• 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 _] More evolution witnessed in labs

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jayls5
  • Start date Start date
J

Jayls5

Guest
http://www.newscientist.com/channel/lif ... e-lab.html

A major evolutionary innovation has unfurled right in front of researchers' eyes. It's the first time evolution has been caught in the act of making such a rare and complex new trait.

And because the species in question is a bacterium, scientists have been able to replay history to show how this evolutionary novelty grew from the accumulation of unpredictable, chance events.

Twenty years ago, evolutionary biologist Richard Lenski of Michigan State University in East Lansing, US, took a single Escherichia coli bacterium and used its descendants to found 12 laboratory populations.

The 12 have been growing ever since, gradually accumulating mutations and evolving for more than 44,000 generations, while Lenski watches what happens.

Profound change

Mostly, the patterns Lenski saw were similar in each separate population. All 12 evolved larger cells, for example, as well as faster growth rates on the glucose they were fed, and lower peak population densities.

But sometime around the 31,500th generation, something dramatic happened in just one of the populations – the bacteria suddenly acquired the ability to metabolise citrate, a second nutrient in their culture medium that E. coli normally cannot use.

Indeed, the inability to use citrate is one of the traits by which bacteriologists distinguish E. coli from other species. The citrate-using mutants increased in population size and diversity.

"It's the most profound change we have seen during the experiment. This was clearly something quite different for them, and it's outside what was normally considered the bounds of E. coli as a species, which makes it especially interesting," says Lenski.

Rare mutation?


By this time, Lenski calculated, enough bacterial cells had lived and died that all simple mutations must already have occurred several times over.

That meant the "citrate-plus" trait must have been something special – either it was a single mutation of an unusually improbable sort, a rare chromosome inversion, say, or else gaining the ability to use citrate required the accumulation of several mutations in sequence.

To find out which, Lenski turned to his freezer, where he had saved samples of each population every 500 generations. These allowed him to replay history from any starting point he chose, by reviving the bacteria and letting evolution "replay" again.

Would the same population evolve Cit+ again, he wondered, or would any of the 12 be equally likely to hit the jackpot?

Evidence of evolution

The replays showed that even when he looked at trillions of cells, only the original population re-evolved Cit+ – and only when he started the replay from generation 20,000 or greater. Something, he concluded, must have happened around generation 20,000 that laid the groundwork for Cit+ to later evolve.

Lenski and his colleagues are now working to identify just what that earlier change was, and how it made the Cit+ mutation possible more than 10,000 generations later.

In the meantime, the experiment stands as proof that evolution does not always lead to the best possible outcome. Instead, a chance event can sometimes open evolutionary doors for one population that remain forever closed to other populations with different histories.

Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists, notes Jerry Coyne, an evolutionary biologist at the University of Chicago. "The thing I like most is it says you can get these complex traits evolving by a combination of unlikely events," he says. "That's just what creationists say can't happen."

Journal reference: Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences (DOI: 10.1073/pnas.0803151105)
 
Once more it is still a bacteria, I have always claimed that evolution happens but it has limits, microbe to man is one of limit barriers that evolution has never broken. Microbe to microbe, well its nothing that would make me scream "Eureka!" Thats for sure. I wonder how much money was wasted in this experiment that could have been used for something much better, say better funding for research into curing cancer, Finding better ways to help the environment, providing much needed food to starving children...

Naw, it must be better to waste it on messing around with E.coli bacteria to try to provide evidence of how the starving children evolved. Good job Mr. Scientist :smt023
Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists

Sorry i must have been wearing safety goggles 8-)
 
johnmuise said:
Once more it is still a bacteria,
Of course it is. We don't expect anything else at that timespan.

The step from single- to multicellularity has been directly observed in another experiment though.
 
jwu said:
johnmuise said:
Once more it is still a bacteria,
Of course it is. We don't expect anything else at that timespan.

The step from single- to multicellularity has been directly observed in another experiment though.

