PDA

View Full Version : Information Mutation



Beloved by God
Nov 9th 2008, 09:36 PM
From the book The Evolution Handbook compiled by Vance Ferrell
Chapter 1 History of Evolution pgs. 36 and

H.J. Muller (1890-1967) Upon learning of the 1927 discovery that X-rays, gamma rays, and various chemicals could induce an extremely rapid increase of mutations in the chromosomes of test animals and plants, Muller, pioneered in using X-rays to greatly increase the mutations rate in fruit flies. But he and all other researchers found was that mutations were always harmful. (H.J. Muller, Time November 11, 1946, p. 38; E.J. Gardner Principles of Genetics, 1964, p. 192; Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the species, 1951, p. 73).

Chernobyl (1986) is another evolutionist's paradise. Since mutations are today thought to be the leading mechanism for achieving evolutionary change for the better, the intense radiation which the people received on April 26, 1986, should have brought them great benefit because of all the mutations it included. They should be stronger, healthier, have improved organs, and produce children which are higher forms of life. But this has not happened. Scientist know that even Marie Curie and her daughter died as a result of working with radiation. Mutations result in harm and death, never in evolutionary change (Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 691-692).

crawfish
Nov 9th 2008, 10:14 PM
There are very few beneficial mutations. Most mutations are neutral (benign), and more than a few are harmful. Where they usually become beneficial is when they give the organism an environmental advantage.

For example: a flock of birds migrates to two separate islands and sets up permanent residence there. The first island has plentiful, easy-to-eat food available. The second has only small, hard seeds available.

On the first island, the biggest and strongest birds are able to fight off the smaller birds for mating purposes. So as the larger/stronger are favored, their genes become the dominant offspring, and after a few thousand years you have a species of large, soft-billed birds.

On the second island, the smallest and quickest can gain better access to the sole form of food (seeds), and require less sustenance to live. Plus, the ones with stronger, harder beaks will be better able to break open the seeds and also be more likely to live. Therefore, it is more likely that they will pass on their genes to subsequent generations. Thousands of years later, the population of that island will consist of small birds with small, strong beaks.

None of these mutations are overtly beneficial. In some environments, being smaller or larger will not matter, or the strength of one's beak will not matter. In both of the cases above, the slight mutations become beneficial because it gives them an advantage in their current situation. This is the true mutation of evolution, and it is small changes like this over the course of millions of years that causes the plethora of life we see today.

Oh, and on the two examples given above: life is not a comic book. There is far more going on in both cases than simple mutation, and they do not provide a reliable test case.

Beloved by God
Nov 10th 2008, 12:26 AM
Your example of the island birds is not an example of mutation. The birds didn't mutate. And if mutation was ever good why didn't someone out of the hundreds of thousands who were affected by Chernobyl or Hiroshima change for the better or evolve? We have never seen any animal or human evolve.
Like with the mice, why didn't their tails become scaly like a reptile's so it was harder to loose them?
Also, has it never crossed anyone's mind that maybe God (being the smartest being ever) put the right birds and animals next to the right food? Maybe he knew we would like to have all different kinds of animals and so he made different birds, and gave them different beaks to eat different food so they all wouldn't have to fight over the same food and would be able to co-exist?
I know you probably think that God used evolution to make us and the animals, I used to think that. But if he used evolution why isn't there proof for evolution? It should be more obvious. I really don't think God used evolution, I think he created everything in 6 days just like he said he did.

GitRDunn
Nov 10th 2008, 12:40 AM
Your example of the island birds is not an example of mutation. The birds didn't mutate. And if mutation was ever good why didn't someone out of the hundreds of thousands who were affected by Chernobyl or Hiroshima change for the better or evolve? We have never seen any animal or human evolve.
Like with the mice, why didn't their tails become scaly like a reptile's so it was harder to loose them?
Also, has it never crossed anyone's mind that maybe God (being the smartest being ever) put the right birds and animals next to the right food? Maybe he knew we would like to have all different kinds of animals and so he made different birds, and gave them different beaks to eat different food so they all wouldn't have to fight over the same food and would be able to co-exist?
I know you probably think that God used evolution to make us and the animals, I used to think that. But if he used evolution why isn't there proof for evolution? It should be more obvious. I really don't think God used evolution, I think he created everything in 6 days just like he said he did.
As for the birds, that is called mutation and natural selection, or the basics of evolution.

As for Chernobyl, there weren't benefits there because radiation caused mutations are practically always cancerous, and thus detrimental to health, and thus not any good advantage that would have been them evolving. Mutations that evolution considers mutations are slight genetic variances that aren't harmful to the system and radiation can't really cause non-harmful mutations.

As for the God control part, Christians who believe in evolution believe he controlled it, so how does that affect God's intelligence or might? It would be just as hard and miraculous to have God controlled evolution as God controlled creationism. As for evolution, there is proof of that, that is why it is a scientific theory and almost all scientists support it. Show me the scientific proof of everything being created the same day and not over billions of years. There isn't really any. I'm not saying that creationism is definitely wrong, I believe it could be either one, but evolution is a possibility because it doesn't have to contradict the Bible and it has tons and tons of support scientifically.

Beloved by God
Nov 10th 2008, 01:01 AM
I don't see support for evolution. (and I have read other material, I have also taken a college science class) I see hopes that maybe there isn't a God.
There has never been a missing link animal/fossil, and most of the bones that are supposed to be of ancient humans are just fragments. There are no full skeletons.
I also know that there are several scientists out there that believe in creationism, or else it wouldn't have a chance. I find it hard to believe that anyone one company or group of people managed to poll every single scientist in the US. They might have polled every scientist at one university.

Also, this book I am reading is from 2001 and I am only through the first chapter, but I had my mind made up before I read it. The quotes below are from an article published in 1987 but I am posting it to show, that there are several scientist who disagree with evolution. I am sure that if you called universities, and even if you used google you could find more than 5 scientists that don't believe in evolution.

"Evolutionism is a fairy tale for grown-ups. This theory has helped nothing in the progress of science. It is useless," says Professor Louis Bouroune, former President of the Biological Society of Strasbourg and Director of the Strasbourg Zoological Museum, later Director of Research at the French National Centre of Scientific Research, as quoted in The Advocate, March 8, 1984.

"...I fully agree with your comments on the lack of direct illustration of evolutionary transition in my book. If I knew of any, fossil or living, I would certainly have included them...Yet Gould and the American Museum people are hard to contradict when they say there are no transitional fossils...I will lay it on the line--there is not one such fossil for which one could make a watertight argument." (Personal letter from Dr. Colin Patterson, Senior Paleontologist at the British Museum of Natural History in London, to L. Sunderland.)

"Despite the bright promise that paleontology provides a means of ‘seeing' evolution, it has presented some nasty difficulties for evolutionists, the most notorious of which is the presence of ‘gaps' in the fossil record. Evolution requires intermediate forms between species and paleontology does not provide them..." (David B. Kitts, Ph.D. -- Zoology, Head Curator, Department of Geology, Stoval Museum, and well-known evolutionary paleontologist. Evolution, Vol. 28, Sept. 1974.

"When the blood of a seal, freshly killed at McMurdo Sound in the Antarctic was tested by carbon-14, it showed the seal had died 1,300 years ago." (From W. Dort Jr., Ph.D. -- Geology, Professor, University of Kansas, quoted in Antarctic Journal of the United States, 1971.

"The hair on the Chekurovka mammoth was found to have a carbon-14 age of 26,000 years but the peaty soil in which is was preserved was found to have a carbon-14 dating of only 5,600 years." (Radiocarbon Journal, Vol. 8, 1966.)

Athanasius
Nov 10th 2008, 03:01 AM
Beloved by God, what would you call speciation and adaptation?

locboxx
Nov 10th 2008, 05:44 AM
For a cell to survive it has to be very complex. It could not reach its complexity in one moment, it would have to go through mutations over millions of years etc. That in itself should disprove evolution. Another thing is when a cell mutates, the survival rate of that cell is something like .000000001 or some tiny number. I wonder what the probability of a cell actually having a GOOD mutation would be lol. Evolution is extremely statistically improbable yet it is taught in school as truth. Ridiculous.

crawfish
Nov 10th 2008, 01:22 PM
For a cell to survive it has to be very complex. It could not reach its complexity in one moment, it would have to go through mutations over millions of years etc. That in itself should disprove evolution. Another thing is when a cell mutates, the survival rate of that cell is something like .000000001 or some tiny number. I wonder what the probability of a cell actually having a GOOD mutation would be lol. Evolution is extremely statistically improbable yet it is taught in school as truth. Ridiculous.

Even assuming that is true, you know how often cells duplicate and how many cells we're talking about? It makes your number above very significant.

Lamplighter
Nov 10th 2008, 09:26 PM
A mutation is a losing of genetic information, not a gaining of genetic information.

Genetic Mutations disprove trans species evolution pretty well.

Mankind's selective breeding in dogs for example, create mutations, and then you end up with mutated loss of genetic information dogs like the Chihuahua and the Poodle for example.

You however, never end up with a cat or any other mammal from genetic mutations in dogs from selective breeding or natural breeding.

Darwin's 19th century trans species spawned evolutionary theories are absurd thanks to modern scientific enlightenment.

Beloved by God
Nov 11th 2008, 12:44 AM
Beloved by God, what would you call speciation and adaptation?

I think you can adapt without evolving. I could almost see the possibility for micro-evolution. But in the end I think God probably just originally created everything perfectly, or at least as perfect as he wanted it to be.
I am not sure what you mean by speciation, but if you look at some of the responses above, they said what I was going to say.
Mendel proved you cannot cross-breed outside of a species. And even when you breed a horse and donkey, or tiger and lion, the end result is always in-fertile and cannot produce offspring itself. So it just continues to amaze me that scientist claim it all to be not only possible, but true.

Athanasius
Nov 11th 2008, 02:21 AM
I think you can adapt without evolving. I could almost see the possibility for micro-evolution. But in the end I think God probably just originally created everything perfectly, or at least as perfect as he wanted it to be.

Evolution is simply a word that means change, you can't adapt without evolving because quite simply you can't adapt without changing in some way. We already know micro-evolution occurs, it's not under dispute, not even in ultra-YEC camps. Viral adaptation is a great example of this (super viruses immune to traditional treatment). Whether you call it change, adaptation or micro-evolution it's all the same thing.



I am not sure what you mean by speciation, but if you look at some of the responses above, they said what I was going to say.
Mendel proved you cannot cross-breed outside of a species. And even when you breed a horse and donkey, or tiger and lion, the end result is always in-fertile and cannot produce offspring itself. So it just continues to amaze me that scientist claim it all to be not only possible, but true.

Speciation would be like... Certain finches on Galapagos islands having differently sized beaks.

Luke34
Nov 11th 2008, 06:51 AM
A mutation is a losing of genetic information, not a gaining of genetic information. Nope. It's a change in the gene. Some (deletion mutations) remove information, some (duplication mutations) add it.


Genetic Mutations disprove trans species evolution pretty well. Trans-species evolution is a fact. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)


Darwin's 19th century trans species spawned evolutionary theories are absurd thanks to modern scientific enlightenment. For all intents and purposes, one hundred percent of scientists in the relevant fields accept evolution (the actual number is something like 99.85%, but come on). Whose "scientific enlightenment" is this?

Luke34
Nov 11th 2008, 06:53 AM
Mendel proved you cannot cross-breed outside of a species. And even when you breed a horse and donkey, or tiger and lion, the end result is always in-fertile and cannot produce offspring itself. So it just continues to amaze me that scientist claim it all to be not only possible, but true. I know I just posted this, but here it is again: Observed Instances of Speciation (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html). Speciation is the evolution of a new species, i.e. macroevolution (by most definitions of the latter word). It is an observed fact.

Lamplighter
Nov 11th 2008, 08:50 PM
Trans-species evolution is a fact. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html)


So, what species evolved into the dog(ancient dogs included)?

What species evolved into the cat(ancient cats included)?

What species evolved into the beaver?

I have yet to see the half and half fossils for these animals in the fossil record?

Did reptiles evolve into these mammals?

GitRDunn
Nov 11th 2008, 10:38 PM
So, what species evolved into the dog(ancient dogs included)?

What species evolved into the cat(ancient cats included)?

What species evolved into the beaver?

I have yet to see the half and half fossils for these animals in the fossil record?

Did reptiles evolve into these mammals?
Well, our fossil record is incomplete due to the specific conditions needed for a fossil to form, but there is at least one good example of a "half-and-half" animal. The dinosaur archaeopteryx (information here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html)) is one of the best known examples of a transitional fossil to date, and there have been multiple fossils of it found. It shares many characteristics of birds and also many characteristics of reptiles (especially dinosaurs, which were the main reptiles of the time period).

Lamplighter
Nov 11th 2008, 10:50 PM
Well, our fossil record is incomplete due to the specific conditions needed for a fossil to form, but there is at least one good example of a "half-and-half" animal. The dinosaur archaeopteryx (information here (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html)) is one of the best known examples of a transitional fossil to date, and there have been multiple fossils of it found.

That's a bird, not a reptile.

