[_ Old Earth _] Creation and Evolution Presentation

[Sparkey]

Research cited.

And other "research" and quotes from experts has been ignored, as is convenient. Shall I pull up the post links? No, I don't need to. You can 'research' the thread easier than you are able to research your point of view, if you'd like. Up to you.

 

[Barbarian]

My evidence is from God Himself who showed in Scriptures that the donkey not only thinks like humans but can also speak.

That's not what it says. God miraculously gave a donkey speech and reason. But we can show that donkeys can't make the sounds of human speech and are incapable of reason even on the level of monkeys.

When God opened the mouth of donkey, it spoke without any evolutionary requirements.

One of the interesting things about miracles is, they work even though they are impossible.

(1 Corinthians 1:21-25) For since, in the wisdom of God, the world through wisdom did not know God, it pleased God through the foolishness of the message preached to save those who believe. For Jews request a sign, and Greeks seek after wisdom; but we preach Christ crucified, to the Jews a stumbling block and to the Greeks foolishness, but to those who are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God. Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men, and the weakness of God is stronger than men.

Then accept this scripture and stop trying to find ways to make His miracles natural. They aren't. And they aren't necessary. God does them to teach us something.

If you believe Bible to be historically accurate

Clearly, it was never meant to be a literal history in every passage. That is a modern revision.

, then donkeys can think like humans

We can test that. They don't.

and can speak like humans

We can test that, too. They can't.

except their mouth is not open by God.

Even the impossible is possible for God. That's what a miracle is. Just believe. You don't have to explain miracles. It makes Christians look foolish to do it.

 

[felix]

If you believe Bible to be historically accurate, then donkeys can think like humans and can speak like humans except their mouth is not open by God.

Or that was an extraordinary thing where that donkey was given the ability. I don't know that the bible said that all donkeys can speak and/or think as humans do? But I do take your meaning that God is the author of all these things.

It is based on what God did and what the donkey itself said. The Lord only opened the mouth and the donkey was able to give a complete history of her obedience to her master, Balaam, ever since she became became Balaam's property.

(Numbers 22:30) So the donkey said to Balaam, "Am I not your donkey on which you have ridden, ever since I became yours, to this day? Was I ever disposed to do this to you?" And he said, "No."

I think it is an extraordinary thing that God opened the mouth of donkey but the donkey itself was not extraordinary from its peers to be created differently just for that event.

 

[Sparkey]

And as such, felix, you have no need for me to welcome you to your thoughts.

You will understand though that I too have thoughts on the subject.

Cordially,
Sparrow

 

[Vaccine]

Honestly, between the duplicated, mutated, jumping, distributed gene, and a donkey talking, I find it easier to believe a donkey actually spoke. Where is the evidence there was ever a human with only the SRGAP2a gene?

The truth is:
SRGAP2a, SRGAP2b, SRGAP2c, SRGAP2d are found in all humans.
Only SRGAP2a is found in other primates.

From that:
We have to imagine a chimp gave birth to a human.
We have to imagine a human with only SRGAP2a existed.
We have to imagine the gene copied itself 3 times.
We have to imagine each duplication gained function.
We have to imagine each new gene would jump to the centromere flanks.
We have to imagine this was distributed among 100% of the population.
WE have to imagine someone made language.

Why should I have to ignore what we know about DNA to believe in evolution?
If I have to ignore what logic and reasn tell me I will gladly make an acception for the resurrection, but not for evolution.

Nothing is more dangerous than a dogmatic worldview - nothing more constraining, more blinding to innovation, more destructive of openness to novelty.
Stephen Jay Gould
September 10, 1941:

 

[Doulos Iesou]

In order to understand better why I take the position assumptions are at play:

Our knowledge of Neanderthals is based on a limited number of remains and artifacts from which we must make inferences about their biology, behavior, and relationship to ourselves.
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/314/5802/1113.short

The charge is not at you directly, I realize there is substantial evidence backing up evolution and millions of years, but rather my charge is that evidence involves a substantial amount of assumptions and conclusions. We are not on a solid foundation when discussing evolution or dating and alternative conclusions do have some merit. I have no problem with the theory of evolution, that it can explain the origin of the species is where it runs into trouble.

Well Evolution is a Theory, and as a theory it is meant to explain ALL of the existing evidence and facts that we do have about life. Scientists then make predicts about what to expect through this system and more often then not, an evolutionary point of view does a very good job. It is true that we can only work off of the evidence that we have for the existence of beings like the Homo neanderthalensis, but understanding evolution unlocks so much more that we can learn about them.

