring that to the to the table in argument. Atheists use evolution to deny a Creator and Designer while the evidence presented by many scientists says that it all would have collapsed in a huge fireball if not for thousands and millions of events coming together with exact timing to make a universe where life can exist, but again, one would have to read the book to examine that knowledge and research that went into the things it proposes so they could choose for themselves the veracity in it. The questioner seems interested in answers from a Christian perspective, yet you think yours may be the only valid one??? Your ice cream cone comments have nothing to do with anything I said earler that I can see, other than it beings your way denouncing me and of limiting God to what man has understanding of. The Bible says that we have not even thought the things He thinks and knows - that His thoughts and ways are higher than ours, yet He does not look down upon us with such power, but loves us, instead. If God can use evolution in time from eternity, then so be it and it is fine with me, but then if He is limited to only that power, the resurrection may take a long while instead of the instant, in "the twinkling of an eye" that the Bible says it will happen. Can we rule out that God does not have the power to resurrect also or which of His miracles do we say are impossible just because we cannot perform with the powers and knowledge He has? Do we then say that because we are limited in knowledge and that He is too? If science proves anything, it proves how seriously proud people are to hang on to old ideas and not move on when new knowledge comes to be known. How many proofs that the Bible is wrong have been refuted just in the science of archeology over the years? I dare say the day will come when the same will be proved in all the sciences and the pride of man will be laid low and bow gratefully before Him as the loving King of Kings.

I have seen a lot of creationist apologetics, and they have generally left me sickened and repulsed. I would rather my faith be a search for truth than a search for pretending I was right all along.

So then faith for me and all other people must be based upon your knowledge and search for truth or be sickening? Perhaps you should be sickened in silence, then, as you are very arrogant and rude to assume I have not searched to find truth or that others have not done so - even Lees Strobel's book which I doubt you have even read unless recently after these posts were made. The same can be said of the opposite end of that debate, but I didn't propose to bring any of my "sickness" of faith to the table in debate or bad mouth anyone personally. You did, not really knowing what is in the book, unless, as I said, you have read it in the last few days and been able to read my mind as to all that I believe. I thought the questions and answers were all fairly balanced in the book, bringing the questions that leading atheists had to offer and then getting answers from the supposedly equally leading Christian apologetists. No one was condemned, but the statement was said - that evolution, taken as an answer for origin of life, has been used as an excuse for many an atheist to prove no need for God as a Creator and Designer, but the author said that closer examination shows that it did not do that at all and still comes up with the main ingredient of accident with no purpose being the reason for the life we have. Isn't that what evolution says - that all the steps came together by accidents that many other scientist's continually find and call impossible statistically as reseaerch continues? I suggest you read the book too, if you haven't already. Maybe then you won't be so quick to tell me what I know and what is wrong by me suggesting a very good book that offers many answers to questions brought up by those who have not yet come to faith. As I said before, there is science that backs the creationist theories as well as that that backs the theory of evolution, making it a "science versus science" instead of just a "religion versus science" proposition when theory is used as evidence. That is a quote from the author while speaking with PHD Walter L. Bradley who has authored many books, one being "the Mystery of life's Origins" with a foreword by biologist Dean Kenyon whose book "Biological Predestination", who previously spoke for the possibility of living cells being possible of evolving under certain conditions. He called Bradley's book cogent, original, and complelling, so that is one biologist, from San Francisco University, you must not be aware of yet. Kenyon concluded just by reading the book that, "The author believes, and I now concur, that there is a fundamental flaw in all current theories of chemical origins of life." Bradley has other books, "Mere Creation", "Three views of Creation and Evolution", and a book co-wrote with chemist Charles Taxton called :"Information and the Origin of Life". He has wrote technical articles including authoring "A Statistical Examination of Self-Ordering of Amino Acids in Proteins", which reflects his personal research in the origin-of-life field. So, he comes with pretty good credentials, although, personally credentials mean little to me personally. I don't feel as if I have led anyone astray by encouraging them to read Strobels well balanced and fair book that asks the hard questions and gives fair answers, and if your faith in evolution has been offended by me answering as I did to the original poster, it certainly was not meant nor pointed towards you in any way. Frankly, I'd appreciate it if you would just keep your critiques of my posts to yourself and let the original poster decide what he wants to read instead of breaking this particular forum's rules and attempting to provoke debate and denounce with ridicule me as a representation of that which is "sickening" in your opinion. Mocking God's power with ice cream cones was a sarcastic touch, but irrelavent to any truth other than the scripture about the last days where there will be a form of relgion, but it will deny the power of God. If you want to insinuate, ridicule, or denouce me, please do it by PM so that the Lord's name will not come to any more reproach.

