Jump to content
Evolution Fairytale Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Archea

Hi Everyone

Recommended Posts

Hi everyone, call me Archea. I'm 18 and a freshmen in college.

 

I believe in God and have accepted Jesus Christ into my heart. I believe he has changed me and actively intervenes in my life. Also I feel that he has called me into the sciences, and I have decided to major in biology and minor in astronomy. I have seen the evidence for evolution and a little bit of the big bang. I have come to the conclusion that God works through natural laws and intervenes as little as possible when it comes to shaping our world, that is not to say he never has a hand in anything this world does, only that he works through natural laws and when he can't do something through those laws, a divine miracle is formed.

 

I have to get to class now so peace be with all of you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Archea,

 

Welcome to the boards! I hope you enjoy it here. How are you enjoying your college?

 

Adam

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Archea, Welcome to the boards..

26596[/snapback]

Preachbill, you've become our official meet and greet lurker. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Archea,

 

Welcome to the boards! I hope you enjoy it here. How are you enjoying your college?

 

Adam

26588[/snapback]

Thanks, college is hard compared to high school. But I like the new freedom, and I'm learning the ins and outs of how to choose classes and teachers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, call me Archea. I'm 18 and a freshmen in college.

 

I believe in God and have accepted Jesus Christ into my heart. I believe he has changed me and actively intervenes in my life. Also I feel that he has called me into the sciences, and I have decided to major in biology and minor in astronomy. I have seen the evidence for evolution and a little bit of the big bang. I have come to the conclusion that God works through natural laws and intervenes as little as possible when it comes to shaping our world, that is not to say he never has a hand in anything this world does, only that he works through natural laws and when he can't do something through those laws, a divine miracle is formed.

 

I have to get to class now so peace be with all of you.

26583[/snapback]

Hi, and welcome to the boards.

 

Have a question for you. If God let it happen naturally, then why is a God even needed? You see by saying this you are basing your faith on naturalism which denies the power of God to create. Naturalism leads to humanism which can put your whole faith into danger.

 

God also mentions ten times (once with every creation), that the created life form only reproduce after it's kind. Which God is saying that there will be no macro-evolution. Does God lie?

 

Also, evolution is the exact opposite of the order of creation. So you basically have to deny "all" of God's creation to believe God used evolution to create. I have a list if you are interested, that shows the opposite.

 

Also the Biblical time-line has to be denied. The flood. And how does the soul evolve? Or where in the evolution process did man get a soul when God makes it clear that life and the soul were given at the same time?

 

You see these things that have to be denied in order to believe in natualism, will weaken your faith. And also destroy your testimony because people will see that you don't have enough faith to believe the book that you claim is true. People can make all types of excuses as to why not to take the Bible litterally. But it all boils down to whether the individual believes that God tells the truth or not.

 

What do you think will happen to those who more or less make God out to have a phony book? Have you ever heard the verse that says:

 

jn 8:47 He that is of God heareth God's words: ye therefore hear them not, because ye are not of God.

 

Naturalism makes you hear not the words of creation. And when you hear not the word of God, it is because you are not of God. Now I did not make that up, it's written right there where you can see it. Those who believe evolution over creation are also talked about.

 

rom 1:25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.

 

deut 32:18 Of the Rock that begat thee thou art unmindful, and hast forgotten God that formed thee.

 

So is God a natural Creator, or an all powerful Creator?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ikester,

 

I'm not sure how you got naturalism from my post, possibly from my mentioning of evolution and big bang?

 

I'm not saying that God did everything naturally, only that he prefers (perhaps not the right word since no one can know exactly what God prefers) to do things naturally. If God cannot do something naturally of course he isn't going to say 'oh well, too bad'. If it is his will than it will get done, obviously through supernatural means if it can't be done naturally.

 

As a person in science I ask that you never say that evolution explains how life was created, because it doesn't. It only has to do with the diversity of life. Abiogenesis is the study of how life was created. It is a very new field of study within the science community, and there are several models, and no one is claiming to have the correct one. Although I heard that they are trying to create life in the lab and they are fairly close. I don't know too much about it and it is not exactly appropriate to discuss it in length on this thread.

 

I think it is important to understand some background on genesis to understand what it is really saying. As a theistic evolutionist I do not take the creation story to be literal. But does that make it any less true? Let me explain, truth can be defined as that which conforms to reality.

 

Genesis is thought to have been recorded by the Jews during their exile, I think in Babylon not entirely sure, and its main purpose was to show that they were connected to God, and that God still love them and kept the covenant. It wasn't written down to tell the Jews how God created the heavens and the earth. Of course there is much more symbolism, themes and one could analyze this piece in great detail. But this is the main purpose of genesis as described to me.

 

So in that respect does genesis conform to reality? Does it speak of truths? Even if one does not take the bible literally doesn't mean one does not take truths from it, or considers it a lie.

 

I do not feel as though my faith has been eroded by a metaphorical interpretation of genesis, if anything the opposite. I do not consider myself a naturalist either.

 

Questions about when and how the soul evolved is more of a theological debate rather than scientific, and I think discussing this in any detail is above my pay grade if you will.

 

I look forward to talking to you again. The computer lab is closing and I have to get going. Peace be with you all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi everyone, call me Archea. I'm 18 and a freshmen in college.

 

I believe in God and have accepted Jesus Christ into my heart. I believe he has changed me and actively intervenes in my life. Also I feel that he has called me into the sciences, and I have decided to major in biology and minor in astronomy. I have seen the evidence for evolution and a little bit of the big bang. I have come to the conclusion that God works through natural laws and intervenes as little as possible when it comes to shaping our world, that is not to say he never has a hand in anything this world does, only that he works through natural laws and when he can't do something through those laws, a divine miracle is formed.

 

I have to get to class now so peace be with all of you.

26583[/snapback]

*

Muchoz welcome <_<

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not saying that God did everything naturally, only that he prefers (perhaps not the right word since no one can know exactly what God prefers) to do things naturally. If God cannot do something naturally of course he isn't going to say 'oh well, too bad'. If it is his will than it will get done, obviously through supernatural means if it can't be done naturally.

 

This is not biblical.

 

First of all, God is now and constantly "upholding all things by the word of his power". Because he is unchanging and consistent, that means that his manner of upholding his creation is consistent. Hence we can discover natural laws, which are actually descriptions of how God normally upholds the world.