So scientists don't assume Evolution is true, it has so far been demonstrated to be true and has not been falsified yet and still shows to be a reliable way to understand all the data that we find on the history of life. Unless you have various hominids arising at different times spontaneously out of nowhere. We all interpret the data through a lens, and I think evolution is the most effective lens.

We need to find where this piece of the puzzle fits in:
http://www.christianforums.net/showthread.php?t=52020
Neanderthals are the closest hominid relatives of modern humans, yet the assumptions of their age and intelligence gives them a growth rate of 5x to 12x that of humans, whereas chimps are 2x that of humans. An alternative explanation would put Neanderthals at the advanced ages talked about in Genesis.

Going by a literal interpretation of Genesis that would be maybe 3000 BC, which is absolutely impossible and there is NO data to support such. We have mountains of evidence that date the Neanderthals no later than about 30,000 years ago. The interpretation is inconsistent with the data, sorry I cannot accept it.

That seems a fallacious appeal to authority, nobody is trying to overthrow biology.

Fallacious appeal to authority? All of modern biology is built around the Theory of Evolution, that is a FACT. To overthrow this idea would be to discredit just about every biologist out there. And in the field of science, there is merit in appealing to someone who has a specialized field.

Are you and I biologists? Do you or I regularly conduct experiments and appreciate all the data? No, but those who do come to the conclusion that evolution is true. Does this prove it is? No, but it certainly raises the kind of evidence we would need to see in order to topple such an idea.

If anything, a strictly materialistic approach to science is what is being overthrown.

Can you give one documented instance of a non-materialistic scientific event happening? I obviously am not a materialist, but it appears that God setup the universe to work within the natural order of things.

Intelligent design theory offers some very compelling evidence, there are a few other threads about it in this forum if you are interested.

Intelligent design really has no merit with me, it's a kind of weak god of the gaps argument that says, "look this couldn't possibly have happened except through divine intervention." And then scientists demonstrate that it actually did. I agree with some of the critics when they say it makes God an ever shrinking hypothesis.

I commend your commitment to truth, very refreshing to see such an honest answer. The reason this is a chief concern of mine is there is no evidence language is the inevitable result of brain size. Meaning, puberty is inevitable, communication is inevitable, language is not.

Evolution is blind, in that something like language isn't an "eventuality" but it is a consequence of mutations being preferred via natural selection. If you look at the skulls of other primates their brain size is limited in part because of a large Jaw muscle that they needed, which we do not have. Not having this particular muscle being the same size allowed the top of our skulls more room to expand for brain growth. The changes with the brain are due to mutations, simply certain proteins being turned on and certain proteins being turned off, which we can show where scientists can now show where the changes happened. We can now see and are learning more about what makes us different from say a chimpanzee, and none of it is beyond the understanding of evolution.

Jill Bolte Taylor is a neurologist that lost language after a stroke, but regained it later. Her story offers insight to a world without language. Her world without language was completely stress free. She didn't think, she felt the world around her. She related to the world around her in a completely different way, without any contemplation. The way humans learn language actually transforms the synapses and organization of thoughts in our brains, and most importantly gives us the ability of contemplation. Explaining the origin of language in humans cannot be dismissed easily. Language is extraordinary, completely foreign to an evolutionary explanation, but fits with a literal interpretation of Genesis.

Except that I can go find several scholarly articles by biologists that explain how language arose right now.

To say it is completely foreign to evolution has not been substantiated. And ultimately is a god of the gaps argument, "Language is too intricate and complex to be explained by evolution, therefore the literal interpretation of Genesis is true."

This is fallacious reasoning.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

We have to imagine a chimp gave birth to a human.

Red Flag!!

You don't seriously think evolutionists say we came from chimps do you?!

 

[Sparkey]

We have mountains of evidence that date the Neanderthals no later than about 30,000 years ago.

The mountains that "we" have may have been subjected to God's influence during the time that man's life span was shortened. I don't personally think that the bible is an almanac of facts. The bible is a record of living, dynamic, real experiences. "Our" conclusions about dates and times is drawn into sharp focus (and occasional disagreement) when "we" assume that everything proceeded from the beginning like as we see it proceeding today. I do not wish to be called willingly ignorant of certain things that the word of truth makes abundantly clear.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

The mountains that "we" have may have been subjected to God's influence during the time that man's life span was shortened.

