Genesis 2

[CG Didymus]

Evolution, life begets life and is changing through generations...
We are all unique. Your genetic makeup is different from your mom. It's different from your dad. You are a combination of a 50/50 set from each, and most likely a few unique mutations on your own.

I heard Christians say they believe in "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution. Why and where in the Bible does it even give any reason to believe in micro-evolution? And, until recently, I wonder how much micro-evolution they admitted to?

But, if their "model" of how life began is correct that would mean that harmful microscopic lifeforms didn't exist until after the "fall", because prior to that everything was supposedly "perfect". Perfect, except things crashed into each other in space. Or maybe asteroids didn't happen until the devil fell and threw planets off course and caused stars to blow up. So the universe was only perfect for a few days, then all of creation went haywire. Look it even here on Earth, one day paradise, the next earthquakes, volcanoes, and I wonder if there was hurricanes? Probably, but without rain. Rain wasn't created yet.

 

[outhouse]

I heard Christians say they believe in "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution. Why and where in the Bible does it even give any reason to believe in micro-evolution? And, until recently, I wonder how much micro-evolution they admitted to?

But, if their "model" of how life began is correct that would mean that harmful microscopic lifeforms didn't exist until after the "fall", because prior to that everything was supposedly "perfect". Perfect, except things crashed into each other in space. Or maybe asteroids didn't happen until the devil fell and threw planets off course and caused stars to blow up. So the universe was only perfect for a few days, then all of creation went haywire. Look it even here on Earth, one day paradise, the next earthquakes, volcanoes, and I wonder if there was hurricanes? Probably, but without rain. Rain wasn't created yet.

There you go, using reason and knowledge, now they will be really confused

 

[Ouroboros]

I heard Christians say they believe in "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution. Why and where in the Bible does it even give any reason to believe in micro-evolution? And, until recently, I wonder how much micro-evolution they admitted to?

Yup.

And since there's nothing in the genetics to suggest that some mutations can be done and some can't, there's no difference between micro and macro except the scale.

But, if their "model" of how life began is correct that would mean that harmful microscopic lifeforms didn't exist until after the "fall", because prior to that everything was supposedly "perfect".

Exactly. There's a problem with the idea of a perfect world before the fall. It was mentioned that the appendix was created by God to be part of the immune system. That's kind'a strange that God created the immune system to defend our body from harmful bacteria and virus if they didn't exist in the "perfect" world, unless God intended the world to have malicious disease from the beginning. Or perhaps God created the immune system and appendix after the fall, i.e. a second creation phase (8th day?). So how about there also being a 9th day? Or 1001th day of creation? Or maybe God is creating all the time, he never stopped! Which would be in line with Theistic evolution!! Which in turns mean that all the functions, methods, evidence, measurements, observations, and the theory in its fundamental form is absolute and undeniable true regardless of faith!!! So what's the problem really for the religious? If God uses evolution, so be it. Don't deny truth just because tradition has hammered in some anti-scientific view.

Perfect, except things crashed into each other in space. Or maybe asteroids didn't happen until the devil fell and threw planets off course and caused stars to blow up. So the universe was only perfect for a few days, then all of creation went haywire. Look it even here on Earth, one day paradise, the next earthquakes, volcanoes, and I wonder if there was hurricanes? Probably, but without rain. Rain wasn't created yet.

Right! Supernovas. Black holes. And all that stuff. God made all that destructive force after the fall? God continued to create? Or perhaps Satan created it all? Or ... maybe the simple answer is that's the nature of the world...

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
...

I'm having a hard time reading the jumbled quotes, so I'll just respond to the last part.

That is the standard evasive tactic. I understand!

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post Ouroboros, Therefore, since they believe that "life begets life", How and where did those "earlier forms" originate?

Evolution is about how exiting life changes.

Abiogenesis is about how life came about to be.

They're like the two brothers to the same parents (biology and chemistry). But they're not the same, and the are different fields of study.

Yes, however, Both are dealing with the Same beginning of "LIFE". Neither can be substantiated as the "fact" they claim. Those needed "details" just will not spontaneously appear.
With evolution, it is based upon that Life which was supposedly established upon the supposed spontaneous results of "abiogenesis" and you admit

Abiogenesis is still up in the air and not completely answered.

Since the IAP admit that there are lacking (some very important) "details", neither of those "brothers" have credible "evidence" to call the "Theories"--factual.

We don't "believe" that life begets life. Life does beget life. Even you believe that. Evolution is about how life changes while it's begetting each generation.

Evolution, life begets life and is changing through generations, isn't a belief but a well established science with a huge amount of evidence to support it

.