 

But creation was different.

God saw everything that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. There was evening and there was morning, the sixth day. The heavens and the earth were finished, and all the host of them.  On the seventh day God finished his work which he had made; and he rested on the seventh day from all his work which he had made. God blessed the seventh day, and made it holy, because he rested in it from all his work which he had created and made.

This makes it clear that God changed what he was doing after the sixth day. When he rested, it was not that he ceased to be involved with the world ("My Father is working now and I am working") but that he ceased his work of creation and changed to the work of upholding. There is no hint that he preferred to work by natural means; in any case, before he created nature there were no natural means. "Nature" is merely a label for all that God has made.

 

Furthermore, if the world as supposedly produced by evolution was "very good", God is either incompetent or undiscriminating and certainly inconsistent. Evolution describes a world "red in tooth and claw", which is certainly not regarded by God as good. In contrast, speaking of the future restoration of the world, Isaiah prophesies that

The wolf shall dwell with the lamb, and the leopard shall lie down with the kid; and the calf and the young lion and the fattened calf together; and a little child shall lead them. The cow and the bear shall feed; their young ones shall lie down together; and the lion shall eat straw like the ox. The sucking child shall play on the hole of the asp, and the weaned child shall put his hand on the adder’s den.  They shall not hurt nor destroy in all my holy mountain; for the earth shall be full of the knowledge of Yahweh, as the waters cover the sea.

 

This world is cursed because of sin. If evolution were true, it was cursed before ever there was a man on it to commit sin; it was cursed from its inception.

Genesis is thought to have been recorded by the Jews during their exile, I think in Babylon not entirely sure, and its main purpose was to show that they were connected to God, and that God still love them and kept the covenant. It wasn't written down to tell the Jews how God created the heavens and the earth. Of course there is much more symbolism, themes and one could analyze this piece in great detail. But this is the main purpose of genesis as described to me.

 

This refers to the 19th century JEDP hypothesis, that claimed that the Pentateuch was stitched together from various sources over a couple of centuries. Apart from the arrogance of people who claim to be able to discern the truth better after 2500 years than Jesus (who endorsed it all as the word of God and true in detail), it has been disproved by linguistic analysis. Its assessment of Deuteronomy has been shown to be wrong by the fact that the structure of Deuteronomy matches vassal/suzerain covenant forms of the second millennium BC which were long vanished by the time Deuteronomy was supposed to have been written.

So in that respect does genesis conform to reality? Does it speak of truths? Even if one does not take the bible literally doesn't mean one does not take truths from it, or considers it a lie.

26675[/snapback]

If something stated as a plain fact is wrong, then it is not true. Genesis is written as straight history; its linguistic style demonstrates that unequivocally. If it is not accurate, it is a lie.

 

Genesis and Revelation have been attacked more than any other parts of the bible, because in these books God shows his ownership of creation; he is the one who created it at a word and who will destroy and replace it. The devil hates this doctrine; he wants to be God himself, even though he does not have the ability. So he hates to hear of God's creation. He also hates to hear of his coming fate. He is a liar from the beginning and the father of lies and the whole world (that is, those who are not in Christ) is in his power. That includes scientists.

 

We are commanded not to be of the world, but to have the mind of Christ.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To continue from the previous post:

 

Genesis is meant to be read as plain history. If the events of Genesis 1-3 are false, the whole basis of salvation disappears.

 

Adam sinned and we are involved in his sin. We can see this principle elsewhere, for instance when Abraham gave tithes to Melchizedek, Levi is said to have done so too in the loins of Abraham. This doctrine is unpalatable to modern individualists, but in fact it enables salvation to work.

 

As in Adam all die so in Christ shall all be made alive. Just as we are by nature identified with Adam, so we can become identified with Christ in his death and resurrection, and so be cut off by his death from the power of sin.

 

Death came into the world because of sin. But evolution says death was always there, long before man existed. If evolution is true, then restoring us to a pre-sin position would not destroy death; death was part of what God supposedly declared very good.

 

Looking at what science said about beginings helped to destroy whatever faith I had when I was 15. When I became a Christian at 21 I soon began to realise that science and the bible do not fit. I had to choose and chose to believe God; it was only later that I came to understand that there was more than one way of looking at scientific data and that we can indeed reconcile science with the bible on biblical terms.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Ikester,

 

I'm not sure how you got naturalism from my post, possibly from my mentioning of evolution and big bang?

 

I'm not saying that God did everything naturally, only that he prefers (perhaps not the right word since no one can know exactly what God prefers) to do things naturally. If God cannot do something naturally of course he isn't going to say 'oh well, too bad'. If it is his will than it will get done, obviously through supernatural means if it can't be done naturally.

 

As a person in science I ask that you never say that evolution explains how life was created, because it doesn't.

Now you dictate what I can say as a creationist? You sound just like a secular professor

 

It only has to do with the diversity of life. Abiogenesis is the study of how life was created. It is a very new field of study within the science community, and there are several models, and no one is claiming to have the correct one. Although I heard that they are trying to create life in the lab and they are fairly close. I don't know too much about it and it is not exactly appropriate to discuss it in length on this thread.

Lets see. If I bring up the primordial soup during a debate as being a part of evolution. People who believe in evolution tell me that this is abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. That they are 2 separate processes. But here you imply they are not?

 

I think it is important to understand some background on genesis to understand what it is really saying. As a theistic evolutionist I do not take the creation story to be literal. But does that make it any less true? Let me explain, truth can be defined as that which conforms to reality.

Has evolution become an absolute yet? So it is not reality. And you cannot say something is an absolute truth and an absolute lie at the same time. Because when it comes to truth and lies in heaven, the absolute of what both is will be revealed to you. And you will be judged upon what you "believed", not on what you precieved as truth. It is by faith we are saved. Not by a precieved reality. Heaven is not going to be a virtual world where you or I can make up truth. It is what it is, and God lays that out in His book.

 

Genesis is thought to have been recorded by the Jews during their exile, I think in Babylon not entirely sure, and its main purpose was to show that they were connected to God, and that God still love them and kept the covenant. It wasn't written down to tell the Jews how God created the heavens and the earth. Of course there is much more symbolism, themes and one could analyze this piece in great detail. But this is the main purpose of genesis as described to me.

Nice, sounds like a copy and paste off the local evolutionists are us website. So basically, God lied and you have the truth?

