• CFN has a new look and a new theme

    "I bore you on eagle's wings, and brought you to Myself" (Exodus 19:4)

    More new themes will be coming in the future!

  • Desire to be a vessel of honor unto the Lord Jesus Christ?

    Join For His Glory for a discussion on how

    https://christianforums.net/threads/a-vessel-of-honor.110278/

  • CFN welcomes new contributing members!

    Please welcome Roberto and Julia to our family

    Blessings in Christ, and hope you stay awhile!

  • Have questions about the Christian faith?

    Come ask us what's on your mind in Questions and Answers

    https://christianforums.net/forums/questions-and-answers/

  • Read the Gospel of our Lord Jesus Christ?

    Read through this brief blog, and receive eternal salvation as the free gift of God

    /blog/the-gospel

  • Taking the time to pray? Christ is the answer in times of need

    https://christianforums.net/threads/psalm-70-1-save-me-o-god-lord-help-me-now.108509/

  • Focus on the Family

    Strengthening families through biblical principles.

    Focus on the Family addresses the use of biblical principles in parenting and marriage to strengthen the family.

[_ Old Earth _] Another Error Found

I think we're off topic (not sure) but as for evolution, the Darwinian model has been in trouble for years. Maybe that needs a new thread. As for creating life from nothing, there was nothing before there was anything. The creation isn't eternal (with an eternal past). So creation from nothing is exactly what God did and it's exactly what the Bible tells us God did.
A lot of Darwin's ideas have been discarded. Darwin was mostly inspired by Linaous's work in organization and was vastly inspired by his studies of finches while sailing. His work, the origin of species was researches by the information at the time of known morphology. Darwin just wasn't sure how decent with modification worked. It wasn't until Mendelssohn that genetics became the lynch pin that started tieing together Darwin's theory. Before Mendel it was just mostly taxonomy. With the next 200+ years of research genetics, taxonomy, breading patterns, and various finds helped to bring the theory to where we are today. It's actually quite fascinating.
 
Nice try, but God created animals out of nothing. He used dirt to form man in Their image. Quite the difference there.
Your argument keeps falling apart as soon as it is made.
Actually, God made the animals from the earth as well.
Gen 1:24 Then God said, “Let the earth bring forth the living creature according to its kind: cattle and creeping thing and beast of the earth, each according to its kind”; and it was so.
There are two accounts of the creation of man.
One is at Gen 1:26-27 which does not mention anything about being "from dirt" and itstates that ELOHIYM made both male and female at he same time.
Then God (ELOHIYM) said, "Let us make man in our image, after our likeness; and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God he created him; male and female he created them."
The second story is found at Gen 2:7; "then the LORD God (YHWH ELOHIYM) formed man of dust from the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living being."
Also, we are given our souls at birth because we are human, not animals.
Where does the scripture say we are given our souls at birth?
I must have missed that.
 
I think we're off topic (not sure) but as for evolution, the Darwinian model has been in trouble for years. Maybe that needs a new thread. As for creating life from nothing, there was nothing before there was anything. The creation isn't eternal (with an eternal past). So creation from nothing is exactly what God did and it's exactly what the Bible tells us God did.
Barbarian said: "The creationist "life ex nihlo" ("life from nothing) doctrine is directly contradicted by God, in Genesis. He says the the Earth, air, and waters brought forth life according to His will. Life came from pre-existing creation."
That is a distortion.
The creationist position is that God created the world (universe) ex nihilo (from nothing.)
The matter He created from nothing was then available for His use in the creation of all things.

iakov the fool
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Barbarian said ...:"The creationist "life ex nihlo" ("life from nothing) doctrine is directly contradicted by God, in Genesis. He says the the Earth, air, and waters brought forth life according to His will. Life came from pre-existing creation."
That is a distortion.
The creationist position is that God created the world (universe) ex nihilo (from nothing.)
The matter He created from nothing was then available for His use in the creation of all things.

iakov the fool
That's my understanding too. I hope there's a video of it happening for us to see someday.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A lot of Darwin's ideas have been discarded. Darwin was mostly inspired by Linaous's work in organization and was vastly inspired by his studies of finches while sailing. His work, the origin of species was researches by the information at the time of known morphology. Darwin just wasn't sure how decent with modification worked. It wasn't until Mendelssohn that genetics became the lynch pin that started tieing together Darwin's theory. Before Mendel it was just mostly taxonomy. With the next 200+ years of research genetics, taxonomy, breading patterns, and various finds helped to bring the theory to where we are today. It's actually quite fascinating.
Just got here Milk-Drops.
What IS the theory of today?
Just quick...
 
I think we're off topic (not sure) but as for evolution, the Darwinian model has been in trouble for years.

Not in the sciences, it's not. Previous predictions of the theory continue to be confirmed. Would you like to see some of the more recent confirmations?

Maybe that needs a new thread. As for creating life from nothing, there was nothing before there was anything.

God says that life was not made from nothing. I believe Him. For me, that's the end of the argument.

The creation isn't eternal (with an eternal past).

But life was not made from nothing. According to God, it was made from things he already created.