GitRDunn
Nov 11th 2008, 10:53 PM
That's a bird, not a reptile.
It is classified as a bird, but if you look at my source I gave, it shares many, many reptilian characteristics. From that source, here is some of what it says:

Archaeopteryx's reptile features

5) Premaxilla and maxilla are not horn-covered. This is posh talk for "does not have a bill." The premaxilla does not have a keratinized covering, so Archaeopteryx has no bill. The bill is produced via the process of 'cornification' which involves the mucus layer of the epidermis (Romanoff 1960 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Romanoff1960)) and thus its formation is independant of jaw bone formation.
6) Trunk region vertebra are free. In birds the trunk vertebrae are always fused.
7) Bones are pneumatic. I.e. they appear to have air-sacs, as they do in birds and in some dinosaurs (e.g. Witmer 1990 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Witmer1990), Brooks 1993 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Brooks1993)). It should be pointed out that previous claims suggesting the bones of Archae were not pneumatic (Lambrecht 1933 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Lambrecht1933); de Beer 1954 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#de1954)), was based on negative evidence, i.e. that the bones do not exhibit pneumatic pores (through which the air sacs enter the bones) and the bones show none of the plumpness and bulges which characterise the pneumatic bones of modern birds. Britt et al. (1998 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Britt1998)) found evidence for the presence of pnematic bones in Archaeopteryx:
"Here we re-examine two specimens of _Archaeopteryx_. These specimens show evidence of vertebral pneumaticity in the cervical and anterior thorasic vertebrae, thus confirming the phylogenetic continuity between the pneumatic systems of non-avialan theropods and living birds" (Britt et al. 1998 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Britt1998), p. 374)

8) Pubic shafts with a plate-like, and slightly angled transverse cross-section A Character shared with dromaeosaurs but not with other dinosaurs or birds
9) Cerebral hemispheres elongate, slender and cerebellum is situated behind the mid-brain and doesn't overlap it from behind or press down on it. This again is a reptilian feature. In birds the cerebral hemispheres are stout, cerebellum is so much enlarged that it spreads forwards over the mid-brain and compresses it downwards. Thus the shape of the brain is not like that of modern birds, but rather an intermediate stage between dinosaurs and birds (e.g. Alexander 1990 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Alexander1990)).
10) Neck attaches to skull from the rear as in dinosaurs not from below as in modern birds.The site of neck attachement (from below) is characteristic in birds, _Archaeopteryx_ does not have this character, but is the same as theropod dinosaurs: "Notice that this coelurosaurian-like neck extended back from the rear of the skull in _Archaeopteryx_ - as it does in coelurosaurs [theropod dinosaurs], rather than from beneath as in later birds." (Ostrom 1976 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Ostrom1976), p. 137).
Skull and brain of Archae is basically reptilian and is not "totally birdlike" (contrary to a certain creationist's claim).
11) Center of cervical vertebrae have simple concave articular facets. This is the same as the archosaur pattern. In birds the vertebrae are different, they have a saddle-shaped surface:
"The most striking feature of the vertebrae is the simple disk-like facets of their centra, without any sign of the saddle-shaped articulations found in other birds" (de Beer 1954 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#de1954), p. 17).
12) Long bony tail with many free vertebrae up to tip (no pygostyle). Birds have a short tail and the caudal vertebrae are fused to give the pygostyle.
13) Premaxilla and maxilla bones bear teeth. No modern bird possess teeth (e.g. Romanoff 1960 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Romanoff1960); Orr 1966 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Orr1966), p. 113). Bird embryos form tooth buds, but do not actually produce teeth. Some birds subsequently produce ridges in the bill, but there is no connection between them and the embryonic tooth buds, since the ridges also form in other areas of the bill where no tooth buds have previouslu formed. Some birds produce hook-like structures which are papillae, and appear to be related to the process of keratinization of the beak (Romanoff 1960 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Romanoff1960)), and have nothing to do with teeth. They do not possess blood vessel or nerve connections, nor do they produce dentine.
The expression of tooth buds in the bird embryo has a simple evolutionary explanation, since it suggests that the ancestors of modern birds possessed teeth and that this character has been supressed in modern birds. The presence of tooth buds in the embryos of organisms which do not possess teeth in the adult is a difficulty for anti-evolutionists, since why should a character be expressed that is never used in the organism? Some fossil birds exhibit a reduction in the number of bones which have teeth. Both Hesperornis and Baptornis lack teeth on the premaxilla (Archaeopteryx and theropod dinosaurs have teeth on both the maxilla and premaxilla). Not only that, Hesperornis has a beak, but on the upper jaw only (Gingerich 1975 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Gingerich1975)). It therefore has half a beak and teeth. A good example of a morphologicaly intermediate structure between toothed birds which lack a beak, and beaked, toothless birds.
14) Ribs slender, without joints or uncinate processes and do not articulate with the sternum. Birds have stout ribs with uncinate processes (braces between them) and articulate with the sternum.
15) Pelvic girdle and femur joint is archosaurian rather than avian (except for the backward pointing pubis as mentioned above). Here Archae really shows its transitional nature. Whilst the pelvic girdle as a whole is basically free and similar to archosaur girdles, the pubis points backward - a character shared with birds and some other bird-like theropod dinosaurs.
What is interesting is that with the bird pelvis:
"The ischium lies beneath the posterior part of the ilium and beneath this again is the pubis, which is directed backwards (i.e. like this: =). Embryological studies show that the peculiar position of these bones is the result of secondary rotation and that the pectineal process, in front of the ascetabulum, is not the true pubis as some workers have maintained." (Bellairs & Jenkin 1960 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Bellairs1960), p. 258).
In other words, the embyonic pelvis of the bird, when first formed, looks, in shape and angle between the ilium and the pubis (45 degrees), very similar to the "A"-frame pelvis of Archaeopteryx (i.e. like this: <) (e.g. Romanoff 1960 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Romanoff1960)). The fully formed pelvis with all bones lying parallel is the result of secondary rotation of the pubis from "<" to "=". This supports the view that birds had an ancester with a saurischian pelvis such as the type possessed by Archaeopteryx and other theropod dinosaurs. (see also A tale of two pelvises (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#pelvis) below)
16) The Sacrum (the vertebrae developed for the attachment of pelvic girdle) occupies 6 vertebra. This is the same as in reptiles and especially ornithipod dinosaurs. The bird sacrum covers between 11-23 vertebrae! So, while the variation seen in modern birds is large, it is nowhere near the number found in Archaeopteryx
17) Metacarpals (hand) free (except 3rd metacarpal), wrist hand joint flexible. This is as in reptiles. In birds the metacarpals are fused together with the distal carpals in the carpo-metacarpus, wrist /hand fused. All modern birds have a carpo-metacarpus, all fossil birds have a carpo-metacarpus - except one (guess!) :-). However, the carpals of several coelurosaur dinosaur groups show a trend towards fusion, and in the Late Cretaceous form Avimimus, a true carpo- metacarpus is formed.
It has been suggested that the ostrich and/or other Ratites (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Ratites) also possess unfused wrist/hand bones. This is not correct:
"The ostrich, emus, rheas, cassowaries and kiwis are often referred to together as the Ratites, though they may not be closely related to each other. They have tiny wings and cannot fly, but the bones of their hands are fused together in the same peculiar way as in flying birds, which suggest that they evolved from flying birds." (Alexander 1990 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Alexander1990), p. 435).
Some similarity between the hand of the ostrich and some of the more derived theropod dinosaurs was once used to suggest that the Ratites were 'primitive' and evolved before the advent of flight in birds. However Tucker (1938b (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Tucker1938b)) showed that such similarities are entirely superficial.
"He has directed attention to the bird-like characters of the hand of the dinosaur Ornitholestes as evidence that a bird-like hand can be developed independantly of flight, but the writer has pointed out in the communication mentioned above [Tucker 1938b] that the resemblance is utterly superficial and that the peculiar bowing and terminal fusion of metacarpals 2 and 3 which charcaterise both the Carnate and the Ratite hand are in no wise [sic?] reproduced in the dinosaur." (Tucker 1938a (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Tucker1938a), p. 334).
"Reverting now to the reasons on which have sought to base the view that the Ratites were primitive birds whose ancesters had never flown, one: the similarity between the hand of the ostrich and that of the dinosaur, has been dismissed as invalid. Tucker (1938b (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Tucker1938b)) has shown that such resemblances as there are between them are only superficial and without significance." (de Beer 1956 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#de1956), p. 65).
18) Nasal opening far forward, separated from the eye by a large preorbital fenestra (hole). This is typical of reptiles, but not of birds. Where a fenestra is present in birds, it is always greatly reduced, and is involved in prokinesis (movement of the beak)
19) Deltoid ridge of the humerus faces anteriorly as do the radial and ulnar condyles. Typical of reptiles but not found in birds
20) Claws on 3 unfused digits. No modern adult bird has 3 claws, nor do they have unfused digits. The juvenile hoatzin and Touracos do have 2 claws but loose them as they grow, the ostrich appears to retain its 2 claws into adulthood, due to the early termination of development (see section on Ratites (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Ratites)). In the case of the hoatzin it is thought that these claws allow the juvenile to climb. It had been claimed that since these birds do have claws, even in the juvenile stage, then the presence of claws cannot be used as a reptilian character. This is not so, however. In fact almost all birds exhibit claws, but in the embryonic stage and they are lost by the time the bird leaves the egg. In the case of the few which do retain claws into the juvenile stage, this is merely the extension of the condition into the post-embryonic stage. As McGowan (1984 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#McGowan1984), p 123) says:
"In retaining a primitive reptilian feature which other birds lose just before leaving the egg [the hoatzin] is showing us its reptilian pedigree. Far from being evidence to the contrary, the hoatzin is additional evidence for the reptilian ancestry of birds."
21) The fibula is equal in length to the tibia in the leg. This again is a typical character of reptiles. In birds the fibula is shortened and reduced.
22) Metatarsals (foot bones) free. In birds these are fused to form the tarsometatarsus. However, in modern bird embryos, the foot bones are initially separate as in the adult Archaeopteryx and is another character supporting a reptilian ancestry for birds. After all, why bother producing separate bones in the embryo and then fuse them? Why not produce a fused mass to start with? No adult modern bird has separate metatarsals, but they are separated, initially, in the embryo. This can be explained in terms of evolution - birds evolved from a group which had unfused metatarsals.
Ceratosaurians, Avimimus, and Elmisauridae all show true tarso-metatarsi. Archae itself only shows the beginning of this structure.
23) Gastralia present. Gastralia are "ventral ribs," elements of dermal bone in the ventral wall of the abdomen. Typical of reptiles, they are absent in birds, e.g.:
"In addition to the true ribs the British Museum specimen shows a large number of so-called ventral ribs or gastralia, elements of dermal bone lying in the ventral wall of the abdomen." (de Beer 1954 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#de1954), p. 18)
"The gastralia of the Berlin specimen are identical with those of the British Museum specimen, but more have been preserved." (de Beer 1954 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#de1954), p. 19)
"The "new" specimen was found 8 September 1970 on display in the Teyler Museum, Haarlem, Netherlands. It consists of two small slabs (specimens 6928 & 6929), part and counterpart which contain impressions or parts of the left manus and forearm, pelvis, both legs and feet, and some gastralia." (Ostrom 1970 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Ostrom1970), p. 538)
"Also present are numerous fragments of gastralia, faint impressions of three or four dorsal vertebrae, . . " (Ostrom 1972 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Ostrom1972), p. 291).
"The counterpart slab (No. 6929) contains additional gastralia, phalanges, .." (Ostrom 1972 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Ostrom1972), p. 291)
"Gastralia, or dermal abdominal ribs are present in all five skeletal specimens of _Archaeopteryx_" (Ostrom 1976 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Ostrom1976), p. 139-140).
Gastralia are present on the Eichstatt specimen (See Wellnhofer 1974 (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/archaeopteryx/info.html#Wellnhofer1974), fig. 7C)

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 11th 2008, 10:55 PM
What are your thought about dinos? if they were created by God or men?

As for evolution, I have a hard time believing that billions of years ago two protozoa bumped into each other under a volcanic cesspool and evolved into Adam and Eve... < Quote from Robert G. Lee modified

Lamplighter
Nov 11th 2008, 11:00 PM
It is true that Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its mouth, but these traits do not imply that the creature bore any kind of relationship to reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today, the touraco and the hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto branches. These creatures are fully birds, with no reptilian characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on its wings.

The most important point is that the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx and other birds with teeth is totally different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The well-known ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archaeopteryx and other similar birds have unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, had serrated teeth with straight roots.These researchers also compared the ankle bones of Archaeopteryx with those of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them.

It's not a half reptile, half bird, it's all bird.

GitRDunn
Nov 11th 2008, 11:01 PM
What are your thought about dinos? if they were created by God or men?

As for evolution, I have a hard time believing that billions of years ago two protozoa bumped into each other under a volcanic cesspool and evolved into Adam and Eve...


As for dinosaurs, I believe that God "created" them, whether via actual creation or by evolution, but what do you mean when you ask if I think they were created by men?

As far as the start of evolution, I don't have any problem seeing that as a possibility because God is all-powerful and could easily have caused, as you put it, "billions of years ago two protozoa bumped into each other under a volcanic cesspool and evolved into Adam and Eve" (although the path wouldn't be quite that direct as straight from protozoa to Adam and Eve right off;)).

GitRDunn
Nov 11th 2008, 11:05 PM
It is true that Archaeopteryx had claws on its wings and teeth in its mouth, but these traits do not imply that the creature bore any kind of relationship to reptiles. Besides, two bird species living today, the touraco and the hoatzin, have claws which allow them to hold onto branches. These creatures are fully birds, with no reptilian characteristics. That is why it is completely groundless to assert that Archaeopteryx is a transitional form just because of the claws on its wings.

The most important point is that the tooth structure of Archaeopteryx and other birds with teeth is totally different from that of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs. The well-known ornithologists L. D. Martin, J. D. Stewart, and K. N. Whetstone observed that Archaeopteryx and other similar birds have unserrated teeth with constricted bases and expanded roots. Yet the teeth of theropod dinosaurs, the alleged ancestors of these birds, had serrated teeth with straight roots.These researchers also compared the ankle bones of Archaeopteryx with those of their alleged ancestors, the dinosaurs, and observed no similarity between them.

It's not a half reptile, half bird, it's all bird.

The fact that not everything on it matches up with its ancestors is why it is a transitional species, it would be a reptile if everything matched up. You are saying yourself that is has features that match up with reptiles, but not with birds, thus even though it has to be classified as one or the other (and it is classified as a bird), it still has reptilian traits and is thus a transitional species.

Edit: Sorry for double posting, I didn't think about it when I went to reply to this one.