 

So in that respect does genesis conform to reality? Does it speak of truths? Even if one does not take the bible literally doesn't mean one does not take truths from it, or considers it a lie.

Here we go making our own virtual reality.

 

I do not feel as though my faith has been eroded by a metaphorical interpretation of genesis, if anything the opposite. I do not consider myself a naturalist either.

 

Questions about when and how the soul evolved is more of a theological debate rather than scientific, and I think discussing this in any detail is above my pay grade if you will.

You are the one adding evolution (science) to religion. Not me. So it's a viable question. If everything is explainable through evolution, then explaining how the soul evolved is one thing that needs to be explained. Dodging the question, and using the theological excuse is showing how weak the theory you have is (God used evolution). Questions dodged are not questions answered.

 

And how would I determine you are a naturalist from what you post unless you gave me clues? I'm not one to just whip up ideas out of thin air about people. I decipher what they say and determine it through reason and logic.

 

You did imply that you thought God used natural means to create, right? then you say you are not a naturalist? Oxymoron statement.

 

I look forward to talking to you again. The computer lab is closing and I have to get going. Peace be with you all.

26675[/snapback]

Same here.

 

Also I'd like to point out that if you are not getting your info about the Bible from a good Christian source, you are then reading secular interpretation which includes several omits and lies.

 

The Word itself is a part of a trinity that will bear witness in Heaven.

 

1John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

 

So to deny or imply that the Word lies in any way is to also imply that the rest of that trinity lies as well. Which includes the Father and the Holy Ghost.

 

jn 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

 

During creation there was no mortal man there to see it. So all that is written has to be God inspired because there was only one witness. So more or less Genesis is: God said, God did, and God commanded it to be done. So all that you deny, or imply to deny about the truth of Genesis is a direct attack on God Himself. For God is the Alpha and Omega. And when you deny the Alpha (creation) of God, then you also deny the omega (the revelation of God).

 

You see, you and I don't dictate to God what He did and did not do. He told us in His word. If you want to use evolution to deny that, it's no attack upon me. And you can debate it here on this forum. But we don't allow backwards evangalism, where people have to turn away from certain parts of the word just so science can be in the driver seat of their belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First of all, God is now and constantly "upholding all things by the word of his power".  Because he is unchanging and consistent, that means that his manner of upholding his creation is consistent.  Hence we can discover natural laws, which are actually descriptions of how God normally upholds the world.

I think we're saying the same thing here only differently. You say that God upholds the world through natural laws which are consistent because so is God, while I say that God created natural laws which are inherently unchanging to have stability in the world. I see this as two sides of the same coin.

 

But creation was different. 

 

This world is cursed because of sin.  If evolution were true, it was cursed before ever there was a man on it to commit sin; it was cursed from its inception.

How does evolution make it so that the world was condemned before man could sin? I am unfamiliar with this stance.

 

This refers to the 19th century JEDP hypothesis, that claimed that the Pentateuch was stitched together from various sources over a couple of centuries.

Out of all the pastors, ministers and religion majors I've talked to no one has mentioned another model on the creation of the Pentateuch. If you could provide a link to what you claim please do so.

 

 

If something stated as a plain fact is wrong, then it is not true.  Genesis is written as straight history; its linguistic style demonstrates that unequivocally.  If it is not accurate, it is a lie.

There are many definitions of truth and this is just one of them. Genesis was written in a time and culture where people do not read sacred texts, from any religion, and ask "did this really happen?". This line of thinking is modern and western, and was not present thousands of years ago. Instead people would ask something more like "what does this mean?" And many times people wrote stories that look like accurate history but in reality nothing could be further from the truth.

 

Genesis and Revelation have been attacked more than any other parts of the bible, because in these books God shows his ownership of creation; he is the one who created it at a word and who will destroy and replace it.  The devil hates this doctrine; he wants to be God himself, even though he does not have the ability.  So he hates to hear of God's creation.  He also hates to hear of his coming fate.  He is a liar from the beginning and the father of lies and the whole world (that is, those who are not in Christ) is in his power.  That includes scientists.

I do not think that people attack Genesis and Revelations because they show God's ownership. I think that many people attack a literal Genesis because the evidence does not support that view. And because of this atheists use this to attack Christianity as a whole to show how stupid and ignorant we are while stuck in a bronze age mythology and we are all hallucinating images of Jesus and God because we have been brainwashed since we were little kids. If anyone was on the fence between atheism and Christianity this argument just might convince them to go atheist.

 

For Revelations, again I do not see people attacking it because it shows God's ownership and how at the end we all must answer to him. I have seen many people including priests say that Revelations is controversial and should not be taught as part of the sacred scripture. For religious people most of them say that the writing style is too different from other scripture, while their is heavy symbolism and references to Rome and how God is going to destroy it. And it is basically who ever wrote it was not writing with the hand of God, but of his own and he really didn't like the Roman empire. For atheists I've seen them talk about how we have prophesied the end of days before multiple times (which we have) and nothing happened.

 

p.s. this is my first time doing a multiple quote, so if the quote boxes aren't right I apologize in advance.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oliver,

To your second post, is it possible that the bible was not talking about a physical death when sin came into the world, but a spiritual one?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oliver,

To your second post, is it possible that the bible was not talking about a physical death when sin came into the world, but a spiritual one?

26789[/snapback]

It's both.

 

"You shall surely die" is literally "dying you shall die".

 

The biblical concept of death is separation. Immediately Adam sinned he was separated from God in his spirit -- dying. Physically he began the progress towards physical death, which is the separation of soul and body. Remember that the scripture is Hebrew in concept, not Greek. The Greeks had developed the idea of a pure soul encumbered by a body; this became gnosticism. It is an idea which has infected the church almost from the beginning, but it is a pagan idea. To the Hebrew mind, the person is one, soul and body together. Death inevitably involves the body.

 

In the same way, the physical resurrection is a necessity, as Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15. The modern liberal idea of a "spiritual resurrection" is complete nonsense. The idea that someone could be spiritually resurrected while his body remains dead is absolutely not biblical.