Neat. Still not conclusive though. Long time spans are not observable in the lab, so your theory of microbe to man cannot be considered fact, based on the evidence, all we have is little physical evidence that no matter what way you interpret it, it does not point to "microbe to man" macro style evolution.

You have seen micro style evolution, and you have built up assumptions that microbe to man is the answer to why we are here without any concrete evidence. Your interpretations must not "evolve" in to fact unless they are indeed factual. Here is ware you need your own faith in this matter, you need faith that your 5 pieces out of a 100,000 piece puzzle are enough to guess at what the final image is.

Thats why i am a Christian fundamentalist, you see i have the other 99,995 pieces to the puzzle, you just hate what it entails. :wink:
 
We also have directly observed the evolution of endosymbiosis, which is the critical step from prokaryotes (bacteria and the like) to eukaryotes (organisms like ourselves)

As we learn more and more, the gaps get smaller and smaller, and creationism becomes harder and harder for people to accept. Many are now going back to traditional Christianity.

And that's a good thing.
 
If you say so. I already said and shown how evolution and Christianity don't mix, but in case you've forgotten.



Evolution and Christianity Mix like Oil and Water
Author: Bruce Malone

Francis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgement of God, the present could not be adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer. This trust in the existence of a personal God, who fashioned an intricate, interwoven universe, provided the foundation to proceed with scientific inquiry.
Search for the Truth This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth.

Today's intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of 'science' has been altered from "acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation" (1934 edition of Webster's New School dictionary) to "knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena"(1983 of Webster's Collegiate dictionary). This definition removes the idea that "truth" exists and emphasizes natural phenomena. By this modern definition God's intervention cannot even be considered because science has been defined to exclude this possibility.

Truth operates regardless of the opinions of man just as gravity will operate regardless of belief, understanding, or interpretation. If the universe and mankind are direct creations of a personally involved God, then man's interpretations do not diminish the truth of creation.

The reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system. Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students. Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way:

1. The bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind. This is certainly true as we observe the biological world around us. Dogs stay dogs, people stay people. Yet evolution preaches that all life is a blurred continuum.
2. The God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. ". . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." (Matthew 20:27)
3. Would this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us ?
4. Belief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism. It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God. Although modern evolutionists try to distance themselves from the consequences of taking their theory into a social realm, these historical atrocities are the result of taking evolutionary philosophy to its logical conclusion. If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealings with other humans? Animal groups do not lament wiping each other out in order to survive. Why shouldn't we do the same if we are just part of an evolutionary process that formed us? Creation is the event that ultimately gives us life value because it links every human's values to their Creator who loved him enough to die for him.

There is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place. The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals; the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process; and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution. Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations whose influence has been a detriment to society and true scientific advancement.
 
Let's see what Bruce got himself into this time...

Francis Bacon and most of the founders of modern science could not replace faith in Christ. They realized that without an acknowledgement of God, the present could not be adequately explained. Furthermore, these outstanding scientists had confidence to proceed with scientific inquiry because of their knowledge that an orderly universe had to have a designer.

Creator. The word "designer" in the sense of working out a plan, is relatively recent...

design Look up design at Dictionary.com
1548, from L. designare "mark out, devise," from de- "out" + signare "to mark," from signum "a mark, sign." Originally in Eng. with the meaning now attached to designate (1646, from L. designatus, pp. of designare); many modern uses of design are metaphoric extensions. Designer (adj.) in the fashion sense of "prestigious" is first recorded 1966; designer drug is from 1983. Designing "scheming" is from 1671. Designated hitter introduced in American League baseball in 1973, soon giving wide figurative extension to designated.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=design

And Bruce has here confused Roger Bacon with Francis Bacon. Roger Bacon was indeed and important founder of modern science, having learned of classical science from Arabic sources, who had preserved and expanded it from Roman and Greek sources. But Roger Bacon died in 1294,and would never have heard of the word, or thought of his God to be limited in that sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roger_Bacon

This article is one of many found within Mr. Malone's excellent book, Search for the Truth.