Then what about the Homo erectus that date back 2 million years, etc. etc. Also, we're not just talking 30,000 years ago with Neanderthals, which surely didn't leave for hundreds of years. We are talking about as early as 600,000 years ago possibly for the arrival of the Homo neanderthalensis in Europe.

I don't personally think that the bible is an almanac of facts. The bible is a record of living, dynamic, real experiences. "Our" conclusions about dates and times is drawn into sharp focus (and occasional disagreement) when "we" assume that everything proceeded from the beginning like as we see it proceeding today. I do not wish to be called willingly ignorant of certain things that the word of truth makes abundantly clear.

I'm sorry but there is no manipulation of the literal interpretation of Genesis that ends up in fitting the data we have concerning the origin of the human species.

 

[Sparkey]

I'm sorry

No need to apologize to me, I don't mind when others hold their own thoughts. In fact, I tend to respect that. It's okay to me if you'd like to continue as you are.

I ask the Lord to turn His gaze to you, to bless you mightily, to speak to your heart. That is the exact same thing that I'd like to hear you ask for me too.

~Sparrow, a brother in the Lord.

 

[Doulos Iesou]

No need to apologize to me, I don't mind when others hold their own thoughts. In fact, I tend to respect that. It's okay to me if you'd like to continue as you are.

I ask the Lord to turn His gaze to you, to bless you mightily, to speak to your heart. That is the exact same thing that I'd like to hear you ask for me too.

~Sparrow, a brother in the Lord.

Well my concern is that one day you might discover that you were wrong on this matter and it might shake your faith. I have seen many Christians almost lose their faith (or lose it) over the issue of evolution. My hope is to simply make it known that this is not an essential and one can comfortably follow Jesus and accept what biologists are saying about the history of life, in that it all has a common ancestry.

 

[Sparkey]

Well my concern is that one day you might discover that you were wrong on this matter and it might shake your faith.

Lol - I'm 60 brother. Not that much time left for me to live except as God gives for my lifetime to be extended. So no worries on my account, please. Ask me, if you'd ever care to, and I'll share bits and pieces of the faith that has been given to me. There's enough time for that, certainly. That would be better done via PM. And only if you're inclined. It's no big to me.

In the meanwhile, I will reassert my prior post:

The mountains may have been subjected to God's influence during the time that man's life span was shortened.

I don't personally think that the bible is an almanac of facts. The bible is a record of living, dynamic, real experiences. Conclusions about dates and times may be drawn into sharp focus (and occasional disagreement) if we assume that everything proceeded from the beginning like as we see it proceeding today. I do not make that allegation. How come? It is because I do not wish to be called willingly ignorant of certain things that the word of truth makes abundantly clear.

That's why.

 

[felix]

You don't seriously think evolutionists say we came from chimps do you?!

There is zero evidence for having a common ancestor with chimp. The only claimed evidence by evolutionists (which is not an evidence in itself) so far is "presence of chimps and 3 teeth fossils of chimps in Africa" for an entire period of "8 million years".

This common ancestor with chimp story is not based on evidence but based on a belief system called evolution.

 

[Barbarian]

There is zero evidence for having a common ancestor with chimp.

There is the genetic evidence, which shows that humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than to an other organisms. And we know that works, because we can check it by organisms of known descent.

There is the anatomical evidence, showing that the chimpanzee brain is closer to that of humans than that of any other organism.

There is the fossil record showing that early humans were much more similar to other apes than more recent humans.

There is the fact that the chimpanzee hand is anatomically very close to the human hand. And there is the fact that chimps have rudimentary language skills, are capable of inferring mental states in others, and are capable of deceit, all things otherwise found only in humans.

These and many other facts are in evidence, and why we know that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor.

The only claimed evidence by evolutionists (which is not an evidence in itself) so far is "presence of chimps and 3 teeth fossils of chimps in Africa" for an entire period of "8 million years".

Surprise.

This common ancestor with chimp story is not based on evidence but based on a belief system called evolution.

As you see, you've trusted the wrong people.

 

[felix]

There is zero evidence for having a common ancestor with chimp.

You've been badly misled about that. There is the genetic evidence, which shows that humans and chimps are more closely related to each other than to an other organisms. And we know that works, because we can check it by organisms of known descent.

There is the anatomical evidence, showing that the chimpanzee brain is closer to that of humans than that of any other organism.

There is the fossil record showing that early humans were much more similar to other apes than more recent humans.

There is the fact that the chimpanzee hand is anatomically very close to the human hand. And there is the fact that chimps have rudimentary language skills, are capable of inferring mental states in others, and are capable of deceit, all things otherwise found only in humans.

