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.
I don't think it does. If you think it does, maybe you could explain how.
You have an unusual take on Genesis, and the Bible as a whole. If you think your view of it helps you to Christ, then good for you. But it is not necessary for anyone else, and it is off-putting to a lot of people. I don't know why you think you need such a view, but if you think you do then you had better keep it. I would hate for someone to talk you out of 1611ism and then find that you had lost your faith because of it.I'm asking you.
We're discussing the creation week with emphasis on macroevolution, and you chime in with, "as long as it leads you to Christ."
Show me how please.
And your prime directive is "Under no circumstances is my interpretation of the Bible to be contradicted."
As we've discussed before, you aren't going to hell for denying common descent.
If you make that denial into an idol and insist that everyone else believe it, that could be an issue.
But creationists, absent that issue, are no less Christian than the rest of us.
Hopefully, it's just an error.
There are lots of things Christians disagree on, without leaving His side.
It's directly observed happening around us.
I think you have confused macroevolution (speciation) with common descent.
But there's a good reason why believers accept common descent.
Many honest YE creationists admit that the evidence strongly supports common descent.
Not very much in Genesis 1. Only God's reference to Himself as plural. The key is in Genesis 3:15How does Genesis 1 lead me to Christ?
To try and get this thread back on track: @Sir Joseph could you further expand on the latter sentence, since as it stands, it's really just that bit nonsensical..
Is your senility acting up if you can't remember your own interpretation of the Bible?
2 Timothy 4:4 And they shall turn away their ears from the truth, and shall be turned unto fables.
It's enough that you tell people it was originally written in Jacobean English.
You have an unusual take on Genesis, and the Bible as a whole.
AV, your insistence on thinking that you're actually answering for other people is a stale as the bread I put into the bin this morning.
So I take it if he answers the say way, you'll still not understand?
We won't know until he answers.
Until then, show some restraint and don't assume to answer for other people. It's very arrogant.
I don't know that you ever said that. If you don't need to believe what is in Gen 1 have faith in Christ, why do you have to believe it is written in Jacobean English?I'll ask you again:
Where did I ever say Genesis 1 leads one to Christ?
The Protevangelium doesn't even come until Genesis 3.
So if he answers the same way, then you'll know why???
What? does it take both of us to give you the answer?
Why does it bother you so much that when I ask someone for their answer that I won't accept your answer? You're not him, so you don't know what he'll give as answer.
Arrogance, thy name is AV1611VET.
You've never answered for someone else here?
We are, after all, a species of apes. A single race, now. But how our bodies were produced is of no matter whatever. We are His because He directly gives us an immortal soul.Ya ... the difference is logged as "progressive sanctification."
I can get saved, then believe my kind came from the seminal fluid of a race of apes.
I doubt if you'll be penalized for not approving of the way He created things. And since we'll be perfectly happy in Heaven, according to God,I'll still die and go to Heaven, but when awards are handed out there ... well ...
This is most definitely not an "excellent article".
Let's take a claim at random:
"L.D. Martin and co-workers have established that neither the teeth nor the ankle of Archaeopteryx could have been derived from theropod dinosaurs…the teeth being those typical of other (presumably later) toothed birds, and the ankle bones showing no homology with those of dinosaurs."
This is not what Martin et al "established" in 1980, its something they argued for. However, later fossil evidence has shown them to be incorrect. At least half a dozen new Archaeopteryx fossils have been formally described since 1980.
The morphology of the coracoid and that of the proximal tarsals is, for the first time, clearly visible in the new specimen. The new specimen demonstrates the presence of a hyperextendible second toe in Archaeopteryx. This feature is otherwise known only from the basal avian Rahonavis and deinonychosaurs (Dromaeosauridae and Troodontidae), and its presence in Archaeopteryx provides additional evidence for a close relationship between deinonychosaurs and avians. The new specimen also shows that the first toe of Archaeopteryx was not fully reversed but spread medially, supporting previous assumptions that Archaeopteryx was only facultatively arboreal.
The above paper shows evidence of the Archaeopteryx ankle (tarsals) having features of both ancestor and descendent populations - a classic mosiac or "transitional" species.
Similarly this paper shows close homologies between the tarsals in Archaeopteryx and non-avian therapod dinosaurs. In fact, it essentially disproves the hypothesis of Martin et al (1980)
The present study, based on more extensive material, reveals that, although the carinate process becomes associated with the calcaneum during later development, there is evidence that it originates as a cartilaginous process from the astragalus and is therefore homologous with the ratite condition. As the avian tarsus is homologous with that of theropods, and of Archaeopteryx, it may be used to support a close phylogenetic relationship among them.
Now, we might be generous and say that since Mr Gish was writing in 1998 that he couldn't have known this. However, there were literally several dozen papers describing Archaeopteryx ankle bones available that he could have looked up at this point that describe homologous structures with therapod dinosaurs. There was, starting roughly in 1988, a massive re-appraisal of Archaeopteryx and other maniraptoran dinosaurs, thanks to the discoveries coming out of China at the time. We now have fossils representing more than a dozen groups of avian dinosaurs in the Avialae clade.
Duane Gish, as is standard practice for creationists, selectively quoting here to make uncertainties in the sciences appear like counter-factuals. It's dishonest, it's anti-intellectual and it relies on the audience not having the time, intellect, resources, curiosity or motivation to actually investigate what is being argued.
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?