Isn't knowing the truth a prerequisite for writing about it?

Today's intellectuals have lost this foundational understanding of the purpose of science. The very definition of 'science' has been altered from "acknowledge truths and laws, especially as demonstrated by induction, experiment, or observation" (1934 edition of Webster's New School dictionary) to "knowledge concerning the physical world and its phenomena"(1983 of Webster's Collegiate dictionary).

If you want to learn about science from dictionaries, you'll probably be continuously misled. It is pretty much today what it was in Bacon's time. And inductive process, going from a question, making a guess based on existing knowledge, testing, analysis of results and a conclusion which is an inference based on evidence.

This definition removes the idea that "truth" exists and emphasizes natural phenomena.

As Bacon pointed out, science can only study that which can be observed. Hence the supernatural cannot be tested by science. This didn't see a problem to Bacon, who already had a means of understanding God. Would you like to learn about that?

The limitations of science might seem a problem to you, but keep in mind, it has been extraordinarily successful with those limitations. It just can't say anything about God.

The reason that the evidence for creation is not commonly known is because our public school system has become increasingly dominated by the philosophy of humanism. The very basis of humanism is that man, not God, is the center and measure of all things. Evolution serves as the primary justification for this belief system.

Humanism (in the true sense, is a Christian philosophy that came about in the 15th century. So it existed long before evolutionary theory. Bruce is in over his head on this one, too.

The great Protestant theologian Karl Barth wrote:
"There can be no humanism without the Gospels."

Thus evolution is presented as fact in the public school system and only evidence supporting this concept is shown to the students.

You can hardly blame them; there is no evidence against it.

Yet, evolution stands in sharp opposition to a Biblical world view in the following way:
1. The bible states repeatedly that life produces only after its own kind.

Here, Bruce has "adjusted" Genesis a bit to make it more acceptable to him. Nowhere does the Bible say that.

2. The God of the Bible demands unselfish sacrifice for the good of others. ". . . whosoever will be chief among you, let him be your servant." (Matthew 20:27)

And we see altruism in nature in a multitude of ways. Would you like to learn about some of them? Apparently, Bruce isn't a very observant guy.

3. Would this same God use a system of dead ends, extinctions, and survival of the fittest to make us ?

Apparently so. Bruce probably needs to take this one up with the Management.

4. Belief in evolution justified the excesses of the industrial revolution, the Nazi elimination of the Jews, and the rise of Marxism and Communism.

Hard to say if Bruce actually believes this blood libel or not. Here's what Darwin says about that:

The aid which we feel impelled to give to the helpless is mainly an incidental result of the instinct of sympathy, which was originally acquired as part of the social instincts, but subsequently rendered, in the manner previously indicated, more tender and more widely diffused. Nor could we check our sympathy, even at the urging of hard reason, without deterioration in the noblest part of our nature. The surgeon may harden himself whilst performing an operation, for he knows that he is acting for the good of his patient; but if we were intentionally to neglect the weak and helpless, it could only be for a contingent benefit, with an overwhelming present evil.
Charles Darwin The Descent of Man 1871
Chapter V "On the Development of the Intellectual and Moral Faculties"

Precisely the opposite. Not only did Darwin reject the Nazi program (which was largely proposed first by Martin Luther in The Jews and Their Lies), but he labeled it "evil." And later Darwinians, such as Punnett and Morgan, showed that it was scientifically unsupportable. Perhaps Bruce is just repeating this vicous lie; for his soul, I hope so. But he is still morally culpable for repeating lies without checking them.

It also serves as the justification for the disbelief in God.

That is nonsense, of course. Even Richard Dawkins has admitted that evolution cannot rule out God.

If we are a product of biological forces why not extend these forces into our own dealings with other humans?

Because scientists know that nature is not a good place to obtain values.

There is abundant scientific evidence that macro-evolution has never taken place.