 

[Skinster007]

Forget the evolution debate. It still doesn't explain where everything came from. I'm more interested in the "Creation is a tale" part. Was Adam a real person? If not then Cain and Abel never existed? What about Adam's whole lineage? None of them existed?

 

[Cirbryn]

I thought I'd address Defiance's quote from Ken Ham:

The following information is from The Updated & Expanded Answers Book by Ken Ham, Jonathan Sarfati and Carl Wieland (edited by Don Batten) of Answers in Genesis, 2002:

As for similarities in DNA between humans and primates, it is true that we are similar in many respects to animals, especially the apes, and evolutionists argue that therefore we are related to them; we must have a common ancestor with them. The idea that human beings and chimps have close to 100% similarity in their DNA is often claimed to prove that humans evolved from apes. The figures quoted vary: 97%, 98% or even 99% similarity, depending on who is telling the story. What is the basis for these claims, and do the data mean that there really is not much difference between chhimps and people? Are we just slightly evolved apes?

Firstly, similarity is not necessarily evidence for common ancestry (evolution), but may be due to a common designer (creation). Think about a Porsche and a Volkswagen "Bettle" car. They both have air-cooled, flat, horizontally-opposed, 4-cylinder engines in the rea, independent rear suspension, two doors, boot in the front, and many other similarities. Why do these two very different cars have so many similarities? Beacuse they had the same designer! Whether similarity is morphological or biochemical is of no consequence to the lack of logic in this argument for evolution.

Ham starts with the assumption that there is a dichotomy between evolution and a common designer, thereby implying (without actually stating) that all evolutionists are atheists. Actually, most evolutionists (though not myself) believe a God designed or guided the design of living things using evolution.

As Richard Crawford wrote here:

Why should God choose not to use evolution? Why should God be
constrained to "miracles"?

Saying, "God created the universe through Christ", true as it may be,
says nothing about whether God created the world in seven days or (as is
much more likely) in fifteen billion years using methods that we can
observe and measure scientifically. At the risk of sounding like I'm
bragging, I'll reproduce my own Chez Watt winning post (February 2004)
to illustrate the soundness of the argument:

Imagine this bit of dialog:
(I hand you a piece of cake.)
YOU: What a wonderful cake! You must give me the recipe!
ME: There was no recipe. My wife made the cake.
YOU: Of course there was a recipe! Just tell me what it is.
ME: I tell you, there was no recipe. My wife made the cake, and
that's final!
YOU: But surely she puts in eggs and flour and sugar. How much of
each did she put in?
ME: There is no recipe! Do you doubt my wife? Are you calling my
wife a liar? Listen, I'm telling you, my wife made the cake!
YOU: Well, how long did she bake it in the oven?
ME: Are you not listening to me? My wife made the cake! There was
no oven, there was no recipe, there were no ingredients! My wife made
the cake! See, she wrote right here in this note, "Dear Richard, I
made this cake." Proof that there was no recipe!

As for the car analogy, it depends entirely on the idea that all the shared characteristics are design features, chosen by the designer from a limited set of options for the specific functional characteristics they provide. It’s a poor analogy in several respects: For one thing there was no common designer. Ferry Porsche designed the first Porsche car, while the first Volkswagon Beetle was designed by his father Ferdinand Porsche Sr. (see here). More importantly, most DNA doesn’t correlate to the functional characteristics of the organism. Some does, obviously, since the DNA, in the context of the environment, determines those characteristics. But most DNA nucleotides (A, C, G or T) can be changed for different nucleotides without affecting anything else about the organism because they are in regions that don’t code for any proteins. If humans and chimps were created separately we might expect a (limited) creator to try to save on design effort by using similar DNA to produce the similar morphological features. But there would be no reason relevant to the car analogy for the non-coding DNA to be similar at all.

