Creation vs. Evolution

[louis]

Evolution and evolving standpoints

Hi everyone. Been a while since i've been here but it's good to be back.

I have never been able to determine exactly where i stand with regards to this topic because there are arguments on both sides that are compelling.

But here is a little thing that throws me completely.

My father had no wisdom teeth. Nor do I. I'm 37 years old. They're not there and never have been and X Rays have confirmed this. I'm part of a growing number of people who have this Agenesis and there's a lot of detail about this out there. My post count is too small to allow links so google "Vestigiality_and_variation" or "lack of wisdom teeth" for more info....

Of course, there is the running joke that this is indicative of a lack of wisdom too, but there you have it. Make of it what you will.

I'm a software developer by trade and I could postulate that the human race itself is subject to Jesus' occasional "patch" or "update", His perfect knowledge notwithstanding??

 

[Boanerges]

I'm a software developer by trade and I could postulate that the human race itself is subject to Jesus' occasional "patch" or "update", His perfect knowledge notwithstanding??

Just some thoughts:
While a lack of wisdom teeth is certainly a minor genetic flaw I do not think it would support an evolutionary theory. My canine teeth were to high in my mouth,almost at the top of my gums. Two out of three of my kids had the same genetic flaw which of course served absolutely no purpose but to be an expensive nuisance to correct.
Genetic flaws (in my opinion) are the fruit of a species living in a world contaminated by sin. The result is corruption of all living things.
One major problem with evolution is that is is simply a theory but is taught as fact. It is not static but changes it's precepts with time and yet is still taught as fact. An example of this would be the flood of dinosaurs evolved into bird theories that I have seen over the last 15 or so years. But recently it has been "discovered" that dinosaurs and birds already existed in the same time period.
Then there is the circular logic used to "prove evolution". Fossils are dated by their strata and the strata- well those are dated by their fossils. Carbon dating has proven to be inaccurate and inconsistent. Radiometric dating is based on guesswork. Was the rate of decay consistent and what was the level of Uranium and led present at formation. Only in a controlled laboratory setting in which all the original variables are know can anything close to an accurate assumption be known.

 

[JHM]

Einstein was an atheist?...Einstein may not have met his maker, but he was no full fledged atheist, he has quotes about God or Gods all over the place. Some good, some bad, he was to smart to be a total athiest. And this can be debated as well, some say he was, some say he was'nt.

God bless

Fellowservant is right. Einstein was no atheist. He referred to GOD as the "Old One". I could post a lot more than what I am here, but that will have to await my post count reaching 49.

E = MC <SUP>2</SUP>

The last white magician, was first to proclaim:
Might transmutes to gold<SUP>b3a</SUP> , the two are the same;
In compensation the old one, saw fit to arrange;
Blue velocity squared, as rate of exchange.

Duality

So " its energy frozen." the seers say of mass;
Though solids and liquids , condense from a gas;
These " Myopic Clairvoyants", in quest of a clue;
Can’t perceive " Trinity"<SUP>b3b</SUP>, and envision but two .

Trinity

Contemplating the Father, you dwelt on the Son;
To acknowledge at last, that these two are one;
But the Infinite Spirit; you blithely denied
Leading legions astray; far better you’d died.

Nature

A kaleidoscopic amalgam, ever freshly revealed
Endless symmetries’ secrets, betoken concealed;
Coherence converging, diverse illusions entwine;
The monolithic emerging, Eternal Spirit Devine.


b<SUP>3a</SUP>) "Might transmutes to gold", (a truism in its own right), in this case is a bit of double entente, with the second meaning being "force and matter", (energy and mass), are interchangeable at the rate of E=MC<SUP>2</SUP>

b<SUP>3b</SUP>) The concept of "Trinity" shows up in far more than just "solid - liquid - gas", it’s also there in "neutron - proton - electron", "electron - muon - tauon", "electron neutrino - muon neutrino - tauon neutrino", "up quark - down quark - strange quark", and "charm quark - bottom quark - top quark" to name a few.