Lamplighter
Nov 11th 2008, 11:14 PM
The fact that not everything on it matches up with its ancestors is why it is a transitional species, it would be a reptile if everything matched up. You are saying yourself that is has features that match up with reptiles, but not with birds, thus even though it has to be classified as one or the other (and it is classified as a bird), it still has reptilian traits and is thus a transitional species.



And a Platypus has a bill like a duck, but it's not a transitional species between bird and some other animal species.

Similar characteristics, don't mean transitional species.

Transitional species are a fraud.

Luke34
Nov 12th 2008, 12:48 AM
"Transitional species" are always going to have mostly the characteristics of one type and some of the other--finding a 50/50 balance is almost impossible, because there's no guarantee that an exact 50/50 specimen ever existed (it's unlikely). And it's not going to be some kind of chimera with a bird's body and reptilian head. Since there's no classification for "bird-reptiles," since that wouldn't make any sense, it has to be put into either the one category or the other; that doesn't mean its reptilian characteristics "don't matter."

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 12th 2008, 01:04 AM
Hi GitRDunn,


...but what do you mean when you ask if I think they were created by men?

Oh well I do not remember but I guess it was my dad as a child you know all the questions that come to a childs mind, and I guess that was one of them where did dinos come from? or something like that and I think he said me that the people before the flood were who caused them. But I am not sure if it was my dad.

See you

Beloved by God
Nov 12th 2008, 02:06 AM
Okay, you know what, I am done here. I didn't start this thread to have to defend my beliefs, I started it because I thought the other Christians on here would like some references when it came to defending thier beliefs. I didn't want to get into a big long discussion on evolution, and I actually didn't think I would have to.
There are scientists out there that do not believe in evolution and I am not going to accept evolution as fact just because most of the scientists say so, and professors say so. The majority isn't always right, and all of the "facts" don't add up for me (or a lot of other people), like how they date the different layers of dirt/rock.
So you guys can go on discussing but I really don't feel like going around in circles for days.

crawfish
Nov 12th 2008, 03:00 AM
Okay, you know what, I am done here. I didn't start this thread to have to defend my beliefs, I started it because I thought the other Christians on here would like some references when it came to defending thier beliefs. I didn't want to get into a big long discussion on evolution, and I actually didn't think I would have to.
There are scientists out there that do not believe in evolution and I am not going to accept evolution as fact just because most of the scientists say so, and professors say so. The majority isn't always right, and all of the "facts" don't add up for me (or a lot of other people), like how they date the different layers of dirt/rock.
So you guys can go on discussing but I really don't feel like going around in circles for days.

You said earlier that your mind was made up before you ever started reading. I seriously doubt that anybody with that mindset has ever changed their mind about anything.

Some of us feel that by "defending our beliefs as Christians" we are actually hurting our credibility instead. Remember, iron sharpens iron; if you want to hold these beliefs for any other reason than to feel good internally about your decision, if you want to discuss them publicly, then discussing them with people who don't agree with you is the best way to strengthen your own knowledge.

GitRDunn
Nov 12th 2008, 03:53 AM
Hi GitRDunn,



Oh well I do not remember but I guess it was my dad as a child you know all the questions that come to a childs mind, and I guess that was one of them where did dinos come from? or something like that and I think he said me that the people before the flood were who caused them. But I am not sure if it was my dad.

See you
Ok, that's fine, I was just curious.:bounce:


Okay, you know what, I am done here. I didn't start this thread to have to defend my beliefs, I started it because I thought the other Christians on here would like some references when it came to defending thier beliefs. I didn't want to get into a big long discussion on evolution, and I actually didn't think I would have to.
There are scientists out there that do not believe in evolution and I am not going to accept evolution as fact just because most of the scientists say so, and professors say so. The majority isn't always right, and all of the "facts" don't add up for me (or a lot of other people), like how they date the different layers of dirt/rock.
So you guys can go on discussing but I really don't feel like going around in circles for days.
I'm sorry if anything I said upset you, I was simply trying to have an intellectual discussion. You might surprised to find out that I'm not a theistic evolutionist in the normal sense, I believe it could be either that or creationism, but I believe we have no way of knowing. I usually end up taking the theistic evolution side in discussions, though, because it helps to balance out the debate and because I do lean slightly more to the T.E. side of things. I wish you the best and wish you would continue to discuss the best with us because you have brought up some good points. God bless!

Beloved by God
Nov 12th 2008, 04:32 AM
You said earlier that your mind was made up before you ever started reading. I seriously doubt that anybody with that mindset has ever changed their mind about anything.

Oh wow, you sound like you know me so well... no, you don't. I have changed my mind about many things, but I am not going to sit here for days and talk to someone who is not going to change thier mind. It does no good for me to come home and try to relax only to have to argue with someone, I get enough of that at work. I come to this board for fellowship and encouragement. And I was trying to encourage people with this thread, but if you just want to argue you can do it with someone else.

Some of us feel that by "defending our beliefs as Christians" we are actually hurting our credibility instead.

Really? By standing up for what I believe in as a Christian I am hurting my credibility. I am dumb because I am a Christian... oorrr what are you trying to say? Because otherwise that statement made no sense.

Remember, iron sharpens iron; if you want to hold these beliefs for any other reason than to feel good internally about your decision, if you want to discuss them publicly, then discussing them with people who don't agree with you is the best way to strengthen your own knowledge.
I already have knowledge. I used to believe just like you, "Well, scientist say it's true, but I believe the Bible...uh I'll just compromise and say God had a part in evolution." This is a subject I have read on from different sources and prayed about. I don't think that God had any part in evolution. If you truly believe that and I have upset you/offended you/hurt your feelings then I truley am sorry. (I know my tone isn't the sweetest that's why I was going to quit the thread) Maybe God will enlighten you one day, or hey, maybe He'll whisper in my ear the next time I pick up The Evolution Handbook. But somehow I think He would have done that 2 years ago.
I think evolution is a way for scientists and other people to explain where they came from without God in the picture. And I discuss these things other places than here. This board is not suppose to be for debating and making the other person look, or feel, bad or stupid. It is a Christian board where Christians are suppose to be able to come and find support. If someone is wrong, correcting them is fine, but continually arguing is not edifying and that is all some people do. I am not going to be one of those people.

But just for fun, read the article below and then tell me how evolution is possible.



Beetle Warfare
Little Bugs That Evolutionists
Would Like to Forget!

Issue Date: January/February 1994
Here, excerpted from The Collapse of Evolution (http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0174.asp) by Dr. Scott M. Huse, is one of the many humorous examples in nature that make evolutionists look silly.


Beetle Warfare
Did you ever notice how sometimes big surprises can come in little packages? Well, such is the case of the surprising little bombardier beetle. The bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with an impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this spirited little beetle blasts irritating and odious gases, which are at 212ºF, out from two tailpipes right into the unfortunate face of the would-be aggressor.
Hermann Schildnecht, a German chemist, studied the bombardier beetle to find out how he accomplishes this impressive chemical feat. He learned that the beetle makes his explosive by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, this clever little beetle adds another type of chemical known as an "inhibitor." The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store the chemicals indefinitely.
Whenever the beetle is approached by a predator, such as a frog, he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes, and at precisely the right moment he adds another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). This knocks out the inhibitor, and a violent explosion occurs right in the face of the poor attacker.
Could such a marvelous and complex mechanism have evolved piecemeal over millions of years? The evolutionist is forced to respond with a somewhat sheepish “yes,” but a brief consideration of this viewpoint will reveal its preposterous nature.
According to evolutionary “thinking” there must have been thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually, we are assured, they arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the other hand, if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such an arrangement would never arise apart from intelligent foresight and planning.
Nevertheless, let us assume that the little beetle somehow managed to simultaneously develop the two chemicals along with the all-important inhibitor. The resultant solution would offer no benefit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a harmless concoction. To be of any value to the beetle, the anti-inhibitor must be added to the solution.
So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage, until finally, the anti-inhibitor was perfected. Now he is really getting somewhere! With the anti-inhibitor developed he can now blow himself to pieces, frustrating the efforts of the hungry predator who wants to eat him. Ah, yes, he still needs to evolve the two combustion tubes, and a precision communications and timing network to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the explosion. So, here we go again; for thousands of generations these carefree little beetles went around celebrating the 4th of July by blowing themselves to pieces until finally they mastered their newfound powers.
But what would be the motivation for such disastrous, trial and error, piecemeal evolution? Everything in evolution is supposed to be beneficial and have a logical purpose, or else it would never develop. But such a process does not make any sense, and to propose that the entire defense system evolved all at once is simply impossible. Yet, nature abounds with countless such examples of perfect coordination. Thus, we can only conclude that the surprising little bombardier beetle is a strong witness for special creation, for there is no other rational explanation for such a wonder.
The water beetle is also equipped with an impressive—although different—defense mechanism. He manages to escape his enemies by secreting a detergent substance from a gland. Ejecting the detergent accomplishes two things. Firstly, it serves to propel the beetle forward quickly so that he is out of the immediate danger. Secondly, the detergent causes the surface tension of the water to break down, and the pursuing insect sinks into the water. How true are the words of the psalmist who wrote: "O Lord, how manifold are they works! In wisdom hast thou made them all: the earth is full of thy riches" (Ps. 104:24).

GitRDunn
Nov 12th 2008, 04:48 AM
But just for fun, read the article below and then tell me how evolution is possible.



Beetle Warfare
Little Bugs That Evolutionists
Would Like to Forget!
Issue Date: January/February 1994

Here, excerpted from The Collapse of Evolution (http://www.chick.com/catalog/books/0174.asp) by Dr. Scott M. Huse, is one of the many humorous examples in nature that make evolutionists look silly.


Beetle Warfare

Did you ever notice how sometimes big surprises can come in little packages? Well, such is the case of the surprising little bombardier beetle. The bombardier beetle is a small insect that is armed with an impressive defense system. Whenever threatened by an enemy attack, this spirited little beetle blasts irritating and odious gases, which are at 212ºF, out from two tailpipes right into the unfortunate face of the would-be aggressor.
Hermann Schildnecht, a German chemist, studied the bombardier beetle to find out how he accomplishes this impressive chemical feat. He learned that the beetle makes his explosive by mixing together two very dangerous chemicals (hydroquinone and hydrogen peroxide). In addition to these two chemicals, this clever little beetle adds another type of chemical known as an "inhibitor." The inhibitor prevents the chemicals from blowing up and enables the beetle to store the chemicals indefinitely.
Whenever the beetle is approached by a predator, such as a frog, he squirts the stored chemicals into the two combustion tubes, and at precisely the right moment he adds another chemical (an anti-inhibitor). This knocks out the inhibitor, and a violent explosion occurs right in the face of the poor attacker.
Could such a marvelous and complex mechanism have evolved piecemeal over millions of years?

God is all-mighty and can do anything, if he wanted to control evolution (which is what Christians who believe in evolution believe he did) and make this happen, he could have easily made it happen.


The evolutionist is forced to respond with a somewhat sheepish “yes,” but a brief consideration of this viewpoint will reveal its preposterous nature.
According to evolutionary “thinking” there must have been thousands of generations of beetles improperly mixing these hazardous chemicals in fatal evolutionary experiments, blowing themselves to pieces. Eventually, we are assured, they arrived at the magic formula, but what about the development of the inhibitor? There is no need to evolve an inhibitor unless you already have the two chemicals you are trying to inhibit. On the other hand, if you already have the two chemicals without the inhibitor, it is already too late, for you have just blown yourself up. Obviously, such an arrangement would never arise apart from intelligent foresight and planning.
Nevertheless, let us assume that the little beetle somehow managed to simultaneously develop the two chemicals along with the all-important inhibitor. The resultant solution would offer no benefit at all to the beetle, for it would just sit there as a harmless concoction. To be of any value to the beetle, the anti-inhibitor must be added to the solution.
So, once again, for thousands of generations we are supposed to believe that these poor beetles mixed and stored these chemicals for no particular reason or advantage, until finally, the anti-inhibitor was perfected. Now he is really getting somewhere! With the anti-inhibitor developed he can now blow himself to pieces, frustrating the efforts of the hungry predator who wants to eat him. Ah, yes, he still needs to evolve the two combustion tubes, and a precision communications and timing network to control and adjust the critical direction and timing of the explosion. So, here we go again; for thousands of generations these carefree little beetles went around celebrating the 4th of July by blowing themselves to pieces until finally they mastered their newfound powers.
But what would be the motivation for such disastrous, trial and error, piecemeal evolution? Everything in evolution is supposed to be beneficial and have a logical purpose, or else it would never develop.

Actually, not everything in evolution is beneficial, there are also those small evolutionary changes that are negative (a small mutation) that is bad, but because they are negative they don't get passed on through breeding because it doesn't help the insect or whatever to survive.

Kudo Shinichi
Nov 12th 2008, 01:12 PM
Most mutation scientifically cause cancer and FAQ Mutation
http://ghr.nlm.nih.gov/handbook/illustrations/cancer http://www.cancerquest.org/index.cfm?page=302 http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/mutations.html


Mutations happen.
They happen with great regularity.
Almost all mutations are neutral.
Of the remainder, benefit/harm depends on circumstances

Mutation cause by radiation from nuclear material, X-Ray and sunlight from the Sun


From the book The Evolution Handbook compiled by Vance Ferrell
Chapter 1 History of Evolution pgs. 36 and

H.J. Muller (1890-1967) Upon learning of the 1927 discovery that X-rays, gamma rays, and various chemicals could induce an extremely rapid increase of mutations in the chromosomes of test animals and plants, Muller, pioneered in using X-rays to greatly increase the mutations rate in fruit flies. But he and all other researchers found was that mutations were always harmful. (H.J. Muller, Time November 11, 1946, p. 38; E.J. Gardner Principles of Genetics, 1964, p. 192; Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the species, 1951, p. 73).