So creation from nothing is exactly what God did

According to God, the universe was made from nothing. Life, however, was made from things God had already made, if you can believe what the Bible says.

He created your body from things already existing. That doesn't mean He didn't create you.
 
Just got here Milk-Drops.
What IS the theory of today?
Just quick...

The "Modern Synthesis" was the first reformulation of Darwinian theory. It used the re-discovery of Mendel's work. Ironically, Mendel, who was an evolutionist, sent Darwin his paper, but Darwin (who was flooded with unsolicited manuscripts) apparently never read it. Too bad; it cleared up a vexing problem with Darwin's theory.

If inheritance was in the blood, and like mixing paint, how could a new "sport" (we call them mutations now) persist in a population without being lost like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint? Mendel's insight was that it was like sorting beads, not like mixing paint.

The next reformulation involved neutralist theories that depended on statistical analysis of neutral or nearly neutral mutations.

Then the mechanism of DNA opened a new discipline, molecular biology, and this made some changes in Darwinian theory.

And then punctuated equilibrium put a new emphasis on something Darwin had briefly alluded to, the "Founder Effect" and the greater likelihood of speciation in small, isolated populations, followed by stasis in a constant environment.

And so on. Currently, there's a lot of work on the way evolution of epigenetic mechanisms works, and on non-coding DNA in molecular biology.

And perhaps most recently, the new science of evolutionary development is investigating how developmental genes have changed over time.

It's a lively science, with more to come. The interesting thing is, Darwin's five points of evolutionary theory remain as solid as they ever were. That's remarkable.
 
Last edited:
The "Modern Synthesis" was the first reformulation of Darwinian theory. It used the re-discovery of Mendel's work. Ironically, Mendel, who was an evolutionist, sent Darwin his paper, but Darwin (who was flooded with unsolicited manuscripts) apparently never read it. Too bad; it cleared up a vexing problem with Darwin's theory.

If inheritance was in the blood, and like mixing paint, how could a new "sport" (we call them mutations now) persist in a population without being lost like a drop of red paint in a barrel of white paint? Mendel's insight was that it was like sorting beads, not like mixing paint.

The next reformulation was neutralist theories that depended on statistical analysis of neutral or nearly neutral mutations.

Then the mechanism of DNA opened a new discipline, molecular biology, and this made some changes in Darwinian theory.

And then punctuated equilibrium put a new emphasis on something Darwin had briefly alluded to, the "Founder Effect" and the greater likelihood of speciation in small, isolated populations, followed by stasis in a constant environment.

And so on. Currently, there's a lot of work on the way evolution of epigenetic mechanisms works, and on non-coding DNA in molecular biology.

And perhaps most recently, the new science of evolutionary development is investigating how developmental genes have changed over time.

It's a lively science, with more to come. The interesting thing is, Darwin's five points of evolutionary theory remain as solid as they ever were. That's remarkable.
Thanks Barb.
I'll be looking up some of those big words I don't know.

What I find interesting is that I hear scientists can get up to the very moment just before the "big bang" that started the creation and expansion of the universe...but they cannot get BEFORE that.

Maybe because there is no before?

The Big Bang...
Let There Be Light?
 
What I find interesting is that I hear scientists can get up to the very moment just before the "big bang" that started the creation and expansion of the universe...but they cannot get BEFORE that.

It's because the rules by which this universe works, apparently began at that point. Hence, we can see anything that came before, because we have no way to see it.

Maybe because there is no before?

As far as science can know, there wasn't. However...

The Big Bang...
Let There Be Light?

It's no coincidence that a Catholic priest who happened to be a physicist first proposed it. Nor is it a coincidence that atheists like Fred Hoyle initially assailed it, because it denied an eternal universe.
 
It's because the rules by which this universe works, apparently began at that point. Hence, we can see anything that came before, because we have no way to see it.



As far as science can know, there wasn't. However...



It's no coincidence that a Catholic priest who happened to be a physicist first proposed it. Nor is it a coincidence that atheists like Fred Hoyle initially assailed it, because it denied an eternal universe.
Right. If it started, then something had to be the starter. The Creator.

Believing that the universe always existed is also mind-boggling.
Humans cannot understand "forever" or "always".
This would not require a Creator, but it seems just as impossible as the idea that the universe just started out of nothing.

I used to listen to a physicist priest that I liked a lot. He wrote many books. I can't remember his name.
About 50ish, glasses...
 
Just got here Milk-Drops.
What IS the theory of today?
Just quick...
The gist of it ( it actually could fill a few chapters in a text book), is that living organism pass their genes onto the next generation and with the various mutations and breeding methods ( founder effect, hybridization, bottle necking, etc.) new genes and traits are introduced into the population. Through selection pressures ( Natural selection, sexual selection, etc.) new sub species and species develop to fit the pressures. When examined on a larger time scale and through Phylogeny species can be tracked to larger families and super groups to the origins of specific gene mutations and classes. That is the ruff concept. Genetic drift is interesting, Punctuated equilibrium is interesting, founder effect really changes up ecosystems. I just love biology. :p
 
Thanks Barb.
I'll be looking up some of those big words I don't know.