On the other hand, all DNA has a small possibility of miscopying here or there as it is passed to each successive generation, so we would expect relatively few differences between the DNA of individuals with a relatively recent common ancestor, and more differences between the DNA of individuals with more distant common ancestors. This is true both of coding and non-coding DNA, although we’d expect fewer differences in the coding DNA, since some of the copying errors would be weeded out by natural selection. Accordingly, it’s not so much that humans and chimps have similar DNA that leads to the conclusion of common descent. If all species were separately created then they all could have non-coding DNA that was just as similar. What implies common descent is the fact that some species have similar DNA and some species don’t, and the different degrees of similarity form a nested hierarchy that just happens to correspond extremely well with nested hierarchies formed using other methods. That is not something that would be predicted by presupposing a common designer (unless we suggested the designer were purposely trying to fool us).

Let's think about this briefly for a minute here. If humans were entirely different to all other living things, or indeed every living thing was entirely different, would this reveal the creator to us? No! We could logically think that there must have been many creators rather than one. In fact, the unity of creation is testimony to the one true God who made it all (Romans 1:20).

Ham again seems to be confounding evolutionism with atheism here, although frankly it’s hard to tell. If all DNA turned out to be entirely different across species it would profoundly challenge the idea of common descent. As it happens, that’s not what the evidence shows.

So returning to the DNA similarity argument, the figures quoted do not mean quite what is claimed in the popular publications and even some science journals. DNA contains its information in the sequence of four chemical compounds known as necleotides, abbreviated C, G, A and T. Complex translation machinery in the cell 'reads' a series of three-letter 'words' of these chemical 'letters' and translates these into the sequences of the 20 different amino acids in proteins (a typical protein has has hundreds of amino acids). The human genome has over 3 billion nucleotides.

So where did the 97% similarity claim come from? It was inferred from a crude technique called DNA hybridization, where small parts of human DNA are split into single strands and allowed to reform double strands (duplex) with chimp DNA. However, there are various reasons why DNA does or does not hybridize, only one of which is degree of similarity.

Interestingly enough, Sarich discovered considerable sloppiness in the way Sibley and Ahlquist generated their data as well as their statistical analysis. The 97% figure came from making a very basic statistical error - averaging two figures without taking into account differences in the number of observations contributing to each figure. When a proper mean is calculated it is 96.%, not 97%. However, teh work lacked true replication, so no real meaning can be attached to the figures published by Sibley and Ahlquist. Even if human and chimp DNA were even 96% similar, this still amounts to 120 million base pairs, equivalent to about 12 million words, or 40 large books of information. This is an impossible barrier for mutations (random changes) to cross.

For a rundown on the most recent (published 9-1-05) comparison see here. Rather than using DNA hybridization, the researchers sequenced the entire genome of a chimp and compared it to the sequence obtained through the human genome project. Here’s a quote:

The DNA sequence that can be directly compared between the two genomes is almost 99 percent identical. When DNA insertions and deletions are taken into account, humans and chimps still share 96 percent of their sequence. At the protein level, 29 percent of genes code for the same amino sequences in chimps and humans. In fact, the typical human protein has accumulated just one unique change since chimps and humans diverged from a common ancestor about 6 million years ago.

To put this into perspective, the number of genetic differences between humans and chimps is approximately 60 times less than that seen between human and mouse and about 10 times less than between the mouse and rat. On the other hand, the number of genetic differences between a human and a chimp is about 10 times more than between any two humans.

Also, a high degree of similarity does not mean that DNA sequences have the same meaning or function. For example, compare:
1. There are many scientists today who question the evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.
2. There are not many scientists today who question teh evolutionary paradigm and its atheistic philosophical implications.

