Jump to content


Photo

Newbie Paul Of Eugene Or Reporting!


  • Please log in to reply
6 replies to this topic

#1 Paul of Eugene OR

Paul of Eugene OR

    Junior Member

  • Banned
  • PipPip
  • 23 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 70
  • no affiliation
  • Theistic Evolutionist
  • Eugene, Oregon

Posted 06 April 2012 - 10:54 PM

Newbie Paul of Eugene OR reporting in!

I'm a retired guy with enough time on my hands to occasionally post on forums, and for whatever reason I find myself drawn to the evolution debates.

I'm a life long Christian and I also accept that God used evolution as His chosen means of creating us all.

May the Lord be with us and bless us all!

#2 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 07 April 2012 - 06:39 AM

Newbie Paul of Eugene OR reporting in!

I'm a retired guy with enough time on my hands to occasionally post on forums, and for whatever reason I find myself drawn to the evolution debates.

I'm a life long Christian and I also accept that God used evolution as His chosen means of creating us all.

May the Lord be with us and bless us all!


Welcome. I hope you like it here. I am curious, do you take Genesis literally? and how old do you consider the earth to be?

I believe that God uses adaptation to further diversify and partition created kinds into new species, but that those species always resemble the original kind. A new species simply means that they can no longer interbreed with the original created kind due to genetic differences. Birds give rise to birds, fish give rise to fish, flies give rise to flies, etc. We can see and have observed this. People often mistake this as evolution.

Substantiation of common ancestry requires observing a mechanism that can add large amounts of useful new information to the genome (not modification of old features since we need to explain gaining bones and organs etc), and somehow giving the organism the ability to use this new information to gain new functions (the ability to translate this new information into a physical form). We simply have not observed any mechanism that could explain how common ancestry could possibly happen. All mutations observed have caused degradation of features that God created us with or modification of features that already exist. I believe this fits in perfectly with the fall off man and the curse degrading all created things.

#3 Ron

Ron

    Advanced Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 6530 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 50
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Johnstown, PA

Posted 07 April 2012 - 08:00 AM

Hello Paul, and welcome to the forum. I hope you have many fruitful and constructive discussions here. As far as "God using evolution as His chosen means of creating us all", I feel compelled to submit that this is not a Biblical stance. Having said that, you are, of course free to your own beliefs.

But, I must also submit that your statement begs the questions:

1- If God created man in His own image, does your statement then assert that God has the image of an ape-like creature?

2- And if this is the case, does this imply that man is reverted to said ape-like image when face-to-face with God at the judgment?

3- Further, is there scriptural reference for your assertion, or is it simply your opinion forced upon the scripture?

#4 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:55 AM

Welcome. I hope you like it here. I am curious, do you take Genesis literally? and how old do you consider the earth to be?

I believe that God uses adaptation to further diversify and partition created kinds into new species, but that those species always resemble the original kind. A new species simply means that they can no longer interbreed with the original created kind due to genetic differences. Birds give rise to birds, fish give rise to fish, flies give rise to flies, etc. We can see and have observed this. People often mistake this as evolution.


Actually, infertility within isolated populations is the result of chromosome fusion and not genetic mutations.

http://www.genomenew...land_mice.shtml

Any group of organisms that share the same genotype, despite chromosome number, random mutations, fertility, hybridization, or phenotype is the same species as the other - my modern definition of a species. ;)

This saves us from an unending equivocation and places the burden of proof for novel advantageous alleles on those who promote Neo - Darwinism.






Enjoy.

#5 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 07 April 2012 - 11:59 AM

Hello Paul, and welcome to the forum. I hope you have many fruitful and constructive discussions here. As far as "God using evolution as His chosen means of creating us all", I feel compelled to submit that this is not a Biblical stance. Having said that, you are, of course free to your own beliefs.

But, I must also submit that your statement begs the questions:

1- If God created man in His own image, does your statement then assert that God has the image of an ape-like creature?

2- And if this is the case, does this imply that man is reverted to said ape-like image when face-to-face with God at the judgment?

3- Further, is there scriptural reference for your assertion, or is it simply your opinion forced upon the scripture?


Also, creating a new genotype, through random mutations, in a pre-existing species would be just as miraculous as creating the species to begin with.



Enjoy.

#6 JayShel

JayShel

    Former Atheist

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPip
  • 777 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Age: 36
  • Christian
  • Creationist
  • Saved July 12, 2007

Posted 07 April 2012 - 12:31 PM

Actually, infertility within isolated populations is the result of chromosome fusion and not genetic mutations.

http://www.genomenew...land_mice.shtml

Any group of organisms that share the same genotype, despite chromosome number, random mutations, fertility, hybridization, or phenotype is the same species as the other - my modern definition of a species. ;)

This saves us from an unending equivocation and places the burden of proof for novel advantageous alleles on those who promote Neo - Darwinism.

Enjoy.


Wow interesting, but I thought chromosome fusion is a genetic mutation?

Also, creating a new genotype, through random mutations, in a pre-existing species would be just as miraculous as creating the species to begin with.

Enjoy.


True, and also unobserved to have ever happened, so it is an unsupported hypothesis at best.

#7 jason777

jason777

    Moderator

  • Moderator Team
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2670 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Interests:Machining, Engine Building, Geology, Paleontology, Fishing
  • Age: 40
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Springdale,AR.

Posted 08 April 2012 - 01:18 PM

Wow interesting, but I thought chromosome fusion is a genetic mutation?


I'll use an analogy for you. Say I have six suits and 3 suitcases and I put 2 suits in every suitcase. Then I decided to sew two suitcases together. Now I have four suits in one large suitcase and two suits in another. None of the suits have changed just the packaging. Chromosome fusion is the same - it doesn't change the genes it just rearranges them.

So, saying that infertility is a new species is an equivocation in the genetic sense.


Enjoy.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users