As you learned young earth beliefs are from way further then a century ago.
Many people over the years thought the Earth might be only a few thousand years old. YE creationism is a unique set of beliefs invented by the Seventh-Day Adventists.
It was not until two centuries ago when people started rejecting a young earth
"By the 1830s, mainstream science had abandoned young Earth creationism as a serious hypothesis. It became therefore important for biblical scholars as well as Christian scientists to harmonize the Genesis myth with new scientific results into a 'new geology'.[40]"
Since the Bible does not say whether the Earth is a few thousand or a few billion years old, there is no harmonizing to be done.
In 1923 Christians finally stood up for the word of God and realized evidence still points to young earth and creation
Adventists are merely one sect of Christians. But a young Earth is not the Biblical POV, and never has been the orthodox Christian position.
"The rise of fundamentalist Christianity at the start of the twentieth century saw a revival of interest in young Earth creationism, as a part of the movement's rejection of the explanation of evolution.[45] In 1923, George McCready Price, a Seventh-day Adventist wrote The New Geology, a book partly inspired by the book Patriarchs and Prophets in which Seventh-day Adventist prophet Ellen G. White described the impact of the Great flood on the shape of the Earth. Although not an accredited geologist, Price's writings, which were based upon reading geological texts and documents rather than field or laboratory work,[46] provide an explicitly fundamentalist perspective on geology."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Young_Earth_creationism
Barbarian observes:
As you see, I take them as they are, not as modernists have revised them.
I see you don't take them at all as they are, you even said you don't take them literally.
I take them literally in the sense that I accept what God says in Genesis, not that I force a literalist interpretation on them.
I am not going to list the other 15 different fatal contradictions because you don't seem to see anything as it is but only as you want it to be. If you can't take the Bible literally then what do you believe.
This is my objection to YE. It doesn't take the Bible as it is; it adds new doctrines, and rejects parts of Genesis.
I would say you know that kind of how the devil tempted eve was not taking Gods word literally
In fact the Devil was a Biblical literalist. He told Eve that she would not die when she ate from the tree, and that it would make her like God. His YE interpretation presented the death as a physical one, which did not happen the day she and Adam ate from the tree. And they did become like God. YE has always been a way to separate people from God.
but your beliefs that we came from apes seems like you wouldn't believe eve was real or anything in Genesis in that matter.
As I reminded you before, there is nothing in evolutionary theory to deny that Adam and Eve were real people.
Barbarian observes:
The creationism presented in the Scopes trial was old Earth creationism. And as you see, medieval Hebrew scholars did not agree that the days in Genesis were literal ones.
Yep I addressed that above.
Mosheh ben Maimon משה בן מימון, called Moses Maimonides and also known as Mūsā ibn Maymūn (Arabic: موسى بن ميمون), or RaMBaM (רמב"ם – Hebrew acronym for "Rabbi Mosheh Ben Maimon"), was a preeminent medieval Jewish philosopher and one of the most prolific and followed Torah scholars and physicians of the Middle Ages. He was born in Córdoba, Almoravid Empire (present-day Spain) on Passover Eve, 1135, and died in Egypt (or Tiberias) on 20th Tevet, December 12, 1204.[6] He was a rabbi, physician and philosopher in Morocco and Egypt.
Although his writings on Jewish law and ethics were met with acclaim and gratitude from most Jews even as far off as Spain, Iraq and Yemen, and he rose to be the revered head of the Jewish community in Egypt, there were also vociferous critics of some of his rulings and other writings particularly in Spain. Nevertheless, he was posthumously acknowledged to be one of the foremost rabbinical arbiters and philosophers in Jewish history, his copious work a cornerstone of Jewish scholarship. His fourteen-volume Mishneh Torah still carries canonical authority as a codification of Talmudic law. In the Yeshiva world he is known as "haNesher haGadol" (the great eagle) in recognition of his outstanding status as a bona fide exponent of the Oral Torah.
The most respected of Hebrew scholars rejected a literalist interpretation of Genesis.
YE creationism is a very modern belief. Without the efforts of the Adventists, it would have remained a marginal belief of a few sects. As you learned, George Price managed to get Henry Morris as an ally in moving his new doctrine into the evangelical ranks.
Barbarian observes:
As humans. It's just that our bodies evolved from apes. But we are not our bodies.
Sounds like you mean as apes but we evolved to humans.
At some point, we had a common ancestor with apes. There is nothing shameful in that; our souls are given immediately by God.
Contradictions in one sentence.
Not to a Christian.
As I said, I just take it His way.
You don't take him literally so how do you figure.
It take Him at what He says. If He chooses to use figurative language, I do not try to amend it. That is what YE does.
Barbarian observes:
Moses didn't express an opinion as to whether Genesis was literal or not.
God didn't express to Adam to take him literally about the eating of the tree,
Indeed. God said Adam would die the day he ate from the tree, but Adam lived on physically for many years. The Serpent cleverly adopted the YE idea, and convinced Eve that it was about a physical death.
Oh I am preaching from Genesis to someone that don't believe in what is written in Genesis.
If you accepted Genesis without your revisions, you wouldn't be concerned about this.
Barbarian on demonstrations of major evolutionary changes.