Note : I refer to Einstein as the "Last White Magician", (as opposed to practitioners of Black Magic), because Einstein willingly sacrificed his career by standing up for, and proclaiming, his belief in God.

It happened in 1927 at a convocation of scientists in Brussels. Though Einstein had been one of the founders of quantum mechanics, he did not like the direction it was taking. When Heisenberg’s "Uncertainty Principle" was discussed at the Brussels convention, it was attacked by Einstein and defended by Niels Bohr. All of the scientists attending sided with Bohr. Newspaper headlines screamed : "200 SCIENTISTS AGAINST EINSTEIN !"; but such was the reputation of Einstein, that for a time, the world, remained undecided.

The Last White Magician

Dwarven hordes filled the hall, with sagacities small, to exact securities price;
T’is certain you’ll fall, career in a pall, else grant uncertainty’s nice;
Besieged by them all, his back to the wall, without regret or pause to think twice;
Defying their gall, that giant stood tall, and answered "God doesn’t play dice!"

Note : Or to be more precise "God does not dice with the universe". The gist of the uncertainty principle is that you cannot simultaneously know both the position and the momentum, (direction and rate of travel), of subatomic particles. The more you know about the position, the less you know about the momentum; and vice versa. This makes certain aspects of science unpredictable within the confines of Heisenberg’s equation. Experiments which have been very carefully crafted in an attempt to get around this limitation have always yielded bizarre results. (i.e. 2 slit experiments, wherein an electron, whose momentum is known, must pass through one or the other of the slits,- thereby enabling scientists to determine its precise location, - result in the electron being found to pass through both slits.) The particles which scientists use in their attempts to get measurements, have repeatedly demonstrated a propensity to change states, (point,- wave,- smeared point) in such a manner as to avoid being precisely measured by their detectors.

"If an electron were like a tiny jelly bean, we should – in principle – be able to measure both its position and its momentum at any instant, with unlimited precision

IT CAN’T BE DONE

It is not a matter of the practical difficulties of measurement because we assume ideal measuring instruments. Nor is it as if the electron has an infinitely precise position and momentum but that – for some reason nature will not let us find it out What we are dealing with is a fundamental limitation on the concept of ‘particle’."

See Romans 11 <SUP>33 - 36</SUP> : Jerusalem Bible.
Romans 11 <SUP>33-36</SUP> : How rich are the depths of God – how deep his wisdom and knowledge – and how impossible to penetrate his motives or understand his methods! Who could ever know the mind of the Lord? Who could ever be his councillor? Who could ever give him anything or lend him anything? All that exists comes from him; all is by him and for him . To him be glory forever! Amen.

See also Judith 8 <SUP>12 - 14</SUP>: Jerusalem Bible.
Judith 8 <SUP>12 -14</SUP> : Who are you, to put God to the test today, you, out of all mankind, to set yourselves above him? You of all people to put the Lord Almighty to the test! You do not understand anything, and never will. If you cannot sound the depths of the heart of a man or unravel the arguments of his mind, how can you fathom the God who made all things, or sound his mind or unravel his purposes?

See Psalm 139 <SUP>1 - 6</SUP>: Jerusalem Bible.
Psalm 139 <SUP>1 - 6</SUP> : Yahweh, you examine me and you know me, you know if I am standing or sitting, you read my thoughts from far away, whether I walk or lie down, you are watching, you know every detail of my conduct. The word is not even on my tongue, Yahweh, before you know all about it; close behind and close in front you fence me round, shielding me with your hand. Such knowledge is beyond my understanding, a height to which my mind cannot attain.

See Job 11 <SUP>6</SUP> : Jerusalem Bible.
Job 11 <SUP>6</SUP> : Can you claim to grasp the mystery of God, to understand the perfection of Shaddai?

Note : I would venture to say that in a sense, both Einstein and Heisenberg were right. Heisenberg was right in the sense that his equation precisely defines the limit to which we can determine the doings of subatomic particles. Einstein was right in the sense that God does not dice with the universe; – but "NO MAN CAN KNOW THE MIND OF GOD".