Chernobyl (1986) is another evolutionist's paradise. Since mutations are today thought to be the leading mechanism for achieving evolutionary change for the better, the intense radiation which the people received on April 26, 1986, should have brought them great benefit because of all the mutations it included. They should be stronger, healthier, have improved organs, and produce children which are higher forms of life. But this has not happened. Scientist know that even Marie Curie and her daughter died as a result of working with radiation. Mutations result in harm and death, never in evolutionary change (Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 691-692).

crawfish
Nov 12th 2008, 02:39 PM
I already have knowledge. I used to believe just like you, "Well, scientist say it's true, but I believe the Bible...uh I'll just compromise and say God had a part in evolution." This is a subject I have read on from different sources and prayed about.

I'm not offended by you in the least, except in this: your post above implies that you have all available knowledge, that the only reason one would accept evolution is as a "compromise", and that we have not read multiple sources or prayed about it ourselves.

I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that, but if you did you would be wrong. A few things I want point out:

1) no matter how much knowledge you have, there is ALWAYS more to know. Answers tend to beget questions. If you have no more questions (on any subject - scripture, evolution, etc) - you aren't asking hard enough.

2) Christians of great faith can have disagreements in what they believe. Two highly intelligent, faithful Christians can read the same scripture and come away with two different points of view. Thank God that through His grace we don't need perfect understanding for our salvation.

3) A belief that God used evolution as a tool is no compromise. If you cannot admit that there is compelling evidence of evolution, regardless of whether or not that you believe in it, then you're not looking at it closely enough. Rest assured, I would prefer to be a creationist. As a TE, I earn the ire of much of the Christian world and no appreciation from the secular world. The only reason I'm caught in this uncomfortable position is because I believe that it is necessary and true.

4) I pray all the time. I feel led by God to become knowledgeable on the topic; I think that He knows that many of His people are not prepared to accept this truth, and has selected many of us to lead so, when there is no choice but acceptance, we have already prepared the way.

Always remember, we share a great love for God and a submission to His will. We are allies, not enemies, and we will meet someday in Heaven and laugh over this whole thing, regardless of which of us is more correct. :)

EarlyCall
Nov 12th 2008, 05:20 PM
My understanding is that man as we know him today was once anything but what we know him as today. It is my understanding that man started out as quite the ape-like creature and progressed from there.

Along that line of progression, we'll call him man anyway, man began to communicate, though nothing like communication as we know it today. He also started to walk uprght.

M question is this: At what point did God put a soul into man? If man was incapable of communicating intelligently for millions of years until he reached that stage, and was more animal than human, when did God finally decide to put a soul into man?

My next question is: What do you call someone that tells you a story and gives lots of details in that story when none of it is true?

Dragonfighter1
Nov 12th 2008, 05:30 PM
My understanding is that man as we know him today was once anything but what we know him as today. It is my understanding that man started out as quite the ape-like creature and progressed from there.

Along that line of progression, we'll call him man anyway, man began to communicate, though nothing like communication as we know it today. He also started to walk uprght.

M question is this: At what point did God put a soul into man? If man was incapable of communicating intelligently for millions of years until he reached that stage, and was more animal than human, when did God finally decide to put a soul into man?

My next question is: What do you call someone that tells you a story and gives lots of details in that story when none of it is true?
Heres a can of worms then.

We did not evolve; that much is substantiated, the problem is the evidence for an old earth looks convincing, however none of the evolutionary models stand up to scrutiny. As one scientist said "we dont have the answer but letting bishops into the science lab would be disastrous, so we will keep trying to find a secular solution and until then we shall ignore the errors in our own theories and point out the errors in everyone elses."

crawfish
Nov 12th 2008, 05:33 PM
My next question is: What do you call someone that tells you a story and gives lots of details in that story when none of it is true?

A storyteller?

;)

EarlyCall
Nov 12th 2008, 05:39 PM
A storyteller?

;)

That is a polite term. And when someone does this about something in every day life, and you're not sitting in front of a campfire, what do you call them then?

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 12th 2008, 05:40 PM
There is a video in 3d a bit related to what is being discussed in here[creation & evo] if you had anytime click here. (http://es.youtube.com/watch?v=iS8nyCrnkAc)

Take care

EarlyCall
Nov 12th 2008, 05:43 PM
Heres a can of worms then.

We did not evolve; that much is substantiated, the problem is the evidence for an old earth looks convincing, however none of the evolutionary models stand up to scrutiny. As one scientist said "we dont have the answer but letting bishops into the science lab would be disastrous, so we will keep trying to find a secular solution and until then we shall ignore the errors in our own theories and point out the errors in everyone elses."

Ah, but to those that do not believe in God and to those that belive in God but not in His word and instead believe the world (strange isn't it), then we did evolve.

So for the Christians that beleive in evolution, when did God put a soul in us and begin to walk and talk with us? Further yet, what happened to those ape-almost-but-not-quite-yet-man beings that walked the earth? No soul? Just missed out on a soul? How unfortunate for them.

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 12th 2008, 05:49 PM
So for the Christians that beleive in evolution, when did God put a soul in us and begin to walk and talk with us? Further yet, what happened to those ape-almost-but-not-quite-yet-man beings that walked the earth? No soul? Just missed out on a soul? How unfortunate for them.

Actually I have had a question a while ago, here it goes:
If men evolved from apes then how come we have yet apes ? How unfortunate for them.- only curious...

crawfish
Nov 12th 2008, 05:53 PM
That is a polite term. And when someone does this about something in every day life, and you're not sitting in front of a campfire, what do you call them then?

It depends on the purpose, doesn't it? If the intent is to deceive, it would make the teller a liar. If the intent was to explain concepts and ideas rather than history, then the teller becomes a storyteller - much like Jesus giving us a parable.

If the listener of the latter type of story took it literally, then whose fault is that? Does the storyteller become a liar, or is the listener simply mistaken?

crawfish
Nov 12th 2008, 05:56 PM
Actually I have had a question a while ago, here it goes:
If men evolved from apes then how come we have yet apes ? How unfortunate for them.- only curious...

The answer from the opposing point of view, from a source that hopefully you will trust.


“If we evolved from apes, apes shouldn’t exist today.” (http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/faq/dont_use.asp)

In response to this statement, some evolutionists point out that they don’t believe that we descended from apes, but that apes and humans share a common ancestor. However, the evolutionary paleontologist G.G. Simpson had no time for this “pussyfooting,” as he called it. He said, “In fact, that earlier ancestor would certainly be called an ape or monkey in popular speech by anyone who saw it. Since the terms ape and monkey are defined by popular usage, man’s ancestors were apes or monkeys (or successively both). It is pusillanimous [mean-spirited] if not dishonest for an informed investigator to say otherwise.”
However, the main point against this statement is that many evolutionists believe that a small group of creatures split off from the main group and became reproductively isolated from the main large population, and that most change happened in the small group which can lead to allopatric speciation (a geographically isolated population forming a new species). So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

EarlyCall
Nov 12th 2008, 06:07 PM
It depends on the purpose, doesn't it? If the intent is to deceive, it would make the teller a liar. If the intent was to explain concepts and ideas rather than history, then the teller becomes a storyteller - much like Jesus giving us a parable.

If the listener of the latter type of story took it literally, then whose fault is that? Does the storyteller become a liar, or is the listener simply mistaken?


Care to describe the similarities between a parable Jesus told and God's claim of creating man? Would you start with just that please - the claims made.

Oh, and were you going to try and answer my question of when God gave man a soul? It's ok to say you don't know. But surely that also came about through evolution. Don't you think? How would that work? Has almighty science even tackled that problem yet? If not, why do you think they have't broached it yet?

crawfish
Nov 12th 2008, 06:54 PM
Care to describe the similarities between a parable Jesus told and God's claim of creating man? Would you start with just that please - the claims made.

Sure. First, though, note that there is a slight difference between parable and allegory; the former typically has one main point and the elements inside are as projected (a Samaritan is presented to be nothing but a Samaritan, no additional symbolic content). In the latter, every element has some level of symbolism. But, in the end, both are designed to be tales to impart a message.

Both, however, are stories made up not to deceive but to illustrate. Both are designed so to connect to the audience in a way that rote facts cannot. Tell me, what is more effective? The parable of the Good Samaritan, or if Jesus simply said "your neighbor is the one who helps you, regardless of who he happens to be". The former one is a tale we remember, a tale we can apply. The latter, while it works, is far less personal. In the same vein, the creation story connects God's works to us by drawing a parallel to our work week. Splitting up the elements of God's creation into days is also a literary mechanism that allows them to be enumerated and remembered far more easily.

You seem to imply that not taking the text literally means that one doesn't accept the fact that God created everything. That is not the case; an allegorical reading demands the same thing a literal reading does, in that God is responsible for all of creation. I believe there is not one element in creation that God is not responsible for; everything happens because He willed it to. "Natural" is only a word to describe the consistent laws God put in place to guide His creation; those things we can count on such as gravity, electricity and the like.


Oh, and were you going to try and answer my question of when God gave man a soul? It's ok to say you don't know. But surely that also came about through evolution. Don't you think? How would that work? Has almighty science even tackled that problem yet? If not, why do you think they have't broached it yet?

I didn't know that the question was directed to me, but no, I have no idea. I would assume it was the moment man became self-aware, or the moment God revealed Himself to man. But I would put no faith into that statement - pure speculation.

There is no reason to think that evolution has anything to do with the soul, or that science can find it or even explain it. Science is attempting not to find the soul, but to explain our source of self-awareness; and such attempts may not point to some supernatural element to our natures, but should illuminate the nature of the soul vs. our physical bodies and our concept of free will under God.

Lamplighter
Nov 12th 2008, 09:42 PM
"Transitional species" are always going to have mostly the characteristics of one type and some of the other--finding a 50/50 balance is almost impossible, because there's no guarantee that an exact 50/50 specimen ever existed (it's unlikely). And it's not going to be some kind of chimera with a bird's body and reptilian head. Since there's no classification for "bird-reptiles," since that wouldn't make any sense, it has to be put into either the one category or the other; that doesn't mean its reptilian characteristics "don't matter."

In other words, trans species evolution is a fraud by wicked men.

There is not even a minute shred of evidence from slime to cell, fish to mammal, reptile to bird, reptile to mammal, mammal to ape, or ape to man, etc............................

No matter what you want to theorize(since there is no proof) about trans species evolution, it's nothing more then a wicked theory by men. It spits in the face of scripture.

crawfish
Nov 12th 2008, 09:45 PM
In other words, trans species evolution is a fraud by wicked men.

There is not even a minute shred of evidence from slime to cell, fish to mammal, reptile to bird, reptile to mammal, mammal to ape, or ape to man, etc............................

No matter what you want to theorize(since there is no proof) about trans species evolution, it's nothing more then a wicked theory by men. It spits in the face of scripture.

Which means that you're going to deny any evidence that could possibly be gained unless you see a chicken give birth to an iguana. Which, of course, would render the theory of evolution absolutely invalid if it happened anyway...

Lamplighter
Nov 12th 2008, 10:20 PM
Which means that you're going to deny any evidence that could possibly be gained unless you see a chicken give birth to an iguana. Which, of course, would render the theory of evolution absolutely invalid if it happened anyway...

I won't ignore any evidence of trans species evolution, but so far there is no valid evidence, not even a minute amount. So far, all of the evidence supports scripture. Each animal was created by God and reproduces after it's own kind, just as scripture says it does.

Trans species evolution is a fraud made up by wicked men who hate the idea God(they admit as much), and it is just one way they are trying to brain wash the masses into believing there is no God or any creation by God or any plan for mankind by God. Mankind is just an evolved ape with no creator, no plan, and no purpose in life, therefore there are no moral absolutes except for what mankind in each society wants to decide on being right and good.

There is no reason for teaching this lie among Christians, especially with not one shred of evidence to justify doing so. Debating the evolutionary lies from Satan in the name of Christianity, is some messed up stuff, for any Christian. But then again, Christ spoke of this very thing happening in the last days, so I'm not surprised that so many Christians believe Satan's lies about God's creation.

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 12th 2008, 10:54 PM
Thanks Crawfish,

For that parragraph from answers in Genesis


So there’s nothing in evolutionary theory that requires the main group to become extinct.

Another question for your point of view my friend.
Why would have God omited this to appear in the Scriptures?

See you later

crawfish
Nov 12th 2008, 11:00 PM
Thanks Crawfish,

For that parragraph from answers in Genesis



Another question for your point of view my friend.
Why would have God omited this to appear in the Scriptures?

See you later

What possibly reason could He have had for including it?

God also excluded talk about quasars, the nature of stars, atoms, nuclear reactions, electricity, medicine and biology, aerodynamics, quantum physics and a multitude of other things. I guess He figures there are things what we should find out on our own.

crawfish
Nov 12th 2008, 11:06 PM
I won't ignore any evidence of trans species evolution, but so far there is no valid evidence, not even a minute amount. So far, all of the evidence supports scripture. Each animal was created by God and reproduces after it's own kind, just as scripture says it does.

Trans species evolution is a fraud made up by wicked men who hate the idea God(they admit as much), and it is just one way they are trying to brain wash the masses into believing there is no God or any creation by God or any plan for mankind by God. Mankind is just an evolved ape with no creator, no plan, and no purpose in life, therefore there are no moral absolutes except for what mankind in each society wants to decide on being right and good.

There is no reason for teaching this lie among Christians, especially with not one shred of evidence to justify doing so. Debating the evolutionary lies from Satan in the name of Christianity, is some messed up stuff, for any Christian. But then again, Christ spoke of this very thing happening in the last days, so I'm not surprised that so many Christians believe Satan's lies about God's creation.

I'm sorry, but this reminds me of the storekeeper in Monty Python's dead parrot sketch. To say that there is "not one shred of evidence" is denial on a grand scale. I'm very sorry if you're offended, but I must do what I think is right, and based on prayer and study I know that what I am doing is His will.