What I find interesting is that I hear scientists can get up to the very moment just before the "big bang" that started the creation and expansion of the universe...but they cannot get BEFORE that.

Maybe because there is no before?

The Big Bang...
Let There Be Light?
I'm by no means a physicist and don't know nearly enough, but the most interesting thing I was reading was that time is mostly a product of the universe, so the concept of a before the big band is nonsensical. Physics makes my brain goupy.
 
The gist of it ( it actually could fill a few chapters in a text book), is that living organism pass their genes onto the next generation and with the various mutations and breeding methods ( founder effect, hybridization, bottle necking, etc.) new genes and traits are introduced into the population. Through selection pressures ( Natural selection, sexual selection, etc.) new sub species and species develop to fit the pressures. When examined on a larger time scale and through Phylogeny species can be tracked to larger families and super groups to the origins of specific gene mutations and classes. That is the ruff concept. Genetic drift is interesting, Punctuated equilibrium is interesting, founder effect really changes up ecosystems. I just love biology. :tongue
OK.
So this is what I believe...
There is evolution within a species
But I don't believe that one type of animal could become a different type of animal.

(how do you like my scientific language??)

What you're saying up there - does it mean what I just said??

Thanks again.

P.S. Between your words and Barb's words that I'll have to look up, I'll be busy all evening!
 
I'm by no means a physicist and don't know nearly enough, but the most interesting thing I was reading was that time is mostly a product of the universe, so the concept of a before the big band is nonsensical. Physics makes my brain goupy.
Wow!!!!!

This is why we say that God is outside of time!
He made it and so is not a part of it.

Maybe the more we can confirm, the more God will be real and all will come to believe.
 
OK.
So this is what I believe...
There is evolution within a species
But I don't believe that one type of animal could become a different type of animal.

(how do you like my scientific language??)

What you're saying up there - does it mean what I just said??

Thanks again.

P.S. Between your words and Barb's words that I'll have to look up, I'll be busy all evening!
Evolution is definitely within the species and organisms definately don't cross species. For example modern birds won't become Modern Mammals, and insects won't become fish. etc. One of my interests in biology was taxonomy and phylogeny. Evolution deals more with lineages and populations rather than individuals. For example in biology there is a classification of all organisms that have a spine and there are those within that grouping would be those that lay eggs and those that have live birth, etc. A species is roughly a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring ( there are exceptions to this but this is the general rule). So the barrier is that species can't breed outside their species. But new subspecies and species can arise from the lineage.

For example Dogs, Racoons, Bears, and Badgers all share a genetic lineage from a specific species but have diversified into their own species. Cats and dogs arose from a singular species ( Well the can be tracked back to a species, cats bread off of larger cats and dogs from older species of wolves). In biology organism names such a mammal, lizard, bird, etc. don't carry that much weight outside of casual use. Taxonomic names make more sense because it deals with lineage.
 
Evolution is definitely within the species and organisms definately don't cross species. For example modern birds won't become Modern Mammals, and insects won't become fish. etc. One of my interests in biology was taxonomy and phylogeny. Evolution deals more with lineages and populations rather than individuals. For example in biology there is a classification of all organisms that have a spine and there are those within that grouping would be those that lay eggs and those that have live birth, etc. A species is roughly a group of organisms that can interbreed and produce fertile offspring ( there are exceptions to this but this is the general rule). So the barrier is that species can't breed outside their species. But new subspecies and species can arise from the lineage.

For example Dogs, Racoons, Bears, and Badgers all share a genetic lineage from a specific species but have diversified into their own species. Cats and dogs arose from a singular species ( Well the can be tracked back to a species, cats bread off of larger cats and dogs from older species of wolves). In biology organism names such a mammal, lizard, bird, etc. don't carry that much weight outside of casual use. Taxonomic names make more sense because it deals with lineage.
OK.

It sounds like how I would understand it to be.
I never could believe that fish walked out of the ocean and started to walk. This seems impossible to me.
It seems more and more like Genesis is correct. God said that each species will duplicate itself.
For instance, Genesis 1:21...and every winged bird after its own kind.

Thanks!
 
There is evolution within a species
But I don't believe that one type of animal could become a different type of animal.

That's been directly observed. Indeed, most of the big-time creationist organizations admit speciation is a fact. The Institute for Creation Research endorses the view that new species, genera, and families evolve. If they give a little more ground, we won't have anything to argue about. :yes
 
That's been directly observed. Indeed, most of the big-time creationist organizations admit speciation is a fact. The Institute for Creation Research endorses the view that new species, genera, and families evolve. If they give a little more ground, we won't have anything to argue about. :yes
What is seen in speciation is a re-arrangement of genes that already exist....or an event of de-evolution that removes information. NEVER do we see beneficial information added to the DNA code.
 
What is seen in speciation is a re-arrangement of genes that already exist....or an event of de-evolution that removes information. NEVER do we see beneficial information added to the DNA
That is quite false. Their a re quite a few geneticists that could easily point out multitudes of new genes arising all the time. Also there isn't such a thing as deevolution.
 
Back
Top