OB, That is a worse comparison than the "brothers". Yes, life does beget life, but the species remains the species and not as evolutionist claim after generations of "mutations" an organism is produced that ends up in a new "Phylum?"; "Class?"; "Order?"; "Family?" or just another "Genus".

Yes, Creation, also, believes in the same "life begets life" after its own kind Mutations may change some structures, but the mutated product is still the same "Species" whether or not it procreates.

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post Have they dropped the "Theory" of spontaneous life from a pool?
How about documentation of those "earlier forms".

Well, that's the problem. The earlier forms would be virus and microbes on a size that won't fossilize, but there are other ways of figuring out those things. Anyway, how life started doesn't affect how life continues. Evolution is about how life continues and is changing, not how it was started, even if many times it would be some overlap of scientists and insights. They both fall under biology, but abiogenesis also falls under chemistry and perhaps physics.

Yes, it is a problem! The fossils one observes. does NOT help establish evolution.
True, life goes forward with time---until death. The recorded history of mankind depicts no great physical of mental changes. Evolution as you are trying to anchor it, would also, have a past---seen in recordings and art.
You don't think that Mankind's physical Being has its share of Chemical processes and physics?

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post The life of a "living kind" still reproduces the same "living kind".

Not quite. We are all unique. Your genetic makeup is different from your mom. It's different from your dad. You are a combination of a 50/50 set from each, and most likely a few unique mutations on your own. Some years ago I learned about every second person has a unique mutation, but some recent papers said it's more common than that, perhaps each of us have several. We're a unique "kinds" in a category of population that we call "human". Being human isn't a state of uniqueness but a state of belonging in a changing set.

That evolution is happening is a fact. The theory of evolution is the model with which we're trying to explain why evolution is happening, and how.

Well the Model/explanation, is appealing to those who place man's intellect ahead of the reality of the origin of all one sees.
What is silly---to borrow your phrase--- is the give the simplest of "organism" the reasoning power to propel its progeny from that simple form to in the future a multiple celled organism---and Beings with multiple divers complicated and integrated functions.
That had to be a very intelligent spontaneously occurring "microbe".

No! I'll still take the Gen.1+2 account and all the promises that accompany it.

 

[outhouse]

Lets see here. Your willful ignorance of the evidence means nothing to the world.


I have the whole world behind me, every credible university around the whole world teaches what I posit as higher education and learning.

What you posit is outlawed from children's minds in science class so we don't ruin their minds.


This is viewed a truth for most of the educated world, theist included, and contains substantiated facts to back their position.

You don't have to like the truth, or be part of the majority.


IAP - IAP Statement on the Teaching of Evolution

We agree that the following evidence-based facts about the origins and evolution of the Earth and of life on this planet have been established by numerous observations and independently derived experimental results from a multitude of scientific disciplines. Even if there are still many open questions about the precise details of evolutionary change, scientific evidence has never contradicted these results:

•In a universe that has evolved towards its present configuration for some 11 to 15 billion years, our Earth formed approximately 4.5 billion years ago.
•Since its formation, the Earth – its geology and its environments – has changed under the effect of numerous physical and chemical forces and continues to do so.
•Life appeared on Earth at least 2.5 billion years ago. The evolution, soon after, of photosynthetic organisms enabled, from at least 2 billion years ago, the slow transformation of the atmosphere to one containing substantial quantities of oxygen. In addition to the release of the oxygen that we breathe, the process of photosynthesis is the ultimate source of fixed energy and food upon which human life on the planet depends.
•Since its first appearance on Earth, life has taken many forms, all of which continue to evolve, in ways which palaeontology and the modern biological and biochemical sciences are describing and independently confirming with increasing precision. Commonalities in the structure of the genetic code of all organisms living today, including humans, clearly indicate their common primordial origin.

 

[outhouse]

Since the IAP admit that there are lacking (some very important) "details", neither of those "brothers" have credible "evidence" to call the "Theories"--factual.



.

What you are experiencing is your lack of intellect to fully comprehend the statement as written.


You cannot refute
That gravity is a fact, yet we do not know all the details of gravity.

 

[Thief]

What you are experiencing is your lack of intellect to fully comprehend the statement as written.


You cannot refute
That gravity is a fact, yet we do not know all the details of gravity.

I suspect Genesis to be a fact.
The details are there....we just need to sort through it.

 

[sincerly]

Lets see here. Your willful ignorance of the evidence means nothing to the world.

Outhouse, Rom. 1:18-23, reveals those who are "willfully ignorant."
"For the wrath of God is revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who hold the truth in unrighteousness; Because that which may be known of God is manifest in them; for God hath shewed it unto them. For the invisible things of him from the creation of the world are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even his eternal power and Godhead; so that they are without excuse: Because that, when they knew God, they glorified him not as God, neither were thankful; but became vain in their imaginations, and their foolish heart was darkened. Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things." The majority of the world is deluded by their own "imaginations".