Bruce is probably not aware that the first such speciation to be observed was about 1904. Today, most creationists admit that new species evolve.

The fossil record shows no credible links between major groups of plants and animals;

Let's test Bruce's assumption; name me two major groups, said to be evolutionarily connected, and we'll see if I can find some transitionals. Want to see?

the chemical structure of DNA contains useful information which could not have developed by natural process;

That's been directly observed. Would you like to learn about that.

and there is abundant evidence for a worldwide flood which contradicts evolution.

Bruce didn't mention the "evidence." Want to know why?

Evolution is a philosophy unsupported by the majority of scientific observations

Would you like to see a list of major lines of evidence supporting evolution? And since the vast majority of major scientific progress came after scientists accepted Darwin's theory, Bruce's argument that it retarded scientific progress is laughable.

This guy knows no more about science than you do.
 
We can run in circles all day, but one of your comments is drawn out of pure ignorance.
Here, Bruce has "adjusted" Genesis a bit to make it more acceptable to him. Nowhere does the Bible say that.

Direct from Genesis

And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.' 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day. {P}

24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26 And God 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 fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

Pay attention "lets make man in our image" is God a Bacteria that slowly evolved into man? No we are made in Gods image..Humans made in 1 day.

I'll address the rest when i have some more time, off to work now :turn-l:
 
Barbarian observes:
Here, Bruce has "adjusted" Genesis a bit to make it more acceptable to him. Nowhere does the Bible say that.

And God created the great sea-monsters, and every living creature that creepeth, wherewith the waters swarmed, after its kind, and every winged fowl after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 22 And God blessed them, saying: 'Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let fowl multiply in the earth.' 23 And there was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

Nowhere there does it say that anything reproduces after it's kind. Let's go on...

24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26 And God 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 fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them.

And it doesn't say it there, either. "Reproduces" is Bruce's addition to scripture to improve on God's Word. Not a good idea.

Pay attention "lets make man in our image" is God a Bacteria that slowly evolved into man?

God isn't really a big old bearded white guy in robe and sandals. He's a spirit and has no body. The "image" is in our immortal soul, and our understanding as moral agents.
 
After its kind..what is your interpretation on this then?


God isn't really a big old bearded white guy in robe and sandals. He's a spirit and has no body. The "image" is in our immortal soul, and our understanding as moral agents.

I know God is not depicted as Hollywood would like :lol: Bruce almighty!

That is a very reasonable claim Barbarian.

But i still believe that "image" still means "image" and that "likeness" refers to the spirit.

But while we are on the side of taking Genesis literally... This same God of spirit did in fact say he made the world in 6 days, and the longevity chart derived from that long list of "he begot so and so" in Genesis, allows for the earth to be very young and in turn Microbe to Human fails.

709.gif


So if we mash Bible dates with current known population graphs, indicates about 4000 years ago there was not much people, which is no surprise if you follow along in your Bible.

In fact history seems to validate the Bible in every aspect aside from Pre-flood... Hmm maybe just maybe there was...get ready for it...a FLOOD
strokebeard.gif
 
johnmuise said:
Once more it is still a bacteria, I have always claimed that evolution happens but it has limits, microbe to man is one of limit barriers that evolution has never broken. Microbe to microbe, well its nothing that would make me scream "Eureka!" Thats for sure. I wonder how much money was wasted in this experiment that could have been used for something much better, say better funding for research into curing cancer, Finding better ways to help the environment, providing much needed food to starving children...

Naw, it must be better to waste it on messing around with E.coli bacteria to try to provide evidence of how the starving children evolved. Good job Mr. Scientist :smt023

Your criticism is now about where to better spend money, which is laughable and completely off topic. You act as though you even knew the purpose of their research in the first place. News flash: E-coli outbreaks happen a lot. In fact, tons of people got sick just this week and tomatoes had to be recalled across the country. You suggested that the experiment was only to prove evolution. Any support for that, or are you making unsubstantiated claims because of your bias against evolution?