 

The physical world was also cursed because of Adam's sin. The immediate consequence for Adam was the need for hard work in order to live, and thorns and thistles to spoil the result of his labour, but we see from Romans that the curse extended to the entire creation. The nineteenth century and popular view of Darwinism is of progress from simpler to more complex, an upward road of continual self-improvement. The actual evidence is rather of decline, with accumulating genetic damage that would eventually lead to our extinction if it were not that God will soon bring this age to an end.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think we're saying the same thing here only differently. You say that God upholds the world through natural laws which are consistent because so is God, while I say that God created natural laws which are inherently unchanging to have stability in the world. I see this as two sides of the same coin.

 

I don't see that natural laws have any separate existence. That would make them independent of God.

How does evolution make it so that the world was condemned before man could sin? I am unfamiliar with this stance.

 

This is plain logic. The restoration of the world involves the removal of predation (Isaiah) and of death itself (Revelation). It is absolutely clear that death is an enemy and evil. (Consider Jesus' deep emotion at the tomb of Lazarus.) But the evolutionary view requires death and predation in the world from the very beginning, before man existed. This is not good; but Genesis tells us that all that God created was very good.

Out of all the pastors, ministers and religion majors I've talked to no one has mentioned another model on the creation of the Pentateuch. If you could provide a link to what you claim please do so.

 

For a start, look at Tektonics.org under the heading "JEDP theory". Also Christian Thinktank

 

It is depressingly true that a large part of the church is so sunk in unbelief that they uncritically accept theories like this. However, if you are a Christian, you presumably accept that Jesus is God. He is your Lord and you are his slave. Jesus accepted and endorsed the whole of the Pentateuch as the work of Moses, which is quite enough for me to reject the JEDP theory, without even looking at its obvious idiocies.

 

JEDP arose in Germany in a time of rampant unbelief. It is part of an attitude to the bible that is an expression of humanistic ideas that put man in judgement over the scripture, rather than accepting them as the word of God. Most of the traditional protestant churches ahve fallen victim to this attitude, so that they have become exemplars of those people whom the bible describes as "holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof". (2 Timothy 3:5)

There are many definitions of truth and this is just one of them. Genesis was written in a time and culture where people do not read sacred texts, from any religion, and ask "did this really happen?". This line of thinking is modern and western, and was not present thousands of years ago. Instead people would ask something more like "what does this mean?" And many times people wrote stories that look like accurate history but in reality nothing could be further from the truth.

 

How do you know this? In such a system of thinking, how could someone write a plain factual account and have it understood that way? I think this is an idea made up by people seeking an excuse not to believe the bible. The obvious answer to "What does Genesis mean?" is that it means what it says.

I do not think that people attack Genesis and Revelations because they show God's ownership. I think that many people attack a literal Genesis because the evidence does not support that view. And because of this atheists use this to attack Christianity as a whole to show how stupid and ignorant we are while stuck in a bronze age mythology and we are all hallucinating images of Jesus and God because we have been brainwashed since we were little kids. If anyone was on the fence between atheism and Christianity this argument just might convince them to go atheist.

 

The evidence certainly does support a straight reading of Genesis. Evidence is data interpreted according to a set of presuppositions. We presuppose that the bible is true; the evolutionist presupposes that it is false. Which do you think the Christian should presuppose?

For Revelations, again I do not see people attacking it because it shows God's ownership and how at the end we all must answer to him. I have seen many people including priests say that Revelations is controversial and should not be taught as part of the sacred scripture. For religious people most of them say that the writing style is too different from other scripture, while their is heavy symbolism and references to Rome and how God is going to destroy it. And it is basically who ever wrote it was not writing with the hand of God, but of his own and he really didn't like the Roman empire. For atheists I've seen them talk about how we have prophesied the end of days before multiple times (which we have) and nothing happened.

26788[/snapback]

First of all, I said that Satan hates these books. People attack them because they are deceived by him. The fact that someone is a priest (an unbiblical position) does not preserve him from being deceived. If someone refuses to believe God, the consequence and judgement is to be condemned to be deceived.

 

Revelation is not particularly difficult if you take its plain meaning. It makes heavy use of symbols, but those symbols are either explained directly or are references back to the Old Testament, from which their meaning becomes evident. Its place in the overall structure of the bible is also clear; it is the complement to Genesis, and the chiastic structure of the two books opposes creation/fall/curse to redemption/restoration/recreation.

 

Since Revelation prophesies the downfall of human kingdoms, it became an embarrassment when the church turned itself into a part of the human system under Constantine. Hence the development of amillennial interpretations, which fundamentally deny the content of scripture. Most of the current institutional churches are inheritors of this state church idea and all the baggage that goes with it.

 

Date-setting about the end times is a futile exercise, seeing that Jesus said that even he did not know the time. Nevertheless, many have been deluded into prophesying exact dates and have universally been proved wrong. However, Jesus told us to be aware of the signs of the times. In view of those, we have good reason to expect his early return.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Now you dictate what I can say as a creationist? You sound just like a secular professor

:D

 

All I'm asking is that you use terms like evolution correctly. In your previous post you suggested to me that evolution must explain how life was created which is doesn't. I've seen people use evolution to mean exactly what it means to almost every theory man has come up with and more, and just wanted to make sure we were all on the same page.

 

Lets see. If I bring up the primordial soup during a debate as being a part of evolution. People who believe in evolution tell me that this is abiogenesis has nothing to do with evolution. That they are 2 separate processes. But here you imply they are not?

Evolution and abiogenesis are two different fields of scientific study, although they are closely related, they are different and if one turns out not to be true, it does not affect the credibility of the other, each stand on their own merit. I cannot find where I imply otherwise in my post, but if I did I made a mistake.

 

Has evolution become an absolute yet? So it is not reality. And you cannot say something is an absolute truth and an absolute lie at the same time. Because when it comes to truth and lies in heaven, the absolute of what both is will be revealed to you. And you will be judged upon what you "believed", not on what you precieved as truth. It is by faith we are saved. Not by a precieved reality. Heaven is not going to be a virtual world where you or I can make up truth. It is what it is, and God lays that out in His book.

There are no absolutes in science. Only models that describe what we see and how it happens. If you were to ask a scientist, "do you believe in evolution?" they would most likely respond by saying, "I accept that evolution is the best explanation for the evidence we have." I myself would reply with something very similar. Every single evolutionist would abandon the theory of evolution if another theory came along that could explain the evidence better. So far that has not happened.