EarlyCall
Nov 12th 2008, 11:41 PM
Sure. First, though, note that there is a slight difference between parable and allegory; the former typically has one main point and the elements inside are as projected (a Samaritan is presented to be nothing but a Samaritan, no additional symbolic content). In the latter, every element has some level of symbolism. But, in the end, both are designed to be tales to impart a message.

Both, however, are stories made up not to deceive but to illustrate. Both are designed so to connect to the audience in a way that rote facts cannot. Tell me, what is more effective? The parable of the Good Samaritan, or if Jesus simply said "your neighbor is the one who helps you, regardless of who he happens to be". The former one is a tale we remember, a tale we can apply. The latter, while it works, is far less personal. In the same vein, the creation story connects God's works to us by drawing a parallel to our work week. Splitting up the elements of God's creation into days is also a literary mechanism that allows them to be enumerated and remembered far more easily.

You seem to imply that not taking the text literally means that one doesn't accept the fact that God created everything. That is not the case; an allegorical reading demands the same thing a literal reading does, in that God is responsible for all of creation. I believe there is not one element in creation that God is not responsible for; everything happens because He willed it to. "Natural" is only a word to describe the consistent laws God put in place to guide His creation; those things we can count on such as gravity, electricity and the like.



I didn't know that the question was directed to me, but no, I have no idea. I would assume it was the moment man became self-aware, or the moment God revealed Himself to man. But I would put no faith into that statement - pure speculation.

There is no reason to think that evolution has anything to do with the soul, or that science can find it or even explain it. Science is attempting not to find the soul, but to explain our source of self-awareness; and such attempts may not point to some supernatural element to our natures, but should illuminate the nature of the soul vs. our physical bodies and our concept of free will under God.

And don't you see the problem here? What of those almost man-like beings that had no soul because, well, they just weren't human enough yet. Forever where? Not in hell and not in heaven but not quite animal and not quite human either. Perhaps now residing in congress.

But I take God at His word. If I cannot trust God to be honest about how He created us, then what else can I not trust God with what He tells us in His word? Certainly this begs that question.

But anyway, I appreciate the discussion with you. :)

crawfish
Nov 13th 2008, 12:43 AM
And don't you see the problem here? What of those almost man-like beings that had no soul because, well, they just weren't human enough yet. Forever where? Not in hell and not in heaven but not quite animal and not quite human either. Perhaps now residing in congress.

But I take God at His word. If I cannot trust God to be honest about how He created us, then what else can I not trust God with what He tells us in His word? Certainly this begs that question.

But anyway, I appreciate the discussion with you. :)

I doubt there would be a middle ground, here...one would go from no soul to souled, no congressmen inbetween. :)

As I said before, there is no dishonesty on God's part, just the chance of misinterpretation on yours. In my view. Perhaps you're trusting in the wrong things.

No offense intended. Again, I just want understanding for my point of view.

Lamplighter
Nov 13th 2008, 03:15 AM
I'm sorry, but this reminds me of the storekeeper in Monty Python's dead parrot sketch. To say that there is "not one shred of evidence" is denial on a grand scale. I'm very sorry if you're offended, but I must do what I think is right, and based on prayer and study I know that what I am doing is His will.

There is no evidence for trans species evolution my friend, only blind speculation at best. There is not one transitional species alive today or in the fossil record. As Genesis says, every species is created by God, and reproduces after it's own kind, and science backs up Genesis on this.

I'm sorry you feel the need to deny this fact. God bless.

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 13th 2008, 03:20 AM
God also excluded talk about quasars, the nature of stars, atoms, nuclear reactions, electricity, medicine and biology, aerodynamics, quantum physics and a multitude of other things. I guess He figures there are things what we should find out on our own.Let`s say problably because are not that important for our salvation.

So let me put it this way to see if I understand your point of view...

In Genesis the Lord inspired Moses to write the creation in 6 days, but He did not mean it? And anyhow " billions of years ago two protozoa bumped into each other under a volcanic cesspool and evolved into apes/monkeys? Correct me if I am wrong...

And if that is it basically/superficially, then God did not created us after His image, since this point of view...

Thanks ahead

Lamplighter
Nov 13th 2008, 03:50 AM
Let`s say problably because are not that important for our salvation.

So let me put it this way to see if I understand your point of view...

In Genesis the Lord inspired Moses to write the creation in 6 days, but He did not mean it? And anyhow " billions of years ago two protozoa bumped into each other under a volcanic cesspool and evolved into apes/monkeys? Correct me if I am wrong...

And if that is it basically/superficially, then God did not created us after His image, since this point of view...

Thanks ahead

I think the view point is that God created us in his own image, after this, we lost our tails.:lol:

crawfish
Nov 13th 2008, 03:55 AM
Let`s say problably because are not that important for our salvation.

So let me put it this way to see if I understand your point of view...

In Genesis the Lord inspired Moses to write the creation in 6 days, but He did not mean it? And anyhow " billions of years ago two protozoa bumped into each other under a volcanic cesspool and evolved into apes/monkeys? Correct me if I am wrong...

And if that is it basically/superficially, then God did not created us after His image, since this point of view...

Thanks ahead

On the image of God, what part of us exactly do you think is in His image?

crawfish
Nov 13th 2008, 03:56 AM
There is no evidence for trans species evolution my friend, only blind speculation at best. There is not one transitional species alive today or in the fossil record. As Genesis says, every species is created by God, and reproduces after it's own kind, and science backs up Genesis on this.

I'm sorry you feel the need to deny this fact. God bless.

He's not dead. He's sleeping. ;)

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 13th 2008, 03:59 AM
Actually there is a hot thread in this board about this topic,

But personally I would say His Character.

____________
ρєα¢є αη∂ ѕσ ƒσятн

crawfish
Nov 13th 2008, 04:02 AM
Actually there is a hot thread in this board about this topic,

But personally I would say His Character.

____________
ρєα¢є αη∂ ѕσ ƒσятн

Not His tail, then? ;)

If God's image is His spiritual image and NOT His physical image, as most Christians believe, then would it matter if we looked like Iguanas?

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 13th 2008, 04:09 AM
You have got the hook ƒιѕн,

And that image [Character] is what was lost when A&E fell and what throught Jesus ministry and service in the heavenly sanctuary is to be restored in us.

God bless you

BlessedMan
Nov 13th 2008, 04:11 AM
A few years ago the cover story on Science News was about Dog Breeding. Aparently from studying how dog breeds diverge it was discovered that rapid changes in evolution of dogs were possible with the aid of certain enzymes that are related to stress. The article went on to point out how this plugged a whole in Evolutionary theory as they always knew that when there is rapid changes in species in the distant past that it happened in rather short period of time, that before evolution had relied on random mutation to explain evolution but that didn't explain rapid changing evolution.

I thought to myself that as I was a kid and was growing up and the theory of evolution was being presented as a defacto fact that I didn't remember anyone telling me that they had this problem with their theory.

I amn going to be mysterious for a moment. The title of this

crawfish
Nov 13th 2008, 02:33 PM
I amn going to be mysterious for a moment. The title of this

That IS mysterious. :lol:

crawfish
Nov 13th 2008, 02:34 PM
You have got the hook ƒιѕн,

And that image [Character] is what was lost when A&E fell and what throught Jesus ministry and service in the heavenly sanctuary is to be restored in us.

God bless you

So...man from Cain until Jesus rose wasn't in God's image?

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 13th 2008, 04:12 PM
So...man from Cain until Jesus rose wasn't in God's image?

Do you mean if in that span of time from Cain till Jesus rose? Whether or not there was someone with God`s character?

Let`s say Abel was righteous therefore there could have been more people like him...

crawfish
Nov 13th 2008, 04:50 PM
Do you mean if in that span of time from Cain till Jesus rose? Whether or not there was someone with God`s character?

Let`s say Abel was righteous therefore there could have been more people like him...



I think "God's image" refers to far more than character, to be honest. It is our connection to the eternal.

Teke
Nov 13th 2008, 04:55 PM
From the book The Evolution Handbook compiled by Vance Ferrell
Chapter 1 History of Evolution pgs. 36 and

H.J. Muller (1890-1967) Upon learning of the 1927 discovery that X-rays, gamma rays, and various chemicals could induce an extremely rapid increase of mutations in the chromosomes of test animals and plants, Muller, pioneered in using X-rays to greatly increase the mutations rate in fruit flies. But he and all other researchers found was that mutations were always harmful. (H.J. Muller, Time November 11, 1946, p. 38; E.J. Gardner Principles of Genetics, 1964, p. 192; Theodosius Dobzhansky, Genetics and the Origin of the species, 1951, p. 73).

Chernobyl (1986) is another evolutionist's paradise. Since mutations are today thought to be the leading mechanism for achieving evolutionary change for the better, the intense radiation which the people received on April 26, 1986, should have brought them great benefit because of all the mutations it included. They should be stronger, healthier, have improved organs, and produce children which are higher forms of life. But this has not happened. Scientist know that even Marie Curie and her daughter died as a result of working with radiation. Mutations result in harm and death, never in evolutionary change (Isaac Asimov, Asimov's New Guide to Science, 1984, pp. 691-692).

Beloved by God, what are you relating in posting this?
Are you advocating for the twentieth century evolutionary naturalism?
And, are you looking at this topic in an effort to better understand Genesis?

Teke
Nov 13th 2008, 05:05 PM
I think "God's image" refers to far more than character, to be honest. It is our connection to the eternal.

An "image" is just that, an image. It is not the actual thing which it depicts, like a picture. "Likeness" is in relation to the nature of the thing or things. For instance we are all born in the likeness of Adam, in that we are all human beings. I have also posted on this subject in the "image and likeness" thread in Bible Chat.

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 13th 2008, 05:36 PM
I think "God's image" refers to far more than character, to be honest. It is our connection to the eternal. Actually we may differ,

But God will redeem my soul from the power of the grave: for he shall receive me. Selah.

Be not thou afraid when one is made rich, when the glory of his house is increased;

For when he dieth he shall carry nothing away: his glory shall not descend after him.

Though while he lived he blessed his soul: and men will praise thee, when thou doest well to thyself. Psalm 49:15-18

In the bold sentence, "When he dieth he shall carry nothing away" I guess he is talking about riches, you know since the only thing we will take to heaven is character, no houses, money, etc...

Lamplighter
Nov 13th 2008, 09:00 PM
Not His tail, then? ;)

If God's image is His spiritual image and NOT His physical image, as most Christians believe, then would it matter if we looked like Iguanas?

Yes it would matter.

God had a special look, design, and plan for Adam and his descendants, hence why Christ was not born as an Iguana, he was born of Adam's blood line. This is why every time an Angel(Mal'ak in the Hebrew) from God always appears on the earth as a man, and not an Iguana or Ape for example. Obviously the human body is much more special then any of the animal's bodies to God. The human body will be transfigured into a body like Christ's upon our resurrection, and the animals won't be. Mankind is no evolved animal according to scripture, or modern science.

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 13th 2008, 09:10 PM
God had a special look, design, and plan for Adam and his descendants, hence why Christ was not born as an Iguana, he was born of Adam's blood line. This is why every time an Angel(Mal'ak in the Hebrew) from God always appears on the earth as a man, and not an Iguana or Ape for example. Obviously the human body is much more special then any of the animal's bodies to God. The human body will be transfigured into a body like Christ's upon our resurrection, and the animals won't be. Mankind is no evolved animal according to scripture, or modern science.Amen!!

I don`t know any hebrew, but sounds familiar when you spoke about the angel is that Michael?

But the prince of the kingdom of Persia withstood me one and twenty days: but, lo, Michael, one of the chief princes, came to help me; and I remained there with the kings of Persia. Daniel 10:13.

Is interesting how Michael, well the Angel of the Lord, I mean how interesting is this topic related to:

Look not every man on his own things, but every man also on the things of others.

Let this mind be in you, which was also in Christ Jesus:

Who, being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God:

But made himself of no reputation, and took upon him the form of a servant, and was made in the likeness of men:

And being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross. Philipians 2:4-8

The Lord bless you

Lamplighter
Nov 13th 2008, 09:17 PM
Amen!!

I don`t know any hebrew, but sounds familiar when you spoke about the angel is that Michae?


This is how I am learning both Hebrew and Greek, and it's super quick and easy.
http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

The Hebrew and Greek Biblical manuscript languages open up a whole new world of scripture to you. It makes Bible study much more fun and rewarding. God bless.

Teke
Nov 13th 2008, 09:20 PM
Yes it would matter.

God had a special look, design, and plan for Adam and his descendants, hence why Christ was not born as an Iguana, he was born of Adam's blood line. This is why every time an Angel(Mal'ak in the Hebrew) from God always appears on the earth as a man, and not an Iguana or Ape for example. Obviously the human body is much more special then any of the animal's bodies to God. The human body will be transfigured into a body like Christ's upon our resurrection, and the animals won't be. Mankind is no evolved animal according to scripture, or modern science.

Indeed God intended order, not confusion of matter.


1Cr 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

1Cr 15:40 [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another.

1Cr 15:41 [There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory.

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 13th 2008, 09:22 PM
This is how I am learning both Hebrew and Greek, and it's super quick and easy.
http://www.eliyah.com/lexicon.html

The Hebrew and Greek Biblical manuscript languages open up a whole new world of scripture to you. It makes Bible study much more fun and rewarding. God bless.

Smooth!!

I will take a look,
Many thanks homie.

___________
Be good

Lamplighter
Nov 13th 2008, 09:36 PM
Indeed God intended order, not confusion of matter.


1Cr 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

1Cr 15:40 [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another.

1Cr 15:41 [There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory.


:eek:

You mean that the apostle Paul knew more about the origins of man then Darwin did? I find this hard to believe.:hmm:

Teke
Nov 13th 2008, 10:03 PM
:eek:

You mean that the apostle Paul knew more about the origins of man then Darwin did? I find this hard to believe.:hmm:

:D Wanted to rep your original post, but you have it off.

Oh yeah, all the early fathers had a different perspective than the twentieth century one.