 

[JHM]

With respect of lack of wisdom teeth, or for that matter, the fact that some species of whales at one time had legs; but have since lost them, or the fact that some species of fish and ants have lost their eyes, or the fact that both Neanderthal man and Cro-Magnon man had brains that were 10% larger than the brains of modern man : Evolution and Degeneracy are two different things.

 

[louis]

lack of wisdom teeth is certainly a minor genetic flaw

Ok then... so a lack of wisdom teeth is a genetic flaw now. Brought about by sin.
If my lack of wisdom teeth are brought about by sin, then...

Whatever you intended to convey, your statement is an example of the kind of thing that has kept me out of the church all my life and continues to do so. I welcome these comments because they vindicate my point of view about my fellow Christians.

Tell me, Boanerges, how is your appendix doing?

 

[JHM]

Living where you do, it is safe to go to church. It is the "Church of Laodicea" that Christ will spew out of his mouth, and given the description of it, I don't think it pertains to South Africa. Re the "Minor Genetic Flaw", that far "Boanerges" is correct; but in saying that : "Genetic flaws (in my opinion) are the fruit of a species living in a world contaminated by sin." he is giving an opinion, which may or may not be correct; and which does not indicate that you are sinful, but rather that you live in a world contaminated by sin. So I think you have misunderstood him.

 

[Boanerges]

Ok then... so a lack of wisdom teeth is a genetic flaw now. Brought about by sin.
If my lack of wisdom teeth are brought about by sin, then...

Whatever you intended to convey, your statement is an example of the kind of thing that has kept me out of the church all my life and continues to do so. I welcome these comments because they vindicate my point of view about my fellow Christians.

Tell me, Boanerges, how is your appendix doing?

Obviously you are not getting the context I am using. and must not have read my whole post. If you did then biblical thought must be completely foreign to you so you could easily have completely missed what I was saying. That is not surprising nor offending to me but I you were confused by my comments I am sorry for that.
As far as staying away from church that is disobedience to the Word of God but to some that simply does not matter and is of no real consequence to me.
As far as my appendix it probably does more than Doctors can figure out.
As far as sin and death they are the cause of all the downward spirals we see in our world. So not your specific sins which of I do not know nor care about and was not was referring to in any way but sin in general is responsible for death, disease and decay and mutation.
Your issues and are between you and the God whom though you do not seem to know but will meet one day so I repeat- I am not commenting about you personally.
Try reading what I wrote again in my first post with a cool head.
Have a great day!

 

[JHM]

As far as staying away from church that is disobedience to the Word of God but to some that simply does not matter and is of no real consequence to me.

Would you attend the "Church of Laodicea" ?

 

[Boanerges]

Would you attend the "Church of Laodicea" ?

Fortunately I do not have to. I do not choose where to go but only follow the lading of the Holy Spirit. If He sent me into that church to pull someone out of the fire I would gladly go.

I have been in places where the glory of God was manifest so powerfully it was almost more than a man could take. I loved every minute of being there and still go whenever possible.
I have been places at God's direction that were what I consider pits of suffering. They were legalistically bound finger pointers with little love and less mercy. This was the most painful time in my walk and yet I considered it a privilege to obey my Lord and reach a few hurting people for His namesake.
I do not consider going to church a choice or an obligation but instead I take it as an opportunity to serve my God, obey His Word (which is His will) and to minister to the saints of God. All these things area joy.
There are of course some who say they won't go to church because it does not meet their standards and the folks there are not good enough. These will have to wait for Christ to return to see the church perfected. In the mean time though they seem to have forgotten that it was the imperfect people that Jesus hung out with in His earth walk.
A church simply put is a hospital for souls.
Never go there expecting to find folks with less problems than yourself.
If we could only go to a church or gathering were perfect doctrine was taught we would certainly have to all stay home until the millineal reign of Christ.
There is one simple guideline to follow- be led of the Holy Spirit. Go where and go when He commands.