It is those first two chapters of Genesis which is being referenced.

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by sincerly View Post
Since the IAP admit that there are lacking (some very important) "details", neither of those "brothers" have credible "evidence" to call the "Theories"--factual.

What you are experiencing is your lack of intellect to fully comprehend the statement as written.

You cannot refute
That gravity is a fact, yet we do not know all the details of gravity.

I see you are continuing to "project" your attributes.

Why do you continue to claim that I have any interest in disputing gravity? GOD made it the same as with "all else that is seen".
However, it is not the topic and the fact that it hasn't been understood doesn't make unproven "Theories/speculations/opinions/assumptions/etc." proven facts. Sure Gravity does exist.
Also, ALL that is seen(and unseen by the naked eye) does exist as well, but the theories for the "existence" is what is disputed.

I'll take the written record that recorded the Creator GOD'S intervention and association with mankind(His Creation) for thousands of years over the machinations of naysayers/unbelievers of what ever age.(as the Scriptures record.)

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by CG Didymus View Post
I heard Christians say they believe in "micro-evolution" but not "macro-evolution. Why and where in the Bible does it even give any reason to believe in micro-evolution? And, until recently, I wonder how much micro-evolution they admitted to?

Yup.

And since there's nothing in the genetics to suggest that some mutations can be done and some can't, there's no difference between micro and macro except the scale.

Genetically, there is an "evolving" of that "genetic material/DNA" from that "seed"(which contains that material) to the mature/Adult producer of that "seed". "After his kind".

Mutations happens within the "Species" and still is of that "species".
Scientist have "altered" the genetic material by various means---just as it has occurred in nature. Those changes are passed on to the next generation---and can be benign or lethal.(either primary mutation or secondary-the recipient)

 

[CG Didymus]

Let's say on Noah's ark a pair of wolves represented all of the K9 "kind". From them came all the dogs, foxes, coyotes and what ever else. That's a lot of variety. All the genetic material to make all those different animals was in the wolf?

I ask this because one of those Christian TV shows that talks about Genesis said that is what probably happened. And, that way Noah wouldn't have had to bring pairs of every single animal on board the ark, only a representative "kind". Would you agree with this?

If so then, if some wolves became, or evolved, into something similar, yet different, like a coyote or dog, then how much more genetic material would it take to allow let's say a mouse to become a rat? Or the rat to become squirrel? Who then, with a little tweaking, became a skunk? Could God have done the "tweaking"? Could he have caused a "miracle" of making the few necessary genetic changes to have, let's say, an ape become slightly more intelligent, lose its fur and stand upright?

 

[CG Didymus]

Here's a link to an article on:[FONT=&quot] How "Yeshua" Became "Jesus"[/FONT]

Hey Sincerly, did you answer this post? If not, the thing that I'm trying to point out is that if this article is accurate then there isn't really anything all that special about the name "Jesus". It is a misspelled, mispronounced way of saying the Hebrew name of "Yeshua".

 

[outhouse]

I see you are continuing to "project" your attributes.

Why do you continue to claim that I have any interest in disputing gravity? GOD made it the same as with "all else that is seen".
However, it is not the topic and the fact that it hasn't been understood doesn't make unproven "Theories/speculations/opinions/assumptions/etc." proven facts. Sure Gravity does exist.
Also, ALL that is seen(and unseen by the naked eye) does exist as well, but the theories for the "existence" is what is disputed.

I'll take the written record that recorded the Creator GOD'S intervention and association with mankind(His Creation) for thousands of years over the machinations of naysayers/unbelievers of what ever age.(as the Scriptures record.)

Stop your ridiculous statements that lack comprehension to the topics at hand.


Not one word addresses in context what I stated.


We do not know all the details of gravity, yet gravity is fact. Details are not required to state something factually happens.

 

[sincerly]

Let's say on Noah's ark a pair of wolves represented all of the K9 "kind". From them came all the dogs, foxes, coyotes and what ever else. That's a lot of variety. All the genetic material to make all those different animals was in the wolf?

CG D, Yes, it is a lot of varieties, but to give a modern day comparison to that ancient DNA which is found in all living things, possibly will allow you to understand. Consider the computer chip---small--but controls many functions.
And GOD placed that knowledge in the DNA to control its action.
The recombination of the chromosomes determines the results(characteristics) one sees. Remember all those experiments with the "sweet peas" and "fruit flies"? Still "sweet peas" and "fruit flies".

I ask this because one of those Christian TV shows that talks about Genesis said that is what probably happened. And, that way Noah wouldn't have had to bring pairs of every single animal on board the ark, only a representative "kind". Would you agree with this?