 

If you believe something you automatically perceive it as truth do you not? We have no other way to experience anything other than through our perception. We rely on our perception to tell us everything that we know. If we see, hear, taste, feel, or smell something it is our body taking those signals and through our senses we perceive the world around us. Even if you want to add in an extra sense, say God communicating to us for instance, we would still perceive that experience and label it as truth or not. And I never said that heaven is going to be a virtual place.

 

Nice, sounds like a copy and paste off the local evolutionists are us website.

Actually I got this from two pastors that I met with personally, one of which knows absolutely nothing about evolution beyond the average person.

 

So basically, God lied and you have the truth?

I never said God lied, and I never said I had the truth.

 

 

You are the one adding evolution (science) to religion. Not me. So it's a viable question. If everything is explainable through evolution, then explaining how the soul evolved is one thing that needs to be explained. Dodging the question, and using the theological excuse is showing how weak the theory you have is (God used evolution). Questions dodged are not questions answered.

When did I ever add science to religion? I think that you cannot use science to find truths in religion and you cannot use religion to find truths in science. Science never suggested that we have a soul, the soul is a concept that is exclusively religious. That is like asking where in the bible does it talk about isometric dating? It doesn't. It is a scientific concept that has nothing to do with religion. Does that make the bible false? Well it doesn't talk about isometric dating, it doesn't have all the answers. If I were to turn that into a real discussion you would probably laugh at me. But that is kind of what you are asking of science. I'm not dodging the question, it is just that science does not have an opinion about the soul, because it is only a religious concept.

 

 

You did imply that you thought God used natural means to create, right? then you say you are not a naturalist? Oxymoron statement.

A naturalist is someone who believes that everything can be explained through natural means and no God(s) are required, wanted ect. That is not my philosophy, you believe that the universe and the earth were created at the same time. That is not what I think. Science has done a da*n(I'm not sure if this complies with the forum rules so let me know if this is against the rules) good job at explaining the universe through natural means, but there are fundamental questions that science will probably never be able to explain. One of those is where did all the energy come from to create our universe, one of the famous laws is matter/energy cannot be created or destroyed. Maybe someday science will have a solution, maybe not, but either way I'm convinced that God must have and is using supernatural means to do his will.

 

 

Also I'd like to point out that if you are not getting your info about the Bible from a good Christian source, you are then reading secular interpretation which includes several omits and lies.

Thank you for the concern, like you I've concluded that secular interpretations of the Bible are useless, childish and fail to grasp the true richness of God's word. Most of my interpretation and knowledge comes from bible study groups on campus, talking with other Christians, church, and religious leaders and scholars such as pastors, priests, religion teachers and the like.

 

 

During creation there was no mortal man there to see it. So all that is written has to be God inspired because there was only one witness. So more or less Genesis is: God said, God did, and God commanded it to be done. So all that you deny, or imply to deny about the truth of Genesis is a direct attack on God Himself. For God is the Alpha and Omega. And when you deny the Alpha (creation) of God, then you also deny the omega (the revelation of God).

I do not deny God's word or truth, I just have a different interpretation than creationists. Just as you have a different interpretation than theistic evolutionists. And each of us is entitled to our own interpretation. I do not think that our interpretations make us any less or more Christian, but how we act that determines whether we are Christians or not. (Assuming we each believe)

 

You see, you and I don't dictate to God what He did and did not do. He told us in His word. If you want to use evolution to deny that, it's no attack upon me. And you can debate it here on this forum. But we don't allow backwards evangalism, where people have to turn away from certain parts of the word just so science can be in the driver seat of their belief.

26705[/snapback]

Again it is our interpretation of the bible that makes us different. I do not use evolution to deny anything about God. You seem to believe that you can either be a Christian and deny evolution, or not be a Christian and accept evolution. This is somewhat present in atheist concepts as well, only that if you are a Christian you automatically deny evolution. Like many Christians I have chosen a third side, theistic evolutionist. Unfortunately those who have become theo-evos have gotten heat from both sides. From the fundamentalist point of view we are not real Christians, and from the atheist side, well, we get the same hatred you get. I myself think that it is a real shame that fundamentalists and theistic evolutionists are so caught up in their own debate on how to interpret the bible when really we believe the same core message: God created the heavens and the earth, humanity has fallen into sin, and in our darkest hour God sent down to us his only son, our savior Jesus Christ, who died on the cross for everyone's sin, on the third day he raised from the dead and ascended into heaven, and who ever believes in him shall not parish but have everlasting life.

 

While we disagree on interpretation, all that should be dwarfed in comparison to what we share in our belief, we are united in Christ, not divided. I think that we should not shun away from our disagreements, but it is important to understand that fundamentalists and theistic evolutionists are both Christians with the same unbendable conviction and faith in God and Christ.

 

While you imply that science dictates my belief in God this is simply not true, and I would appreciate it if you would stop implying so. I do not feel that I have turned away from certain aspects of God because of science, science is the means by which we can understand our natural world where God has put us.

 

Peace be with you all

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's both.

 

"You shall surely die" is literally "dying you shall die".

 

The biblical concept of death is separation.  Immediately Adam sinned he was separated from God in his spirit -- dying.  Physically he began the progress towards physical death, which is the separation of soul and body.  Remember that the scripture is Hebrew in concept, not Greek.  The Greeks had developed the idea of a pure soul encumbered by a body; this became gnosticism.  It is an idea which has infected the church almost from the beginning, but it is a pagan idea.  To the Hebrew mind, the person is one, soul and body together.  Death inevitably involves the body.

I have a feeling that when it comes to interpreting Genesis me and many of the fundamentalists will just have to agree to disagree. But I do agree that the person and their soul are the same, if that is what you are saying.

 

In the same way, the physical resurrection is a necessity, as Paul argues in 1 Corinthians 15.  The modern liberal idea of a "spiritual resurrection" is complete nonsense.  The idea that someone could be spiritually resurrected while his body remains dead is absolutely not biblical.

But Jesus himself said that a person must be born again, he is clearly talking about a spiritual rebirth not physical.

 

The physical world was also cursed because of Adam's sin. The immediate consequence for Adam was the need for hard work in order to live, and thorns and thistles to spoil the result of his labour, but we see from Romans that the curse extended to the entire creation.  The nineteenth century and popular view of Darwinism is of progress from simpler to more complex, an upward road of continual self-improvement.  The actual evidence is rather of decline, with accumulating genetic damage that would eventually lead to our extinction if it were not that God will soon bring this age to an end.