Both sentences 1 and 2 have 97% simlarity, yet they have totally different meanings. There is a strong analogy here to the way in which large DNA sequences can be turned on or off by relatively small control sequences.

Ham’s basic point, that small genetic differences can produce important morphological differences, is correct. No one said otherwise. Again, it’s not just that the human genome is so similar to the chimp genome that’s important. It’s that the amount of difference, and it’s location in both coding and non-coding regions, is in keeping with the same nested hierarchy of differences that we keep seeing again and again using all kinds of different evidence: the human - chimp differences are 60 times less than the human – mouse differences, 10 times less than the mouse – rat differences, and 10 times more than human – human differences.

And Ham’s sneaky little attempt to again try linking evolutionism with atheism without actually demonstrating such a link would be beneath most people. He might successfully argue that atheism tends to lead to evolutionism, but to suggest that evolutionism leads to atheism is not supported. Most evolutionists are theists. Darwin specifically mentioned that he would be an atheist if not for his acceptance of evolution.

 

[woobadooba]

Disprove it. (insert eye-roll smilie here)

All that matters- anything that is of any consequence which comes from the genesis creation story was included in my post (namely the four truths I spoke of). Man molded from clay, the Sun being created on the fourth 'day,' all of that is incosequential and irrelevant to my (our) faith.

Well, apparently we don't believe in the same God, since Jesus, by manner of His custom of resting on the Sabbath, disclosed that the Genesis/creation account is to be taken literally.

Volumes have been written on this subject, and the evidence clearly leans more towards a literal interpretation of the Genesis/creation account than it does towards an alegorical one.

 

[Cirbryn]

Well, apparently we don't believe in the same God, since Jesus, by manner of His custom of resting on the Sabbath, disclosed that the Genesis/creation account is to be taken literally.

You conclude from Jesus' custom of resting on the Sabbath that you two don't believe in the same God? You guys crack me up.

 

[devanh]

There is much evidence aginst evolution also.

There has been NO fossiles of a hybird animal (Bird Lizzard) and there are still single celled organisms. If we evolved there would be non of thoes.

 

[woobadooba]

You conclude from Jesus' custom of resting on the Sabbath that you two don't believe in the same God? You guys crack me up.

What's so funny about that? What cracks me up is that you don't even understand what I meant.

We all have the same God, but that doesn't mean we serve Him!

Serving Him is more than just saying, "I believe in Him." It's about taking Him at His word.

 

[mixin machine]

There is much evidence aginst evolution also.

There has been NO fossiles of a hybird animal (Bird Lizzard) and there are still single celled organisms. If we evolved there would be non of thoes.

. Yes where is the ape man? In the lab getting cloned maybe...

Andrew

 

[artybloke]

There is much evidence aginst evolution also.

There has been NO fossiles of a hybird animal (Bird Lizzard) and there are still single celled organisms

wow, two sentences & two lies! Well done!

There is massive amounts of evidence of evolution, in all fields. And there are fossils of transitional bird/dinosaur, feathered dinosaurs etc.

And you seem to be labouring under a Lamarkian theory of evolution rather than a Darwinian/Mendelian. It might do you some good to actually read www.talkorigins.org

 

[Skeptical]

There is much evidence aginst evolution also.

There has been NO fossiles of a hybird animal (Bird Lizzard) and there are still single celled organisms. If we evolved there would be non of thoes.

One word: Archaeopteryx.

 

[Skeptical]

. Yes where is the ape man? In the lab getting cloned maybe...

Andrew

One word: Ramapithecus

 

[Cirbryn]

What's so funny about that? What cracks me up is that you don't even understand what I meant.

We all have the same God, but that doesn't mean we serve Him!

Serving Him is more than just saying, "I believe in Him." It's about taking Him at His word. And those who refuse to take Him at His word are not of the same fold as those who do.

Therefore, those who use a higher critical approach to the Bible, in my opinion, are not true believers.

Hence, they do not believe my God!

Yep, reminds me of an old Emo Philips joke :

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well... are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant ? "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist" "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

And with that I'm afraid I'll be going. This forum is in the all members section, but apparently Christians are the only ones allowed to respond on the threads. Sorry - just found out.