When Jesus fed the 5000 with a few loaves and fish(a lads lunch) and there was basketfuls left, did size hinder HIM? NO! On debarking, all animals were made "fearful" of mankind and each other-- even to "carnivorous"---as man became.
"representative kind" would have to be at the "species" level if that.

If so then, if some wolves became, or evolved, into something similar, yet different, like a coyote or dog, then how much more genetic material would it take to allow let's say a mouse to become a rat? Or the rat to become squirrel? Who then, with a little tweaking, became a skunk? Could God have done the "tweaking"? Could he have caused a "miracle" of making the few necessary genetic changes to have, let's say, an ape become slightly more intelligent, lose its fur and stand upright?

The tweaking wasn't from one species into another-- that's the evil of man's imaginations. Similarities are not absolutes.
Prov.14:12,"There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death."

 

[sincerly]

Originally Posted by CG Didymus View Post
Here's a link to an article on: How "Yeshua" Became "Jesus"

Hey Sincerly, did you answer this post? If not, the thing that I'm trying to point out is that if this article is accurate then there isn't really anything all that special about the name "Jesus". It is a misspelled, mispronounced way of saying the Hebrew name of "Yeshua".

The being "Special" isn't the name itself, but the "Person/individual" it was associated with and the meaning of the name in that connection---Saviour.
That Meaning was carried over into all the languages which it was translated.

 

[sincerly]

Stop your ridiculous statements that lack comprehension to the topics at hand.

Not one word addresses in context what I stated.

We do not know all the details of gravity, yet gravity is fact. Details are not required to state something factually happens.

Yes, "all that one sees"/the total environment is real/exists and like Gravity all the Details are not known(admitted); therefore, while both are factual/exists, the Theories for the source of the "All things" as supplied by mankind is false/NOT PROVEN.

 

[CG Didymus]

CG D, Yes, it is a lot of varieties, but to give a modern day comparison to that ancient DNA which is found in all living things, possibly will allow you to understand. Consider the computer chip---small--but controls many functions.
And GOD placed that knowledge in the DNA to control its action.

That TV show implied, I believe it might have been Ken Ham, that a wolf was the primary source of all the DNA that "evolved" "mutated" or somehow became the other dog-like creatures. But there is also a close relationship from a mouse to a rat. From a weasel to a skunk. From a chimpanzee to a gorilla. Why couldn't it be possible that the controlling DNA, placed by a creator, in mammals, had the capability to change some of them into the next higher, more complex animal in the chain or phylum, whatever it's called?

All the raw biological material is the same isn't it? Isn't it just that some animals have more advanced parts than other animals? Like we don't even have the best of everything that is out there in the animal world. We can't see and hear as well as some. We're not as big and strong as others. But our special tweaking, of the same basic materials, gave us the ability to think and to use tools to use, or abuse, our environment to make it more to our comfortable for us... and the ability to wonder how we got here. God is a good answer. It's a well established answer. But, we have learned so much through the years that causes some of us to question the absolute correctness of some of those religious answers.

And, if some of those religious answers aren't correct, or have been misinterpreted, or were only metaphoric "myth", then other things that religions say and require people to do might not be right either. And that's the problem. Some want religion to be wrong and others want it to be right. And it's difficult for religion to be just partly right and justify what it says and does. If it's not 100% from God, then it's just ancient man-made myths, rules and ideas that need to be let go of.

 

[outhouse]

the Theories for the source of the "All things" as supplied by mankind is false/NOT PROVEN.

Again one more time for the hard of learning.


WE ARE NOT TALKING ABOUT ALL THINGS


We were in context, like the rest of us can follow! talking about the facts of evolution not everything

Nothing is proven about your translation of your personal god.

 

[sojourner]

I'll take the written record that recorded the Creator GOD'S intervention and association with mankind(His Creation) for thousands of years over the machinations of naysayers/unbelievers of what ever age.(as the Scriptures record.)

Oh, yes. Because that written record still has it that the earth is flat. And the machinations of unbelievers who engineered space flight so we could see that the earth is round are not to be believed.

 

[CG Didymus]

Oh, yes. Because that written record still has it that the earth is flat. And the machinations of unbelievers who engineered space flight so we could see that the earth is round are not to be believed.

What you're saying is very important... to still believe in the spiritual aspects of the Bible, yet to keep an open mind about the things that might not be accurate scientifically. Like you say, a strict interpretation should lead us to believe the Earth is flat and that the Sun revolves around it. A thousand years ago, why not believe that. But now, through scientific observation, we know different. So what do we do with the spiritual part of the Bible? Unfortunately, hard-nosed fundamentalist Christians make it an all or nothing proposition, and many of us chose to reject Christianity because of their uncompromising attitude.