A great book that looks at the subject from scripture (which includes the apostolic) and the early fathers is "Genesis, Creation and Early Man" by Seraphim Rose (his writings are loved by many American Christians, as well as Christians worldwide). The first three chapters are online here (http://www.creatio.orthodoxy.ru/english/rose_genesis/index.html).
The book was so popular that they've been sold out for some time now, and the existing paperbacks which cost only about $20 are selling for some $400-$600 each. It was published by the Saint Herman of Alaska Brotherhood (this is the monastery where St Seraphim Rose lived his Christian life in America), which has promised to publish a more updated edition, since it has been given so much attention by so many, both Christian and others.

crawfish
Nov 13th 2008, 10:35 PM
Indeed God intended order, not confusion of matter.


1Cr 15:38 But God giveth it a body as it hath pleased him, and to every seed his own body.

1Cr 15:39 All flesh [is] not the same flesh: but [there is] one [kind of] flesh of men, another flesh of beasts, another of fishes, [and] another of birds.

1Cr 15:40 [There are] also celestial bodies, and bodies terrestrial: but the glory of the celestial [is] one, and the [glory] of the terrestrial [is] another.

1Cr 15:41 [There is] one glory of the sun, and another glory of the moon, and another glory of the stars: for [one] star differeth from [another] star in glory.

Do you think that Paul knew the incredible similarity between the DNA of those four types of creatures? He includes "beasts" as one type, yet there is a bigger difference between chimps and cows than there is between chimps and man.

Do you think Paul knew that the sun is a star, too? He separates them in the passage above. A better scientific reading would be "the sun differeth from other stars as they differ from each other".

Perhaps, just perhaps, we should look at these statements in context. Paul is discussing the nature of our risen bodies. He wants to emphasize that they are eternal, spiritual bodies, not the weak bodies of flesh and blood we occupy now. He emphasizes this through use of analogy. There is no "deeper meaning" here. There is no scientific content intended. It is simply a method of clearly communicating his idea.

Regardless of what side you sit on this subject, it is not good exegesis to read unintended messages into scripture to suit your personal theology.

crawfish
Nov 13th 2008, 10:40 PM
Smooth!!

I will take a look,
Many thanks homie.

___________
Be good

You should dig further into http://blueletterbible.com as well (the first button on that page takes you there) - this is an incredibly powerful tool for bible study. Dig down into any scripture to see the original Greek/Hebrew...a simple click, and you see every instance of that word in the entire bible. It has more bells and whistles than you can shake a stick at.

ƒσяєяυииєя
Nov 13th 2008, 10:51 PM
Got it!!

Thanks a bunch ƒιѕн,

I almost give up but then I saw it [:

Hebrew/Greek Search by English Definitions (LexiConc)
Now you can search the BLB Lexicon and retrieve Strong's numbers by entering English definitions.

Bookmarked for sure...

Lamplighter
Nov 13th 2008, 11:20 PM
Perhaps, just perhaps, we should look at these statements in context. Paul is discussing the nature of our risen bodies. He wants to emphasize that they are eternal, spiritual bodies, not the weak bodies of flesh and blood we occupy now. He emphasizes this through use of analogy. There is no "deeper meaning" here. There is no scientific content intended. It is simply a method of clearly communicating his idea.

Regardless of what side you sit on this subject, it is not good exegesis to read unintended messages into scripture to suit your personal theology.

I agree with you, but there is no doubt that Paul see's that mankind is no evolved animal. We know scripture clearly states that only mankind is created in the image of God, and not animals. Therefore we know that mankind did not evolve from apes or any other animal.

crawfish
Nov 13th 2008, 11:54 PM
I agree with you, but there is no doubt that Paul see's that mankind is no evolved animal. We know scripture clearly states that only mankind is created in the image of God, and not animals. Therefore we know that mankind did not evolve from apes or any other animal.

I don't think it even occurred to him to think so. It's not like we knew anything about evolutionary theory back then. He also didn't have to factor in how close our DNA matches with the animals, or the nature of our sun, or the nature of the objects in the sky. He was making a simple point.

The "image of God" has NOTHING to do with physical characteristics. Therefore, we can contain the image of God despite our ultimate origins, and despite the fact that no other creature was granted the honor. We are specially created by God through whatever means He used. That is not in doubt by ANY evolutionary creationists.

Teke
Nov 14th 2008, 01:25 AM
Do you think that Paul knew the incredible similarity between the DNA of those four types of creatures?
He includes "beasts" as one type, yet there is a bigger difference between chimps and cows than there is between chimps and man.

Do you think Paul knew that the sun is a star, too? He separates them in the passage above. A better scientific reading would be "the sun differeth from other stars as they differ from each other".

If Paul thought scientific observation was relevant he may have referenced it. Science is a theoretical study. Paul is making statements of fact, not science. Beasts are beasts, their DNA is irrelevant to that fact.
It might surprise you how much ancient people actually did know without our modern technology. For instance the distance of the sun from the earth had been calculated long before any modern technology was developed to do so. Study of celestial bodies is present throughout scripture, many things were learned by such study. This is also how the Magi found Christ.


Perhaps, just perhaps, we should look at these statements in context.

Indeed we should see the statements in context. We should also see them as facts being presented to us. If scripture isn't factual to us, then it isn't a reality either.


Paul is discussing the nature of our risen bodies. He wants to emphasize that they are eternal, spiritual bodies, not the weak bodies of flesh and blood we occupy now. He emphasizes this through use of analogy. There is no "deeper meaning" here. There is no scientific content intended. It is simply a method of clearly communicating his idea.


The clear fact being communicated is that all flesh is not the same flesh. I simply take that as factual information.


Regardless of what side you sit on this subject, it is not good exegesis to read unintended messages into scripture to suit your personal theology.

I have no "personal theology" to suit. Good exegesis draws conclusion from the facts presented. For instance, all facts drawn from scripture indicate that God is an uncreated Spirit. Because I cannot prove this fact, doesn't make it nonfactual.
The bible is not a science or history book, and I do not present it as such. However, I do believe it is factual irregardless of ambiguous translations and rhetoric.

crawfish
Nov 14th 2008, 02:57 AM
If Paul thought scientific observation was relevant he may have referenced it. Science is a theoretical study. Paul is making statements of fact, not science. Beasts are beasts, their DNA is irrelevant to that fact.
It might surprise you how much ancient people actually did know without our modern technology. For instance the distance of the sun from the earth had been calculated long before any modern technology was developed to do so. Study of celestial bodies is present throughout scripture, many things were learned by such study. This is also how the Magi found Christ.


Indeed we should see the statements in context. We should also see them as facts being presented to us. If scripture isn't factual to us, then it isn't a reality either.


The clear fact being communicated is that all flesh is not the same flesh. I simply take that as factual information.


I have no "personal theology" to suit. Good exegesis draws conclusion from the facts presented. For instance, all facts drawn from scripture indicate that God is an uncreated Spirit. Because I cannot prove this fact, doesn't make it nonfactual.
The bible is not a science or history book, and I do not present it as such. However, I do believe it is factual irregardless of ambiguous translations and rhetoric.

Actually, what you are doing is "reading inbetween the lines". It requires a truth far and beyond what the analogy needs to be complete. Birds are not fish are not beasts are not man. Skin <> fur <> scales <> feathers; the flesh is not the same. This is outwardly evidenced, there is no need for any further meaning than that for Paul to make his point - and the reader would have understood that point. Let me make this clear: if all life DID emerge from a common ancestor, and all life is related in that way, it in no way takes away from the truth of Paul's message here.

To imply that the passages have some deeper truth about the reality of our differences and our origins is to go beyond the intended purpose, and to enter the realm of speculation ourselves.

Jesus used these same kinds of analogies in his sermons, and we don't put him under the same microscope. Do you think he was implying that someone had an actual plank in their eye, or that they could? If not, was Jesus lying to us?

kevinvr
Nov 14th 2008, 03:37 AM
[quote=crawfish;1860952
This is the true mutation of evolution, and it is small changes like this over the course of millions of years that causes the plethora of life we see today.
quote]

How many millions of years does it take for these mutations to become "the plethora of life we see today" ?

The reason I am asking is because I am just starting to look into the different theories and (correct me if I'm wrong) 6.5 Billion seems to be an agreed figure for the age of the earth. Where does the mutation start, in the single cell or in already recognized species? Where do they come from?
Excuse all the questons, if it is easier to point me to a thread with answers please do so.
God bless

GitRDunn
Nov 14th 2008, 05:04 AM
[quote=crawfish;1860952
This is the true mutation of evolution, and it is small changes like this over the course of millions of years that causes the plethora of life we see today.
quote]

How many millions of years does it take for these mutations to become "the plethora of life we see today" ?

The reason I am asking is because I am just starting to look into the different theories and (correct me if I'm wrong) 6.5 Billion seems to be an agreed figure for the age of the earth. Where does the mutation start, in the single cell or in already recognized species? Where do they come from?
Excuse all the questons, if it is easier to point me to a thread with answers please do so.
God bless
Actually, the approximate age of the Earth commonly accepted by scientists is about 4.5 billion years, but regardless, that is a very long time. As for you questions, the mutations didn't come into play until after life began because combinations of chemicals finally came together in such a way as to create the first microorganisms. If you want to read up on evolution more, these sites should give you a pretty good basis:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/evolution/
http://evolution.berkeley.edu/
http://www.geocities.com/capecanaveral/lab/2948/originoflife.html

Edit: And welcome to the boards! God Bless!

Teke
Nov 14th 2008, 05:13 PM
Actually, what you are doing is "reading inbetween the lines". It requires a truth far and beyond what the analogy needs to be complete. Birds are not fish are not beasts are not man. Skin <> fur <> scales <> feathers; the flesh is not the same. This is outwardly evidenced, there is no need for any further meaning than that for Paul to make his point - and the reader would have understood that point. Let me make this clear: if all life DID emerge from a common ancestor, and all life is related in that way, it in no way takes away from the truth of Paul's message here.

To imply that the passages have some deeper truth about the reality of our differences and our origins is to go beyond the intended purpose, and to enter the realm of speculation ourselves.

Jesus used these same kinds of analogies in his sermons, and we don't put him under the same microscope. Do you think he was implying that someone had an actual plank in their eye, or that they could? If not, was Jesus lying to us?

You lost me. Paul is not making an analogy, he's stating a fact. That's not comparable to Jesus' parable analogies. And besides Paul you'd have to refute Genesis which says God made each thing, not that He made one thing that everything came from.

Point is that no where in scripture does it say any sort of thing such as that everything came from one created thing. But that everything created came from the uncreated God who created from nothing. Nothing means no created material.



Gen 1:20 And God said, Let the waters bring forth abundantly the moving creature that hath life, and fowl [that] may fly above the earth in the open firmament of heaven.

Gen 1:21 And God created great whales, and every living creature that moveth, which the waters brought forth abundantly, after their kind, and every winged fowl after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:22 And God blessed them, saying, Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.

Gen 1:23 And the evening and the morning were the fifth day.

Gen 1:24 And God said, Let the earth bring forth the living creature after his kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after his kind: and it was so.

Gen 1:25 And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that [it was] good.

Gen 1:26 And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.

Gen 1:27 So God created man in his [own] image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.

Gen 1:28 And God blessed them, and God said unto them, Be fruitful, and multiply, and replenish the earth, and subdue it: and have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over every living thing that moveth upon the earth.

That's a lot of "kinds" to refute with 'one kind'. And the Genesis account is not an analogy.

crawfish
Nov 14th 2008, 06:15 PM
You lost me. Paul is not making an analogy, he's stating a fact. That's not comparable to Jesus' parable analogies.

Not an analogy? Read a bit further, to verse 42:

So will it be with the resurrection of the dead. The body that is sown is perishable, it is raised imperishable; it is sown in dishonor, it is raised in glory; it is sown in weakness, it is raised in power; it is sown a natural body, it is raised a spiritual body.

The key word here is "so". The preceding verses provided examples (analogies) - these verses apply that analogy to the main point, the nature of the resurrected body. The statements are of fact, true, but you are going beyond the obvious fact and into speculative fact. Nowhere is it implied that this has any bearing on origins.


...And besides Paul you'd have to refute Genesis which says God made each thing, not that He made one thing that everything came from.

... That's a lot of "kinds" to refute with 'one kind'.

What exactly is a "kind", and what is the scripture saying here? It seems pretty obvious that it is explaining how God's creation multiplied - how one beast multiplied into many, how one bird multiplied into many, etc. If "kind" can be considered a species, then how does that statement invalidate evolution? It's claims aren't that a bird can mate with a dinosaur, it claims that the species can change over time - but always, can only mate with their own.

Note that many creationists on this board admit that speciation has been observed in the lab. This isn't necessarily the grand "macroevolution" changes from reptile to bird, but includes smaller and less fundamental changes. We HAVE observed, though, speciation where the ancestors lose the ability to mate with their forebears; thus, "breeding within kinds" has produced new "kinds". Doesn't this invalidate the major point of using the "kind" argument against evolution? And not with theoretical science, but observed phenomena?


Point is that no where in scripture does it say any sort of thing such as that everything came from one created thing. But that everything created came from the uncreated God who created from nothing. Nothing means no created material.

I wouldn't argue that God didn't create from nothing. But He did not create EVERYTHING from nothing. Read Genesis 1:24

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.

Here, God isn't producing something from nothing. He is ordering the land to produce living creatures. It is fully supported in Genesis 1 that God is the source of all matter, and then used that matter to construct the various parts and pieces of creation.


And the Genesis account is not an analogy.

Of course it isn't an analogy. It's allegory. :)

Teke
Nov 14th 2008, 07:40 PM
The statements are of fact, true, but you are going beyond the obvious fact and into speculative fact. Nowhere is it implied that this has any bearing on origins.

I agree it has no bearing on origins. Genesis establishes origin, that being the Creator. Paul is stating the continuation of that which is created, each having it's own glory. As it passes through glory to glory so to speak, it remains the same thing it was created to be. For instance, a corn seed doesn't produce barley, it produces corn. I do see from your post that we agree on this point.