 

[Skeptical]

Yep, reminds me of an old Emo Philips joke :

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well... are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant ? "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist" "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

And with that I'm afraid I'll be going. This forum is in the all members section, but apparently Christians are the only ones allowed to respond on the threads. Sorry - just found out.

Hey that never stopped me from responding. Sometimes you just have to speak up.

 

[woobadooba]

Yep, reminds me of an old Emo Philips joke :

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump off. So I ran over and said "Stop! Don't do it!" "Why shouldn't I?" he said. "Well, there's so much to live for!" "Like what?" "Well... are you religious?" He said yes. I said, "Me too! Are you Christian or Buddhist?" "Christian." "Me too! Are you Catholic or Protestant ? "Protestant." "Me too! Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?" "Baptist" "Wow! Me too! Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?" "Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you reformed Baptist Church of God?" "Reformed Baptist Church of God!" "Me too! Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915?" He said, "Reformed Baptist Church of God, reformation of 1915!" I said, "Die, heretic scum", and pushed him off.

And with that I'm afraid I'll be going. This forum is in the all members section, but apparently Christians are the only ones allowed to respond on the threads. Sorry - just found out.

This story is totally innapropriate since it doesn't apply contextually to the argument.

Just curious about something...

How do you feel about what Hitler did to the Jews?

Hypothetically thinking, what would you do if you had the chance to see Hitler about ready to jump off a bridge?

 

[mixin machine]

One word: Ramapithecus

We were talking about any alive today, not millions of years ago.

an extinct group of primates that lived from about 12 to 14 million years ago, for a time regarded as a possible (as in maybe, not really sure about that one, who really knows, maybe yes maybe no) ancestor of Australopithecus and, therefore, of modern humans.

 

[SuperNova]

Visit this site.
www.answersingenesis.org

There is more evidence for creation then the "text books" will reveal. The fossil record is exactly what we would expect if the bible were true.

Also Darwin knew absolutely nothing about genetics. He thought cells were blobs of carbon. It wasn't until modern equipment actually looked inside the cell to see the vastly complex machine that it is that modern genetics took form. Trusting a theory involving genetics from a man who didn't even know DNA existed is foolish to say the least.

Also it is true that most genetic mutations are harmful or have no effect. But it is also true that some beneficial mutations do occur. But in either case they never involve and increase in genetic information. It always involves either a lose, or rearranging of existing information.
If we are to conclude that evolution is caused by mutations and it also involves simple organisms becoming more complex there would have to be an increase in genetic information. This is not possible through mutations. What we do see however is exactly what we would if the bible were true. Life is degenerating, not evolving. Our genome has many errors where as in the beginning there were none. In a decaying world we would expect to see degeneration rather than an evolution of life. And surely there is a scientific law which supports this. Law #2 of thermodynamics. All matter and energy increase in entropy, or become less complex. It decays to it's simplest form. We grow old, our cars rust etc. This law contradicts the ability of matter to go from inanimate to living and then to a complex organism. evolutionists have tried to counter this but have been unsuccessful.

What you have to realize is that evolution is unproved and unprovable. It is just as much a faith as creation is. It is not science in any form. There is plenty of evidence to contradict evolution. What you also have to realize is that we all have the same evidence. It's how you see the evidence based on your personal bias.

Archaeopteryx has been identified as a true bird, not a missing link.
Ramapithecus is an extinct orangutan. All so called human ancestors have been identified as either true human, or true ape or a hoax/misidentified body part. There are no missing links.

I however am not an expert so I'm not good at debating the matter. I'm just someone who has read and watched alot about it. The experts are on the site I linked you to. There is a search function on there and just about any question you have can be answered there. If not you can contact them I'm sure.

 

[New_Found_Faith]

Well, apparently we don't believe in the same God, since Jesus, by manner of His custom of resting on the Sabbath, disclosed that the Genesis/creation account is to be taken literally.

How near-sighted. Please elaborate.

 

[CPman2004]

Closed for Staff Review

 

[Blank123]

moved from Questions by Non Christians