Bolded section: This makes no sense. Better yet, we could provide evidence why people got sick and died from contaminated foods... and how to predict resistant strains. But wait, that might prove evolution, so we shouldn't fund it. Right?
 
Hmm, maybe at first but i bet his attention (and funding) was diverted when he saw this mutation. :wink:

But your claim may still hold ground, E. Coli is a horrible little germ.

BUT my claim has a much greater hold here.
Once more it is still a bacteria, I have always claimed that evolution happens but it has limits, microbe to man is one of limit barriers that evolution has never broken. Microbe to microbe, well its nothing that would make me scream "Eureka!

The bolded section was just me ranting
banghead.gif
 
"The Barbarian"]Barbarian observes:
Nowhere there does it say that anything reproduces after it's kind. Let's go on...
exactly what do you think God is saying here,, go ahead and lets give this evolution thing a chance, No....

24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26 And God 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 fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them
God is telling his creation to go and multiply and fill the earth, your offspring will fill the earth and they will be just like you... then God created man in His image, "a special creation which will look like Himself... for what reason.. fellowship.. and so far I have not heard of any mother giving birth to chicken and rabbit....
And it doesn't say it there, either. "Reproduces" is Bruce's addition to scripture to improve on God's Word. Not a good idea.
you think God is using the word multiply instead of reproduce.... which I bet means the same thing in the original text....after all He is God!
 
But i still believe that "image" still means "image" and that "likeness" refers to the spirit.

That is not the Christian belief. Some groups, like Mormons and Jehovah's witnesses, think God has a body, but most Christians do not.

But while we are on the side of taking Genesis literally... This same God of spirit did in fact say he made the world in 6 days,

From the start, Christians realized that this was not literal, but a parable of creation. Augustine, nearly 2000 years ago, mentioned this.

and the longevity chart derived from that long list of "he begot so and so" in Genesis, allows for the earth to be very young and in turn Microbe to Human fails.

I don't know any Bible Scholar who thinks Ussher's calculations are correct; for one thing, we have found remains of human structures much older than this.

So if we mash Bible dates with current known population graphs, indicates about 4000 years ago there was not much people

No. You've been misled about that. In fact, human population has fluctuated a great deal. And there are cities older than 4000 years; you don't have cities without a lot of people.

And there were lots of floods. However, about 7600 years ago, there was a flood in the middle east of truly Biblical proportions, which may be the source of the Flood story. Right place, right time, and the finding of remains of human structures in hundreds of feet of water in the Black Sea seem to confirm that it did indeed flood out humans. The use of eretz in the Bible confused early scholars. It means "land", not the "whole earth." Hence all the land was flooded, meaning that area.
 
Barbarian notes that God does not say that organisms reproduce after their kind:

24 And God said: 'Let the earth bring forth the living creature after its kind, cattle, and creeping thing, and beast of the earth after its kind.' And it was so. 25 And God made the beast of the earth after its kind, and the cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the ground after its kind; and God saw that it was good. 26 And God 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 fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth.' 27 And God created man in His own image, in the image of God created He him; male and female created He them

And note, that it doesn't.

God is telling his creation to go and multiply and fill the earth, your offspring will fill the earth and they will be just like you...

But that's not what the verse says, is it? That is man's invention to "improve" God's Word, and you are trying to get it to fit. Not a good idea.

And it doesn't say it there, either. "Reproduces" is Bruce's addition to scripture to improve on God's Word. Not a good idea.

you think God is using the word multiply instead of reproduce.... which I bet means the same thing in the original text...

Doesn't say "multiply after their own kind", either. You just made that up.

after all He is God!

Then let Him be, and stop trying to edit Him.
 
But your claim may still hold ground, E. Coli is a horrible little germ.

You would be rather unhappy without E. coli (the species name is never capitalized, BTW) It is a normal part of your intestinal flora. Some varieties of E. coli have evolved to become pathogens, unfortunately.
 