What exactly is a "kind", and what is the scripture saying here? It seems pretty obvious that it is explaining how God's creation multiplied - how one beast multiplied into many, how one bird multiplied into many, etc. If "kind" can be considered a species, then how does that statement invalidate evolution? It's claims aren't that a bird can mate with a dinosaur, it claims that the species can change over time - but always, can only mate with their own.

Note that many creationists on this board admit that speciation has been observed in the lab. This isn't necessarily the grand "macroevolution" changes from reptile to bird, but includes smaller and less fundamental changes. We HAVE observed, though, speciation where the ancestors lose the ability to mate with their forebears; thus, "breeding within kinds" has produced new "kinds". Doesn't this invalidate the major point of using the "kind" argument against evolution? And not with theoretical science, but observed phenomena?



I wouldn't argue that God didn't create from nothing. But He did not create EVERYTHING from nothing. Read Genesis 1:24

And God said, "Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: livestock, creatures that move along the ground, and wild animals, each according to its kind.

Here, God isn't producing something from nothing. He is ordering the land to produce living creatures. It is fully supported in Genesis 1 that God is the source of all matter, and then used that matter to construct the various parts and pieces of creation.



Of course it isn't an analogy. It's allegory. :)

Of course the creation is procreative (meaning of "kinds"), but only as God ordered it. God created everything, and then put all in order thereby adorning his creation. An example would be like when we decorate a Christmas tree, we adorn according to what we think it should look like.

It seems we are in agreement on procreation. But I don't see how you are relating the scientific explanation of evolution, which states that all life came from a single cell or matter, or the one where the big bang caused life.

I suppose you'll have to explain to me what your meaning of "evolution" is.

crawfish
Nov 14th 2008, 08:40 PM
It seems we are in agreement on procreation. But I don't see how you are relating the scientific explanation of evolution, which states that all life came from a single cell or matter, or the one where the big bang caused life.

I suppose you'll have to explain to me what your meaning of "evolution" is.

I'm not sure where we're in agreement, or disagreement. From my original post to you, my stance is that the Pauline passages listed are being taken out of context when being applied to the subject of this thread. They do not make a statement that can be used to refute evolution.

As to what I believe it is...I hold to the general theory. Evolution starts with the simplest form of life and explains how that lifeform changes over time into all forms of life; in other words, it explains the diversity of life we see today. In itself, it does not presume *how* life formed or came to being; as far as the theory is concerned, it could have sprung from nonlife, had extraterrestrial origins (from an asteroid), or been explicitly placed there by an intelligent designer. In other words, the question is beyond the scope of what evolution attempts to answer. Big bang theory is also not a part of evolution, but is its own theory altogether (and also does not attempt to explain the origins of life).

Perhaps an analogy of my own would be fitting here. Assuming you hold to a typical creationist view, you would believe that creation is God setting up a chessboard; folding and placing the board, and putting the men in place. My view says that God did not bring the game into existence from nothing at that time, but produced the raw materials from nothing and used them to build the box, board and chessmen.

My view holds that God built a complex system of natural law that would inevitably produce stars, our sun, the moon, the plethora of life on earth, and man himself.

Lamplighter
Nov 14th 2008, 09:10 PM
My view holds that God built a complex system of natural law that would inevitably produce stars, our sun, the moon, the plethora of life on earth, and man himself.

What do you do with the God breathed living soul of man then?

How come man can't breed with apes and produce offspring if we are just an evolved ape?

How come you don't see this notion of trans species evolution as absurd at best?

Teke
Nov 14th 2008, 09:40 PM
I'm not sure where we're in agreement, or disagreement. From my original post to you, my stance is that the Pauline passages listed are being taken out of context when being applied to the subject of this thread. They do not make a statement that can be used to refute evolution.

Then your saying we shouldn't reference scripture for our belief. If so, we're already not on common ground on the subject then.



My view holds that God built a complex system of natural law that would inevitably produce stars, our sun, the moon, the plethora of life on earth, and man himself.

"God....built a complex....system of natural law....that would inevitably produce"
This sounds contradictory to what you posted on procreation. May just be me.

My view is that God created everything, from the sun, stars cosmos, animals and even man and then put that in the order He saw most fitting.
So, no, I don't see any "complex system of natural law" that procreated man as well as the cosmos. Because God Himself is not IMHO a complex system of natural law for one. I do see natural law in the nature of things. But to me this is reflective of the order which God desires to display. As creation displays the goodness of God in an ordered manner. And since God is what maintains that order.

IOW it's not a happenstance as you seem to be proposing. But admittedly I am imposing Trinitarian theology on the subject. If I am to understand in the slightest, about God and His creation, I believe I should first begin by trying to understand Him. I do so by the Trinity.

crawfish
Nov 14th 2008, 10:39 PM
What do you do with the God breathed living soul of man then?

The same as you do - our souls are provided by God, and are the portions of us that are connected with the divine. The soul is NOT our minds or personality, which can be altered by chemicals and environment, but separate from our physical bodies.


How come man can't breed with apes and produce offspring if we are just an evolved ape?

Because man is an entirely different species from ape. How do you explain the evolution that we have seen as I mentioned above, where speciation occurs and the new species can no longer mate with its ancestor species?


How come you don't see this notion of trans species evolution as absurd at best?

Because I see enough evidence that I cannot deny there is substance to it. When I understand scripture enough to know that the truth or falseness of evolutionary theory doesn't make a whit of difference to the truth or falseness of scripture, then the only logical option is to let the evidence play out.

crawfish
Nov 14th 2008, 10:59 PM
Then your saying we shouldn't reference scripture for our belief. If so, we're already not on common ground on the subject then.

No, I'm saying we shouldn't take scripture out of context to support our belief. I can reference scripture to support all kinds of things - people do all the time - but that doesn't make those things right.


"God....built a complex....system of natural law....that would inevitably produce"
This sounds contradictory to what you posted on procreation. May just be me.
I'll try to be clearer with an example. A certain species of reptile can ONLY reproduce with its own species. Through the years, some offspring of that reptile stay unchanged, while one strain changes into a new species. The two types of offspring can no longer mate, no longer produce offspring among themselves; they are incompatible. But each strain can still mate "with its own kind". The only difference is, there are two kinds now instead of one.

This type of situation is not speculative or theoretical - it has observed and proven in nature. If you claim that such a situation would be counter to God's word, then God's word is contrary to observed reality. Thus, if you accept that God's word is NOT contrary to realty, then the interpretation of "kind" that I gave above must be true, and you cannot use that argument to refute evolution.


My view is that God created everything, from the sun, stars cosmos, animals and even man and then put that in the order He saw most fitting.
So, no, I don't see any "complex system of natural law" that procreated man as well as the cosmos. Because God Himself is not IMHO a complex system of natural law for one. I do see natural law in the nature of things. But to me this is reflective of the order which God desires to display. As creation displays the goodness of God in an ordered manner. And since God is what maintains that order. Yes, that is where we differ.

Let me ask you this - Jesus was born to a virgin, we both accept this. We both believe that this was a miraculous event. Tell me - was the entire event driven as a unique method for producing the Christ, or was did the natural process that produces us have some play in His birth? Did God fertilize one of Mary's eggs, inserting the DNA he desired to produce Jesus? Did God insert a fertilized egg of His own making? Did Jesus progress from zygote to fetus to infant naturally? How much of this process has to be "supernatural" in order to be classified a miracle? I would claim that if God began the tiny spark of life which then progressed as all human children do, THAT would be enough to qualify as a miracle, and that no supernatural interference after that point would have made it "more of a miracle".

The same with creation. The event was a miracle, whether it was "poof-ed" into existence suddenly or whether God created all matter and then provided that initial spark which used the natural law He defined (or embodied, that difference hardly matters) to bring about His will. It is ALL 100% His, the process of His will.


IOW it's not a happenstance as you seem to be proposing. But admittedly I am imposing Trinitarian theology on the subject. If I am to understand in the slightest, about God and His creation, I believe I should first begin by trying to understand Him. I do so by the Trinity.I don't think it was happenstance. To appreciate the rhino as one of God's creatures, it doesn't matter HOW God created the rhino; it only matters THAT God created the rhino. And if the actual creation of the rhino is more complex and involved that I could have ever imagined, then that is just more to the credit of God's glory.

I completely agree with your last two sentences. I know you might not see exactly what I'm talking about, but understand that I have the same goals and desires in mind. I am a firm believer in the Trinity.

Teke
Nov 15th 2008, 03:57 PM
No, I'm saying we shouldn't take scripture out of context to support our belief. I can reference scripture to support all kinds of things - people do all the time - but that doesn't make those things right.

Doesn't make them wrong either. It's just a contemplative exercise.


I'll try to be clearer with an example. A certain species of reptile can ONLY reproduce with its own species. Through the years, some offspring of that reptile stay unchanged, while one strain changes into a new species. The two types of offspring can no longer mate, no longer produce offspring among themselves; they are incompatible. But each strain can still mate "with its own kind". The only difference is, there are two kinds now instead of one.

This type of situation is not speculative or theoretical - it has observed and proven in nature. If you claim that such a situation would be counter to God's word, then God's word is contrary to observed reality. Thus, if you accept that God's word is NOT contrary to realty, then the interpretation of "kind" that I gave above must be true, and you cannot use that argument to refute evolution.

Yes, that is where we differ.

Let me ask you this - Jesus was born to a virgin, we both accept this. We both believe that this was a miraculous event. Tell me - was the entire event driven as a unique method for producing the Christ, or was did the natural process that produces us have some play in His birth? Did God fertilize one of Mary's eggs, inserting the DNA he desired to produce Jesus? Did God insert a fertilized egg of His own making? Did Jesus progress from zygote to fetus to infant naturally? How much of this process has to be "supernatural" in order to be classified a miracle? I would claim that if God began the tiny spark of life which then progressed as all human children do, THAT would be enough to qualify as a miracle, and that no supernatural interference after that point would have made it "more of a miracle".

The same with creation. The event was a miracle, whether it was "poof-ed" into existence suddenly or whether God created all matter and then provided that initial spark which used the natural law He defined (or embodied, that difference hardly matters) to bring about His will. It is ALL 100% His, the process of His will.

I don't think it was happenstance. To appreciate the rhino as one of God's creatures, it doesn't matter HOW God created the rhino; it only matters THAT God created the rhino. And if the actual creation of the rhino is more complex and involved that I could have ever imagined, then that is just more to the credit of God's glory.


I think I see your point of view. It's just not what I would term "evolution". I understand and agree there is inbreeding, cross breeding, pollination etc. I do not see origins as the same pot of primordial soup (mixed of species in one) so to speak.


I completely agree with your last two sentences. I know you might not see exactly what I'm talking about, but understand that I have the same goals and desires in mind. I am a firm believer in the Trinity.

Thanks, good to know. :)
I don't disapprove of scientific exploration. But mankind has a track record of being wrong on many accounts, even in what we observe. And science is very speculative.

Beloved by God
Nov 16th 2008, 08:09 PM
I'm not offended by you in the least, except in this: your post above implies that you have all available knowledge, that the only reason one would accept evolution is as a "compromise", and that we have not read multiple sources or prayed about it ourselves.

I'm sure you didn't mean to imply that, but if you did you would be wrong. A few things I want point out:
I just wanted to reply to this post, and then you don't really need to reply back.
No, I am not claiming to have all of the knowledge, I read constantly and watch the history channel and animal planet and the news and read news magazines- because I know that no one human has all of the knowledge or answers, and we learn things daily. I also search/read scripture weekly and pray. I didn't know whether or not you had prayed about it, it is good to know you have. :) I would please ask that you continue to pray that God reveals himself and His plans to you. (I do every time I pick up my Bible)


1) no matter how much knowledge you have, there is ALWAYS more to know. Answers tend to beget questions. If you have no more questions (on any subject - scripture, evolution, etc) - you aren't asking hard enough.
I would kind of disagree here. There are some things we have the absolute answer to. ---> If I hold my drinking glass over my tile floor and drop it, it is going to hit the tile and break no matter what I say or think.
-If I go to the bottom of a swimming pool and breathe in I am going to get water in my lungs, and most likely drown.
-Jesus died on the cross and arose again 3 days later.
But there are a lot of things that man will never know or be able to do. It keeps us humble and reminds us there is a God and we are not yet made perfect.



2) Christians of great faith can have disagreements in what they believe. Two highly intelligent, faithful Christians can read the same scripture and come away with two different points of view. Thank God that through His grace we don't need perfect understanding for our salvation.
I completely agree.


3) A belief that God used evolution as a tool is no compromise. If you cannot admit that there is compelling evidence of evolution, regardless of whether or not that you believe in it, then you're not looking at it closely enough. Rest assured, I would prefer to be a creationist. As a TE, I earn the ire of much of the Christian world and no appreciation from the secular world. The only reason I'm caught in this uncomfortable position is because I believe that it is necessary and true.
At first glance there seems to be proof for evolution, but when you study it, a lot of those "facts" don't prove anything. Here are a list of scientists and agree with me.
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html)

http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm (http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm)



4) I pray all the time. I feel led by God to become knowledgeable on the topic; I think that He knows that many of His people are not prepared to accept this truth, and has selected many of us to lead so, when there is no choice but acceptance, we have already prepared the way.
I am glad you pray, we should all pray everyday. :saint: :pray:
But what makes you think God has revealed to you a truth that you are supposed to be making His people believe? Do you think you are an apostle?
Has a preacher or someone from your church who is wise in scripture confirmed this? (I would actually like an answer to this question)
Who says there is no choice but acceptance? How have you prepared the way? As far as I can see, no one who has posted in this thread, has not changed thier mind at all. That's why I don't like to get into debates, rarely does a person admit that they were mistaken or wrong, and the time spent was of no use.