26816[/snapback]

I myself think that Adams fall was figurative, as I believe that Adam is not a physical person. Instead I see it as God telling us that we inherently sinners, and because of this we cannot attain salvation by ourselves, we need God. And this applies to everyone.

 

A lot has changed since Darwin, and scientists know that complexity does not guaranteed survival over simpler organisms. But what is your evidence that we are accumulating genetic damage?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I myself think that Adams fall was figurative, as I believe that Adam is not a physical person. Instead I see it as God telling us that we inherently sinners, and because of this we cannot attain salvation by ourselves, we need God. And this applies to everyone.

 

If Adam was figurative, so is Christ: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."

 

The problem with theistic evolution is that it cuts off the branch on which it sits. You cannot know anything about God, except his bare existence, without his revelation about himself, which we have in the scripture. But that means that we have to accept the scripture as reliable. If we don't, if we say that part of it is mythical/symbolic when its style denies that, we are effectively saying that no part of the bible is reliable. If Genesis is open to reinterpretation on the basis of atheist beliefs about history. so are the gospels. If creation did not happen as stated, why should you believe that the resurrection did?

A lot has changed since Darwin, and scientists know that complexity does not guaranteed survival over simpler organisms. But what is your evidence that we are accumulating genetic damage?

26823[/snapback]

Dr J.C. Sanford: Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome

Sanford interview

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't see that natural laws have any separate existence.  That would make them independent of God.

How intertwined to you see God in natural laws and in this world? Obviously you see it more controlled than me, but do you feel that God is controlling every single sub-atomic particle, or is there a middle ground where you stand?

 

This is plain logic.  The restoration of the world involves the removal of predation (Isaiah) and of death itself (Revelation).  It is absolutely clear that death is an enemy and evil.  (Consider Jesus' deep emotion at the tomb of Lazarus.)  But the evolutionary view requires death and predation in the world from the very beginning, before man existed.  This is not good; but Genesis tells us that all that God created was very good.

In the evolutionary model death was here in the beginning. And obviously we perceive death as horrible. But at the same time many people realize that there is a time when all must die, and through this death we are released from our earthly bondage and take our place which the Lord shall command us to go, whether that be from heaven or hell. Basically, yes death is bad, but most people realize that death is also part of God's plan.

 

For a start, look at Tektonics.org under the heading "JEDP theory".  Also Christian Thinktank

Thanks, after midterms I'll check these sites out. :D

 

It is depressingly true that a large part of the church is so sunk in unbelief that they uncritically accept theories like this.  However, if you are a Christian, you presumably accept that Jesus is God.  He is your Lord and you are his slave.  Jesus accepted and endorsed the whole of the Pentateuch as the work of Moses, which is quite enough for me to reject the JEDP theory, without even looking at its obvious idiocies.

 

JEDP arose in Germany in a time of rampant unbelief.  It is part of an attitude to the bible that is an expression of humanistic ideas that put man in judgement over the scripture, rather than accepting them as the word of God.  Most of the traditional protestant churches ahve fallen victim to this attitude, so that they have become exemplars of those people whom the bible describes as "holding a form of godliness, but having denied the power thereof". (2 Timothy 3:5)

After I look at the sites we'll be able to have more discussion on this topic, if that is okay with you.

 

How do you know this?  In such a system of thinking, how could someone write a plain factual account and have it understood that way?  I think this is an idea made up by people seeking an excuse not to believe the bible.  The obvious answer to "What does Genesis mean?" is that it means what it says.

I'm sorry I don't have any links or anything on this matter, this came from a talk with a religion professor a few years ago. But if someone wanted to write down a plain factual account they would write it in their history, not their sacred texts. Although there have been examples where cultures have taken factual accounts and embellished them and used them as figurative tools in sacred texts. The most famous example would be the Gilgamesh flood, or Noah's flood, since many people think that it is the same story. There is evidence that a natural dam broke and water rushed into the surrounding area destroying everything, killing thousands while dispersing even more people, and the times match up with when scholars think that the flood stories were recorded. Thus many people think that the flood stories were based off of real events that have been exaggerated in sacred texts to reveal truths to us.

 

The evidence certainly does support a straight reading of Genesis.  Evidence is data interpreted according to a set of presuppositions.  We presuppose that the bible is true; the evolutionist presupposes that it is false.  Which do you think the Christian should presuppose?

As I've stated with another person it is possible to believe in Jesus and accept evolution at the same time. With that being said obviously the Christian should see the bible as true, but not scientifically enlightening.

 

 

Since Revelation prophesies the downfall of human kingdoms, it became an embarrassment when the church turned itself into a part of the human system under Constantine.  Hence the development of amillennial interpretations, which fundamentally deny the content of scripture.  Most of the current institutional churches are inheritors of this state church idea and all the baggage that goes with it.

What are the amillennial interpretations and what do you mean when Constantine turned the church into a part of the human system?

 

Date-setting about the end times is a futile exercise, seeing that Jesus said that even he did not know the time.  Nevertheless, many have been deluded into prophesying exact dates and have universally been proved wrong.  However, Jesus told us to be aware of the signs of the times.  In view of those, we have good reason to expect his early return.

I agree with you completely on this matter. Date-setting is useless. I think setting a date for the end of times will only lead people further away from Christ, especially people that do not already believe. When the common person sees a Christian prophesying the end of the world in such and such date, and again and again nothing happens, it discredits the religion as being nothing more than superstition. At least that's what I see going on.

 

Peace be with you

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How intertwined to you see God in natural laws and in this world? Obviously you see it more controlled than me, but do you feel that God is controlling every single sub-atomic particle, or is there a middle ground where you stand?

 

No. I think God controls everything (while at the same time allowing for free will.)

In the evolutionary model death was here in the beginning. And obviously we perceive death as horrible. But at the same time many people realize that there is a time when all must die, and through this death we are released from our earthly bondage and take our place which the Lord shall command us to go, whether that be from heaven or hell. Basically, yes death is bad, but most people realize that death is also part of God's plan.

 

In a sinful world, death is, in a way a mercy. After Adam sinned, God barred the way to the tree of life. To have eternal life while being sinful would be to be without hope.

 

But the bible (not just us) describes death as an enemy and something bad that will be thrown into the lake of fire with the damned. Therefore it cannot be good; therefore if it was there at the beginning, the creation was not good.