These and many other facts are in evidence, and why we know that humans and chimpanzees had a common ancestor.

The only claimed evidence by evolutionists (which is not an evidence in itself) so far is "presence of chimps and 3 teeth fossils of chimps in Africa" for an entire period of "8 million years".

Surprise.

This common ancestor with chimp story is not based on evidence but based on a belief system called evolution.

As you see, you've trusted the wrong people.

I don't want to to go into a debate deviating my OP. Whatever you posted are not evidences but "observations" which only proves how the Creator designed. None of these observations actually prove any common ancestor. You should be surprised for lack of fossils on chimp side.

Also, chimps and humans are NOT closely related. Having similar genes and similar bodily functions does not mean they are related. Jesus Christ, the Creator manifest in Flesh, is not blood related to anyone on this earth. He did not inherit any DNA from His worldly parents either. The Word became Flesh and He is fully human and fully God. Yet, we don't have any common ancestor with Him.

So, the notion of similarity means there should be a common ancestor is not supported by Bible.

 

[Sparkey]

Jesus Christ, the Creator manifest in Flesh, is not blood related to anyone on this earth.

Are you sure of this, felix? I know that it was only said that his father was Joseph, and that the Holy Spirit (God) is His Father, Jesus is His only begotten son. But I also know that Jesus came in the flesh. Period. What happened in the womb? Did he come from the "seed" of Mary? Was the blessing given to the "seed" of Eve to be fulfilled in Jesus? Pretty sure that's the truth of the matter right there. In fact, I'm certain of it.

 

[felix]

Jesus Christ, the Creator manifest in Flesh, is not blood related to anyone on this earth.

Are you sure of this, felix? I know that it was only said that his father was Joseph, and that the Holy Spirit (God) is His Father, Jesus is His only begotten son. But I also know that Jesus came in the flesh. Period. What happened in the womb? Did he come from the "seed" of Mary? Was the blessing given to the "seed" of Eve to be fulfilled in Jesus? Pretty sure that's the truth of the matter right there. In fact, I'm certain of it.

Mary was a surrogate and her surrogate contract:

Luke 1:35 And the angel answered and said to her, "[The] Holy Spirit will come upon you, and the power of the Highest will overshadow you; therefore, also, that Holy One who is to be born will be called the Son of God. (not her son but Son of God)

The egg of Mary did not became Flesh but the Word of God became flesh. The womb is amazingly designed that nothing passes between the mother and child - not even viruses, but only food. Mary is chosen by God to be a surrogate, to carry the Savior of the Word in her womb.

 

[Sparkey]

So if that is the case, how is it that you say that Jesus was flesh?

I think it's clear that he is a man, born of a virgin.

 

[felix]

So if that is the case, how is it that you say that Jesus was flesh?

I think it's clear that he is a man, born of a virgin.

Because, the Word became Flesh. If Jesus inherited any of Mary's DNA, then Jesus is "half-creation", a half-human or half-god, more like a half-blood in greek mythologies. But Bible is extremely clearly that the Word became Flesh.

 

[Sparkey]

Humans have 23 pairs of chromosomes, Felix. In each pair, one chromosome comes from the mother and the other from the father. Twenty-two of the pairs are the same in both men and women, and these are called autosomes. The twenty-third pair consists of the sex chromosomes, so called because they are the primary factor in determining the gender of a child.

The sex chromosomes are known as the X and Y-chromosomes. Females have two X chromosomes (XX) and males have one X and one Y chromosome (XY). The Y chromosome is about one-third the size of the X chromosome. A sperm, the reproductive cell produced by the male, can carry either one X or one Y chromosome. Basic biology, right? Okay. Let's continue.


An egg, the reproductive cell produced by the female, can carry only the X chromosome.

Before you can explain whether Mary’s DNA was passed onto Jesus, you should understand a little more about DNA. Mitochondria are DNA passed only thru the female on from one generation to the next. Do your research on the term and what it means. Confirm that without mitochondria there is no life. Then come back and let's talk further.

Mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) comes almost exclusively from women because egg cells have a lot of mtDNA while men's sperm cells have only a little bit. Mitochondria generate power for the cells, and because sperm cells use just a few mitochondria in their tails to swim to the egg to fertilize it, the mtDNA of the sperm usually disappear once fertilization occurs.

But Bible is extremely clearly that the Word became Flesh.

Agreed. We do not disagree there. What have I said that suggests otherwise?