Always remember, we share a great love for God and a submission to His will. We are allies, not enemies, and we will meet someday in Heaven and laugh over this whole thing, regardless of which of us is more correct. :)
Yes that is probably very true. :saint: ;)

crawfish
Nov 16th 2008, 09:37 PM
:) I would please ask that you continue to pray that God reveals himself and His plans to you. (I do every time I pick up my Bible)

A good plan for us all. :)



I would kind of disagree here. There are some things we have the absolute answer to. ---> If I hold my drinking glass over my tile floor and drop it, it is going to hit the tile and break no matter what I say or think.
-If I go to the bottom of a swimming pool and breathe in I am going to get water in my lungs, and most likely drown.
-Jesus died on the cross and arose again 3 days later.
But there are a lot of things that man will never know or be able to do. It keeps us humble and reminds us there is a God and we are not yet made perfect.

Well, with the second example, dying will certainly not bring up more questions. But let's consider your first example:

From dropping my glass, I learn that things fall to the ground. But why? Do they always fall at the same speed? Do heavier things fall faster? Why does glass break, but metal does not? Answering each of those questions increases our level of knowledge of the world - and with that knowledge comes the knowledge of things that we still don't know. Answering those unlocks still more doors. The truth is, the measure of a man's knowledge is in the things he knows he does not know.

I don't *know" Jesus died on the cross and rose 3 days later. I have *faith* that he did. There is a big difference.



At first glance there seems to be proof for evolution, but when you study it, a lot of those "facts" don't prove anything. Here are a list of scientists and agree with me.
http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html (http://www.christiananswers.net/creation/people/home.html)

http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm (http://www.aboundingjoy.com/scientists.htm)


The list means nothing. I can give you a list of scientists ten times as long and ten times as decorated that say the opposite. I could even generate a list of Christian scientists who hold that opposite view far longer than the one you mention above. Correctness is more than finding people who agree with you.

I'm not here to prove evolution to you, so I'll just leave things at that. I have personally not found much in Creation Science to be credible, and I do not find much credible with the YEC theology and interpretation specific to origins.




I am glad you pray, we should all pray everyday. :saint: :pray:
But what makes you think God has revealed to you a truth that you are supposed to be making His people believe? Do you think you are an apostle?
Has a preacher or someone from your church who is wise in scripture confirmed this? (I would actually like an answer to this question)
Who says there is no choice but acceptance? How have you prepared the way? As far as I can see, no one who has posted in this thread, has not changed thier mind at all. That's why I don't like to get into debates, rarely does a person admit that they were mistaken or wrong, and the time spent was of no use.

The leadership of my church (the elders) are not of one mind on the subject. We have some very strong YEC's, a few with evolutionary creationist views, and most are OEC's. They are in full agreement that this is not a salvation issue and that we can differ over it and still do God's work on earth. My minister has been wise enough to avoid the subject in his public ministry (privately, he tends more towards OEC).

I am not an apostle. I believe that this is what God intends for me to do by evaluating it biblically - by its fruits. I have been able to deliver the message of Christ to people who would have been closed without an alternative to creationism. I have been able to get some to listen who are bitter towards the church's supposed stance towards science. Even though most have not come to Christ, I can assure you that at the very least their hearts softened a bit towards God. Jesus spoke of this in Mark 3:20-30. I am not an apostle, I am simply a follower of Christ who prays for God to lead him.

As far as changing...don't let one thread fool you. "Change" isn't the goal of talking on these boards - understanding is. There have been many on this boards, and others, who were indignant against Christians who would dare believe in evolution; but through our debate and discussion, they learned why one could believe in that, and they were softened. I can honestly say that I have a much different view of YEC's and their theology than I did when I started. When we talk without listening and preach without understanding, we end up delivering a message that doesn't touch the audience.

crawfish
Nov 16th 2008, 09:44 PM
Doesn't make them wrong either. It's just a contemplative exercise.

Contemplative <> authoritative. I'm all for speculation on scripture, but it does not carry the power of God's authority when we do.



I think I see your point of view. It's just not what I would term "evolution". I understand and agree there is inbreeding, cross breeding, pollination etc. I do not see origins as the same pot of primordial soup (mixed of species in one) so to speak.

There are too many meanings of "evolution" to make it clear. What I accept for the time being is in "common descent evolution" - the evolution of all life from a single source into incredible diversity, including man. My faith tells me that God is the source of the process.



Thanks, good to know. :)
I don't disapprove of scientific exploration. But mankind has a track record of being wrong on many accounts, even in what we observe. And science is very speculative.

Mankind also has a track record of misinterpreting scripture.

It's always a question of what we put our faith in. Fallible human science? No. Scripture? Yes! Interpretation of scripture? No. God's hand to continue revealing His truth, through nature, and to mankind's understanding of His word? Definitely.

Teke
Nov 16th 2008, 10:25 PM
Contemplative <> authoritative. I'm all for speculation on scripture, but it does not carry the power of God's authority when we do.

I meant contemplative in the sense that we read it as the truth and contemplate that truth.



Mankind also has a track record of misinterpreting scripture.

Intentionally or unintentionally?


It's always a question of what we put our faith in. Fallible human science? No. Scripture? Yes! Interpretation of scripture? No. God's hand to continue revealing His truth, through nature, and to mankind's understanding of His word? Definitely.

What is scripture without interpretation. An interpretation calls for a teacher. I believe a teacher with the Holy Spirit and the teachings of the Apostles can interpret scripture and thereby teach it's meaning to the extent they are able.

Beloved by God
Nov 16th 2008, 10:54 PM
I would say that I know that Jesus lived on earth, than died on the cross. There are secular accounts of Jesus and him being crucified. Him rising again may take faith, but I know that it did happen. I also know the flood of Noah did happen. I feel that God has revealed these things to my heart and he has shown me physical evidence here on earth of those happenings. The Bible is 100% true and we should believe it above all other things, but a person is surprised to find just how much physical evidence there is out there supporting it.

I am glad if you have seen progress in unbelievers. It is good to share our faiths and our beliefs with people. Like you said below, talking and discussing may not change anyone's minds but it does let people understand where you are coming from, and why certain groups of people believe what they believe.
That said I'll just leave you with one last thought- be careful you don't do what you have been saying other people are doing in this thread. --> Preaching without listening. With any given subject, it may be you who needs to change after all... you never know. :bounce: :wave:



As far as changing...don't let one thread fool you. "Change" isn't the goal of talking on these boards - understanding is. There have been many on this boards, and others, who were indignant against Christians who would dare believe in evolution; but through our debate and discussion, they learned why one could believe in that, and they were softened. I can honestly say that I have a much different view of YEC's and their theology than I did when I started. When we talk without listening and preach without understanding, we end up delivering a message that doesn't touch the audience.

crawfish
Nov 17th 2008, 02:03 AM
Intentionally or unintentionally?

Yes?

Actually misinterpretation has to be unintentional. As with things like geocentricism, one cannot know they've misinterpreted the scripture until it is proven scientifically that it cannot be literally true.



What is scripture without interpretation. An interpretation calls for a teacher. I believe a teacher with the Holy Spirit and the teachings of the Apostles can interpret scripture and thereby teach it's meaning to the extent they are able.

I would agree. But the Holy Spirit does not necessarily reveal the full truth to a teacher; only what that teacher needs to say. There are plenty of other "extraneous truths" that God chooses to let us discover outside of His word.

crawfish
Nov 17th 2008, 02:10 AM
I would say that I know that Jesus lived on earth, than died on the cross. There are secular accounts of Jesus and him being crucified. Him rising again may take faith, but I know that it did happen. I also know the flood of Noah did happen. I feel that God has revealed these things to my heart and he has shown me physical evidence here on earth of those happenings. The Bible is 100% true and we should believe it above all other things, but a person is surprised to find just how much physical evidence there is out there supporting it.

You know through faith - not through evidence. There is plenty to cause doubt on both events outside of faith, and even the evidence you find is strengthened because it supports that faith. I have seen the unfortunate situation where one will immediately accept a piece of evidence because it supports what they believe only to find out that the evidence was false; and I have seen situations where one has rejected evidence that conflicts with what they believe only to find out it is true. Both can be a blow to faith, and both are examples of putting your faith in the wrong things.


That said I'll just leave you with one last thought- be careful you don't do what you have been saying other people are doing in this thread. --> Preaching without listening. With any given subject, it may be you who needs to change after all... you never know. :bounce: :wave:

The day I stop listening and trying to understand is the day I will banish myself from these discussions altogether. And if there is one thing I know I never need to worry about, it is my need to be open to change. God bless!

Teke
Nov 17th 2008, 04:15 PM
Yes?

Actually misinterpretation has to be unintentional. As with things like geocentricism, one cannot know they've misinterpreted the scripture until it is proven scientifically that it cannot be literally true.

Here I go to the bible again. Misinterpretation certainly can be intentional, hence scriptures reference to antichirst and apostates.



I would agree. But the Holy Spirit does not necessarily reveal the full truth to a teacher; only what that teacher needs to say. There are plenty of other "extraneous truths" that God chooses to let us discover outside of His word.

I agree the full truth of what that teacher needs is revealed to them. The FULLNESS of truth is not known by any one person, but by the collective known as His Church.
I believe "extraneous truths" are covered by Christ in His economia related teachings. Him being the example for us, in which He displayed what our concerns should relate to, why would we delve into something irrelevant.

So let me ask you to explain, how evolution is necessary and relevant to the diaconate (service) in Christ and God's economia. From the beginning God told man to care for the earth and one another, both things being needful for us in our well being, as well as fulfilling God's purpose for His creation.

crawfish
Nov 17th 2008, 06:23 PM
Here I go to the bible again. Misinterpretation certainly can be intentional, hence scriptures reference to antichirst and apostates.

I suppose it is a semantic difference. What I refer to is not the intention to deceive, but the honest misunderstanding of scripture.



I agree the full truth of what that teacher needs is revealed to them. The FULLNESS of truth is not known by any one person, but by the collective known as His Church.

We have the fullness of what we need, no question. This is made fairly complex by the fact there are so many denominations with differing, even conflicting truths. It's also a bit confusing because certain knowledge is accepted that was not accepted 500, 1000 or 2000 years ago, and has caused us to change the way we view certain scriptures (we no longer believe that there is a literal mountain where Jesus could see every kingdom on the face of the earth at that time, for instance).

In other words, we know what we need to know to do God's will here on earth. We aren't guaranteed knowledge of those things that don't matter.


I believe "extraneous truths" are covered by Christ in His economia related teachings. Him being the example for us, in which He displayed what our concerns should relate to, why would we delve into something irrelevant.

Evolution - or creationism - is not a relevant topic to our salvation. It is a topic that is crucial to our credibility with the secular world, however - the world that we were sent to save. It is expected to stand for what is right in the face of that, but when we stand up for things that are wrong, we only hurt ourselves, and our effectiveness.


So let me ask you to explain, how evolution is necessary and relevant to the diaconate (service) in Christ and God's economia. From the beginning God told man to care for the earth and one another, both things being needful for us in our well being, as well as fulfilling God's purpose for His creation.

Why? Because it's a question being asked. Hardly a day goes by where I don't see a report of some conflict in this area. "Creation science" - or, more likely, the battle it wages against science and intellectualism, is a huge stumbling block for a large number of people. A stumbling block that does not need to be there.

Teke
Nov 17th 2008, 07:29 PM
Crawfish, your own example of Jesus' temptations in the wilderness only exemplifies what I've stated.

Does Jesus depend on spectacular signs and self-aggrandizement, or does He humbly submit to persecution, humiliation and death according to the will of the Father.

God's kingdom is not one of earthly spectacle and fame. We do not have to submit to the world to "prove" anything. To do so is to "tempt the Lord".

We are not sent to save the world. God saves the world, we just co-operate with Him. The only thing crucial to our credibility is our faith in God.

So just because a question is being asked in a conflict doesn't mean we have to answer it. We may very well already have the answer and just do not see or understand it.
This type of thinking, that an answer must be given or presented, is one of the reasons that the Roman church has been in schism with the other churches. To this day they believe they have to answer or have an answer for every question or dispute.

The mystical association and union of God and His creation is not something that man's science can help us with.

crawfish
Nov 17th 2008, 10:56 PM
Crawfish, your own example of Jesus' temptations in the wilderness only exemplifies what I've stated.

Does Jesus depend on spectacular signs and self-aggrandizement, or does He humbly submit to persecution, humiliation and death according to the will of the Father.

God's kingdom is not one of earthly spectacle and fame. We do not have to submit to the world to "prove" anything. To do so is to "tempt the Lord".

We are not sent to save the world. God saves the world, we just co-operate with Him. The only thing crucial to our credibility is our faith in God.

If someone questions our credibility because they demean our faith, then that's fine. If someone questions our credibility because we believe in an invisible God who we cannot prove, or because we put our faith in ancient scriptures, or we believe in miracles, then so be it. If our credibility is questioned because we believe something that conflicts with known reality; we say the earth is flat when it's not, we claim the sun revolves around the earth when it is not that way, etc; that is an entirely different matter. When our faith causes us to deny reality then it casts a pall on the faith itself; why should someone believe in God's message of redemption when its believers are wrong about simple facts?


So just because a question is being asked in a conflict doesn't mean we have to answer it. We may very well already have the answer and just do not see or understand it.
This type of thinking, that an answer must be given or presented, is one of the reasons that the Roman church has been in schism with the other churches. To this day they believe they have to answer or have an answer for every question or dispute.

The mystical association and union of God and His creation is not something that man's science can help us with.

We don't answer these questions for our salvation. We ask them for the good of mankind...to increase our knowledge of God's creation.

If creationists were not attempting to define Christians by their stand for or against evolution, if they they were not fighting so hard to present it as "anti-Christian", then it would be very easy to stay silent on the subject. As it is, if we stay quiet then only those screaming loudest - the anti-evolution creationists and the anti-Christian evolutionists - would be heard. If anything, I want to talk so people will know we're out here, and understand why we believe what we do.