Sure. Pakicetus-Ambulocetus-Dorudon. There is similar transitional evidence for lizards to mososaurs, and for lobed-fin fish to tetrapods. The evidence is increasing and compelling. Of course, the genetic and anatomical evidence from modern whales confirms that, as to the occasional hind limbs that appear on whales.
You should know of the eye problem of the
Ambulocetus more of a crocodile
I
You've been misled on that. It has the body of a mammal, and the limbs of a highly modified ungulate, right down to the hooves on each digit. C'mon, you could learn about it.
Darwin believed a bear changed into a whale.
Nope. You were misled on that, too. Darwin suggested that whales could have evolved from large terrestrial mammals, after seeing bears harvesting insects in water.
The California academy of science believe it was a hyena
Wrong again. Even years ago, they knew it was an ungulate, perhaps a mesonychid. Never a hyena.
others now believe a dear like animal from india, Scientist from University of Michigan thought a cat, Japanese suggest a Hippo.
Wrong again. Libraries are free. Why not try to learn about it.
I can tell you where it came from but you wouldn't believe it. The book God documented creation in tells us.
God says that living things came from the earth and waters. However, He didn't explain how. Left that up to us to find out.
Barbarian observes:
The Bible neither denies nor proclaims evolution. It is merely consistent with it. But YE creationism is not consistent with Genesis.
The Bible states God created
The only difference between us is that you don't approve of the way He did it.
And talking about lizards and another form of lizards. I am not looking for things in the fossil record and similarities we went over this a couple pages ago.
I understand. Some YE creationists regard evidence the way a vampire regards a crucifix.
Barbarian observes:
Natural selection never makes anything de novo; it merely changes things already there.
Sound like you agree can't create fins and etc.
Since we see that fins on whales are modified legs, it's obvious that they did evolve. Sometimes we even see legs appear on whales.
Barbarian observes:
Every new mutation adds information to the population. Would you like to see the calculations?
I know what mutation do. They only change very 1 letter of DNA code out of billions.
Sometimes. But often the changes are much more profound than that. Would you like to see how?
If you know how DNA has to be in perfect order
Turns out it doesn't. Each of us has his own unique variation of DNA, and it all works.
and to think random DNA mutations is how we came to be is pretty ridiculous.
That is ridiculous; I'm always astonished that YE creationists suppose that's what evolutionary theory says.
Barbarian observes:
Comes down to evidence. And that's what the evidence shows. Would you like to see some of it?
Really we have documented seeing thousands of letters of DNA code mutate in perfect order to make new body parts?
There is no "perfect order." That's a fairy tale someone told you.
Besides mutations that cause information loss, in theory there could also be mutations that cause a gain of new information.
Every new mutation in population causes an increase in information. I don't think you know what "information" means, or how to calculate it, do you?
There are only a few alleged cases of such mutations.
There are many, many such cases. Even favorable mutations are quite common. Would you like me to show you some of them?
However, if a mutated DNA strand were built up with a group of base pairs that didn’t do anything, this strand wouldn’t be useful. Therefore, to be useful to an organism, a mutation that has a gain of new information must also cause a gain of new function."
You've confused "information" with "useful." That is not what information means. But we do have a very large number of observed useful mutations.
"Observations confirm that mutations overwhelmingly cause a loss of information, not a net gain, as evolution requires.
No, even in your new definition of "information" that's false. The vast majority of mutations don't do much of anything. All of us have several mutations that were not present in either parent. A few are harmful. And a very few are useful. Natural selection sorts it out.
Mutations – mistakes in the copying of genetic material – are not the freak events of science fiction. In fact, they are very common. Mutations occur in the cells of every individual as he or she grows older. And they are happening all the time. While you are reading this article, for example, you will have undergone tens of thousands of mutations.
“When you start looking at DNA directly, the mutation rate turns out to be very high.”
http://www.thenational.ae/news/uae-news/science/we-are-all-mutations
Mutations, when properly understood, are an excellent example of science confirming the Bible.
The Bible says nothing about mutations.
When one sees the devastating effects of mutations
It's unusual for a mutation to be devastating. Few of us have mutations like that.
one can’t help but be reminded of the curse in Genesis 3. The accumulation of mutations from generation to generation is due to man’s sin.
That would be odd. It is the cause of genetic variability which pretty much guarantees an epidemic can't wipe out all humans. Populations that somehow lose variability (such as cheetahs) are in big trouble. It's not a curse; it's an improvement in fitness.
Ya I know AiG they are frauds
Probably not a good idea to cite them, then.
Barbarian observes:
It's ongoing. There are always evolutionary changes. Poaching has so impacted African elephants, for example, that they are rapidly evolving to smaller, tuskless types.
I was not asking for an example of elephant on elephant, but maybe changing into something else, or something else changing into elephant would prove your point pretty well.
Like not believing giant redwoods can grow from seeds, because no one has ever seen the whole thing happen. I got that. I'm pretty much convinced that you people know that's a faulty argument.
Barbarian observes:
Remember, I accept it as it is. You only accept the parts of it you like, and add some of your modern ideas to it.
I have addressed this above. It is more the opposite direction.
I see your denial, but the Bible remains, and it is incompatible with YE.
You are getting this off topic and could almost be moved to theology section.
Remember what I was looking for and end the rest of it. I am not interested in the hypothesis of evolution of the fossil record
Translation: "The evil Barbarian is resorting to evidence, again."