O and to void your cop out " we were not made in Gods image"

Colossians 1:15-16 Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers-- all things have been created through him and for him.

Jesus we know is in Human form, made in the Image of God the father as were we.
 
O and to void your cop out " we were not made in Gods image"

You're confused again. Christians say we were made in God's image. But we know that it doesn't mean a physical image.

Colossians 1:15-16 Jesus is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation; for in him all things in heaven and on earth were created, things visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or powers-- all things have been created through him and for him.

Jesus we know is in Human form, made in the Image of God the father as were we.

Jesus became man, and of course, like any other man, is in the image of God, but not physically. That is not a Christian belief.

Jesus says:
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


Accept His Word. He is right; you are wrong.
 
You're confused again. Christians say we were made in God's image. But we know that it doesn't mean a physical image.

:smt120

Jesus became man, and of course, like any other man, is in the image of God, but not physically. That is not a Christian belief.

What? they crucified his spirit? :lol:

Jesus says:
John 4:24 God is a Spirit: and they that worship him must worship him in spirit and in truth.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.


I don't go against his word. i think you've left out the trinity, 3 in 1.

God the father
God the son
God the holy spirit

We were made in the image of God. Human form.
we also have a spirit as does God.
Jesus came as Human.
Jesus has a Spirit.
Jesus is God.

Luke 24:39 Behold my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye see me have.[/b]


"for a spirit hath not flesh and bones" or hands and feet. they seen him here as a physical form. what he was saying was that you can't kill the spirit.

I accept the word, You read into stuff thats not there to try to squeeze evolution in as Gods mechanism for creating us.

If you read the Bible and take it as its supposed to be, evolution has no ground.
 
johnmuise said:
Once more it is still a bacteria, I have always claimed that evolution happens but it has limits, microbe to man is one of limit barriers that evolution has never broken. Microbe to microbe, well its nothing that would make me scream "Eureka!" Thats for sure. I wonder how much money was wasted in this experiment that could have been used for something much better, say better funding for research into curing cancer, Finding better ways to help the environment, providing much needed food to starving children...

Naw, it must be better to waste it on messing around with E.coli bacteria to try to provide evidence of how the starving children evolved. Good job Mr. Scientist :smt023
Lenski's experiment is also yet another poke in the eye for anti-evolutionists

Sorry i must have been wearing safety goggles 8-)


But what are these limits? How do they exist? How can you say that evolution happens, but speciation through the evolutionary process cannot?

You stated that you accept that there can be genetic change that is gradually passed down through generations. I am assuming you understand that given enough differences in genetics, two creatures cannot inter breed to create offspring or fertile offspring.

What is this boundary that prevents the changes to the genes becoming different enough to prevent interbreeding?

As for the experiement, as jwu stated, it is highly unlikey it was undertaken to give evidence for evolution. More likely it had something to do with understanding evolution or something unrelated + some dumb luck (alot of discoverys happen that way).

The vast majority of the scientific community are really unconcerned with providing more evidence for evolution in compared with understanding the mechanisms behind it. That is why I disliked the last paragraph of the original post. It pushes the media sensationalized idea of science versus creationism.

As for the "produce from their on kind", evolution doesn't violate that. Species breed with their own species. If a bird could mate with a cat, than evolution would be quite wrong.

Evolution shows that over time mutations can accumulate enough to cause significant genetic change, so much that you can trace your ancestoral tree back to a point in which you could no longer mate with your ancestor, but you will always be able to mate with your own "kind" or species.

This is my laymans understanding, and I think evolution is very simple to understand if you look at the actual theory, and not the strawman view that has persisted for a long time. I find it much easier to swallow and digest than QM, singularities or even nuclear physics. It is a lot more intuitive than any of those, yet receives a great deal more focus from some of the religious community. Really, if you want to put God in the science lab, or the science book in the church, there would be a great deal more questions to be answered with reconciling the Bible with QM than evolution could ever hope to bring.
 
Back
Top