...if someone wanted to write down a plain factual account they would write it in their history, not their sacred texts.

 

Israel's history is its sacred text. The books of the Pentateuch, Judges, Joshua, Samuel, Kings, Chronicles, etc are the history of Israel (though Chronicles takes a more theological view). The style of writing of the historical books is the same style as Genesis. There is no way to separate the history of Genesis from its theological content. The point is that God acts in history; the idea that you can separate the world into sacred and secular is a modern aberration.

...Noah's flood, since many people think that it is the same story. There is evidence that a natural dam broke and water rushed into the surrounding area destroying everything, killing thousands while dispersing even more people, and the times match up with when scholars think that the flood stories were recorded. Thus many people think that the flood stories were based off of real events that have been exaggerated in sacred texts to reveal truths to us.

 

Another word for exaggeration is lying.

 

The flood happened; there are millions upon millions of cubic miles of sediment to prove it. The whole story of the ark makes no sense in a limited flood. Yet the story of the ark is found worldwide, admittedly with various corruptions (such as Babylon's cubical ark).

As I've stated with another person it is possible to believe in Jesus and accept evolution at the same time. With that being said obviously the Christian should see the bible as true, but not scientifically enlightening.

 

While the bible is not a scientific textbook, it contains nothing false. The limited amount that it reveals on the natural world is true, or else God is a liar.

What are the amillennial interpretations and what do you mean when Constantine turned the church into a part of the human system?

26829[/snapback]

Premillennial, postmillennial and amillennial refer to various interpretations of the thousand year reign of Christ on earth which is prophesied in Revelation 20 (six times). The premillennial interpretation follows the biblical text and says that Jesus will return before the millennium; the millennium is the kingdom of the Messiah in this world that was long since prophesied to Israel all through the Old Testament. The postmillennial view says that the millennium is the reign of the church on earth which is necessary before Christ can return (no biblical basis at all for this, as far as I can see). Amillennialism says that there will not be any millennium. Jesus will return at some unspecified time and immediately bring in the eternal state (of Rev 21); the millennium is merely the unspecified but long time of Christendom. This has the obvious disadvantage that it contradicts the bible's explicit teaching. It was possible because people like Origen had brought in a hyper-allegorical interpretation of scripture, that claimed to get spiritual truths out of texts that bore no apparent relation to the subject; along the way they conveniently discarded the plain meaning of texts they did not like, such as Romans 9-11 and Revelation.

 

When Constantine allegedly became a Christian he made Christianity a state religion. The title of pontifex maximus (pagan high priest) was given to the bishop of Rome and favours were given to bishops and elders. Very soon, Christianity became the state religion. Advancement in the church meant advancement in the state. Pagan temples were handed over for use as churches. Pagan practices invaded the church. The church became mostly worldly and corrupt.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If Adam was figurative, so is Christ: "As in Adam all die, so in Christ shall all be made alive."

Again this can be taken figuratively, Adam is a reference to the fact that everybody sins (I think this conversation was with you), and through Christ we shall rise from our fallen state.

 

  If Genesis is open to reinterpretation on the basis of atheist beliefs about history. so are the gospels.  If creation did not happen as stated, why should you believe that the resurrection did?

I've always found most atheist interpretations to be 'God is a bronze-aged psycho killer', or something like that. But the reason for not taking a literal genesis are many. In short, it's not what all the combined evidence suggests. But the combined evidence for the resurrection shows that it must have happened.

 

I think that Sanford is flat out lying. In the review he makes several assertions that cannot be true.

 

First he states that one out of a million mutations are beneficial while all the others are harmful. Most mutations are neutral to the overall effectiveness of the DNA because of the redundant code; multiple codons code for the same protein. And the rest of the mutations are determined beneficial or not by their environment, there is no standard where you can say this mutation is good or bad.

 

Second he states that mutations are too subtle to be "selectable" , if this was the case than even the bad mutations are not selectable therefore bad mutations should not be a problem.

 

Third, mutations arise faster than can be selected. If this were true we could not breed anything with consistent results. We would not be able to select dogs for breeding purposes, same with bananas, wheat, corn and many other foods that over time humans have selected for breeding without the use of genetic altered plants. We have been doing this for hundreds of years, this would not be possible if Sanford is correct.

 

Fourth, survival of the luckiest outdoes selection. If this were true, all different variations of the same species just happened to randomly evolve into the better suited version to which they live. Take humans for example, according to this it is pure coincidence that Europeans have a mutation that makes them produce the enzyme lactase at high levels throughout their life where dairy products just so happen to be a major source of energy. While in other places where dairy products are not available, this mutation is not present and people start to decrease in the enzyme lactase after they stop breast feeding. (Lactase is the enzyme that breaks down lactose, a key ingredient in dairy products such as milk and cheese.) And there are many other examples that contradict the statement Sanford presents.

 

Lastly, he states that any good mutations present will be lost because the organism has mostly bad mutations and will die without any offspring. While it is possible that bad mutations in an organism can out way the beneficial, most mutations are neutral as stated above. Plus no one here will disagree that organisms have been passing down their genes for at least 6,000 years and some of them had to have survived. And any advantage that they could get will increase their chances of passing on their genes to the next generation.

 

If I, someone in introductory biology can show how his statements for his argument are false, imagine what someone with real knowledge can do to his arguments. There would be absolutely nothing left. I can easily see why the scientific community doesn't take his genetic degeneration model seriously. But thank you for showing me this article, I've never heard of him before or his experiments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I, someone in introductory biology can show how his statements for his argument are false, imagine what someone with real knowledge can do to his arguments. There would be absolutely nothing left. I can easily see why the scientific community doesn't take his genetic degeneration model seriously. But thank you for showing me this article, I've never heard of him before or his experiments.

26847[/snapback]

Well you can't. His book's been out for years now, and the response from the evolutionists has been zip. His arguments dare not be honestly addressed, mostly because doing so would entail disclosing them.

 

Don't think I'll be getting terribly involved debating in your welcome thread. I can guarantee nobody who's read the book would be fooled for a minute by junk attempting to masquerade as arguments.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Again this can be taken figuratively, Adam is a reference to the fact that everybody sins (I think this conversation was with you), and through Christ we shall rise from our fallen state.

 

So you don't believe in the resurrection the way Paul does? If Christ has not been raised (physically) we are dead in our sins, he says. If our being raised with Christ is figurative it is not real.

But the reason for not taking a literal genesis are many. In short, it's not what all the combined evidence suggests. But the combined evidence for the resurrection shows that it must have happened.

Quite so. But the evidence for recent creation and the flood shows that it must have happened; and if it did not, then God is a liar.

I think that Sanford is flat out lying. In the review he makes several assertions that cannot be true.

 

I think that is a very reckless statement. This guy is a Professor of genetics who has studied this subject intensively, and you're a first-year and you want to tell him he's lying? I think the overwhelming odds are you don't understand the subject.

First he states that one out of a million mutations are beneficial while all the others are harmful. Most mutations are neutral to the overall effectiveness of the DNA because of the redundant code; multiple codons code for the same protein. And the rest of the mutations are determined beneficial or not by their environment, there is no standard where you can say this mutation is good or bad.

 

What Sanford said: 'Mutations are word-processing errors in the cell’s instruction manual. Mutations systematically destroy genetic informationâ€â€Âeven as word processing errors destroy written information. While there are some rare beneficial mutations (even as there are rare beneficial misspellings), bad mutations outnumber themâ€â€Âperhaps by a million to one. So even allowing for beneficial mutations, the net effect of mutation is overwhelmingly deleterious. The more the mutations, the less the information. This is fundamental to the mutation process.’

 

Mutations by their very nature destroy genomic information. Therefore all mutations lose information; this is almost by definition bad. In rare cases, that loss of information allows a species to survive better, as when a bacterial mutation makes it less vulnerable to antibiotics, but overall less well adapted in an environment without antibiotics. Good mutations that create new genetic information have [almost?] never been observed, so the chance of them must be far less than one in a million.

 

Second he states that mutations are too subtle to be "selectable" , if this was the case than even the bad mutations are not selectable therefore bad mutations should not be a problem.

 

Not selectable does not mean not a problem. To be selectable, a mutation must make a difference to reproductive success. In humans, for example, certain hereditary diseases, like a tendency to breast cancer, are not selectable because women have usually done their reproducing by the time they get cancer, and their children survive because they are looked after by other adults even if their mothers have died.

 

Therefore bad mutations can accumulate because only the worst -- the fatal or sterilising kind -- prevent further reproduction and are therefore selected out. The role of natural selection is indeed to keep the genetic stock as pure as possible, but it can only work on the basis of reproductive ability. It seems that there are multiple redundant genetic paths to various features; therefore loss of one of those paths does not necessarily destroy that ability. But the redundancy is decreased, and cumulative loss of redundancy can eventually lead to imperfect development or perhaps to complete loss. In S@xual reproduction, one may inherit a good gene from one parent and a bad one from the other. In that case, the good one tends to be used; but it is not necessarily passed on to your offspring; there's only a 50% chance of that. Indeed, inbreeding is a textbook demonstration of genetic deterioration, which you must see entirely disproves your assertion.

Third, mutations arise faster than can be selected. If this were true we could not breed anything with consistent results. We would not be able to select dogs for breeding purposes, same with bananas, wheat, corn and many other foods that over time humans have selected for breeding without the use of genetic altered plants. We have been doing this for hundreds of years, this would not be possible if Sanford is correct.

Wrong. If a feature is inherited from both parents, it must be present in the offspring. This is generally accomplished by a restricted gene pool. Genes for unwanted features are consistently removed by culling the individuals that express them. But along with that come the other disadvantages of inbreeding, such as canine hip dysplasia, which are bad mutations that are not being selected out.

Fourth, survival of the luckiest outdoes selection. If this were true, all different variations of the same species just happened to randomly evolve into the better suited version to which they live. Take humans for example, according to this it is pure coincidence that Europeans have a mutation that makes them produce the enzyme lactase at high levels throughout their life where dairy products just so happen to be a major source of energy. While in other places where dairy products are not available, this mutation is not present and people start to decrease in the enzyme lactase after they stop breast feeding. (Lactase is the enzyme that breaks down lactose, a key ingredient in dairy products such as milk and cheese.) And there are many other examples that contradict the statement Sanford presents.

Luck plays a major part. If an animal carrying a "good" mutation gets eaten before it breeds, that mutation will be lost. If it is a recessive gene, it may well be lost. If a good mutation is on the same gene as a bad mutation, the bad may get deselected and cause the good to be lost. There are circumstances, too, where the environment is a stronger influence. I speculate that the need for camouflage in snow is a very strong selector for white fur; bears without it were too noticeable to be able to catch enough to survive.

 

Lactase production, according to what you say yourself, continues while breast feeding continues. It seems highly probable that continued intake of milk products maintains it; since we do not generally stop drinking milk, we never lose it. This then would not be genetically but environmentally determined.

Lastly, he states that any good mutations present will be lost because the organism has mostly bad mutations and will die without any offspring. While it is possible that bad mutations in an organism can out way the beneficial, most mutations are neutral as stated above. Plus no one here will disagree that organisms have been passing down their genes for at least 6,000 years and some of them had to have survived. And any advantage that they could get will increase their chances of passing on their genes to the next generation.

 

He is not making a universal statement, that all good mutations must inevitably be lost. He is saying that they are overwhelmingly outnumbered by bad ones and that the chance of good ones' being perpetuated is very small. (That is even allowing that any good ones ever occur.) The operation of natural selection is not to improve genetic stock but to limit damage.

If I, someone in introductory biology can show how his statements for his argument are false, imagine what someone with real knowledge can do to his arguments. There would be absolutely nothing left. I can easily see why the scientific community doesn't take his genetic degeneration model seriously. But thank you for showing me this article, I've never heard of him before or his experiments.

26847[/snapback]

Well, I think you overrate yourself here.

 

A final quote from Professor Sanford: ‘All of the problems with evolutionary theory, as outlined in Genetic Entropy and the Mystery of the Genome, have now been rigorously proven using numerical simulation. We did this using “Mendel’s Accountantâ€ÂÂ, a state-of-the-art computer analytical tool for genetic systems. Five scientistsâ€â€ÂJohn Baumgardner, Wes Brewer, Paul Gibson, Walter ReMine, and Iâ€â€Âdeveloped this tool. We reported these new findings in two secular publications, and they will soon be discussed in a second book, Genetic Entropy and Mendel’s Accountant.’

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

Our Terms