 

[gismapper]

observed vs origins

So are we, as Christians, called to not believe in ANY FORM of evolution? I know that God definately created man to be what we are today, but natural selection is a seemingly logical explanation for the way organisms adapt, even if it is not how they were originally created.

Based on the fairly limited knowledge of evolution sciences I have, I currently believe that God did indeed create the Earth and everything on it, as the book of Genesis tells, but I also belive that organisms adapt to their environment over the generations, with those with favourable traits surviving and reproducing (e.g. "natural selection").

The problem isn't with observed science. Natural selection does have an impact on populations. This can be observed and tested. The problem is when those observations are extended to explain origins of species, which cannot be observed or tested. This is where science is left in the dust, in favor of world views. Until you can prove a theory with observation, testing, and solid math, its only a theory. This is where the Bible claims knowledge that science can only theorize about. If you trust God (Who's historical track record is unshakable), it really does take less faith to believe the Biblical creation account than it takes to swallow evolution.

As for "natural selection" giving rise to the diversity of life we observe, keep in mind that everysupposed act of natural selection would produce not diversity, but a limitation of available genetic information. This would make species less adaptable, and even less capable of future adaptation than their predecessors. It just doesn't fit with what is observed in nature.

One other thought, the animals that went on the ark were described as "kinds". This has been interpreted by some, not necessarily as "species", but rather as what we would recognize as taxonomic "classes" (I think...have to check that one). If this understanding is correct, it leaves room for the Bible to be completely true, and for the observed effects of adaptation and natural selection to work just fine. Not that the Bible has to be re-worked to fit man's understanding. But *micro* evolution is testable, observable, and repeatable. Macroevolution is not.

Hope that helps. God bless!
Mike

 

[JHM]

Well, first @ Boanerges : I seem to recall seeing a different version of that post which postulated that the seven churchs occupied different time frames. That I disagree with. In my opinion they are all currently extant; and I would not attend the church of Laodicea.

Second with respect of evolution, it does take place but only to a limited extent. Darwin's theory, as originally postulated, spoke of : "continuous gradual change". Scientists, however, have found that the scientific record does not bear that out, and they have had to revise the "Theory of Evolution". They now speak of "Long periods of stasis with very little change, followed by vast dieoffs, followed by rapid bursts of evolution to fill the available niches".

The truth :
1) "Long periods of stasis with very little change" equals real evolution.
2) "vast dieoffs" is GOD pruning his garden.
3) "Rapid bursts of evolution to fill the available niches" is the next day of creation.

Six Days

All throughout creation, The Lord came and went; descending to earth, each morning at dawn;
Pruning those branches, whose purpose was spent; and sowing new seeds, before moving on;
For many mansions had vineyards, in his Kingdom above; and these he tended with care;
But his garden on earth, he lavished with love; for his bride and children lived there.
There must have been need; of very great speed; o'er the distance he had to fly;
For he travelled so fast; millennia went past; in less than the blink of an eye;
So some had their day; while he was away; overseeing afar through the night;
Returning ere long; and finding the strong; construing their might as right.

 

[Boanerges]

Well, first @ Boanerges : I seem to recall seeing a different version of that post which postulated that the seven churchs occupied different time frames. That I disagree with. In my opinion they are all currently extant; and I would not attend the church of Laodicea.

Second with respect of evolution, it does take place but only to a limited extent. Darwin's theory, as originally postulated, spoke of : "continuous gradual change". Scientists, however, have found that the scientific record does not bear that out, and they have had to revise the "Theory of Evolution". They now speak of "Long periods of stasis with very little change, followed by vast dieoffs, followed by rapid bursts of evolution to fill the available niches".

The truth :
1) "Long periods of stasis with very little change" equals real evolution.
2) "vast dieoffs" is GOD pruning his garden.
3) "Rapid bursts of evolution to fill the available niches" is the next day of creation.

Six Days

All throughout creation, The Lord came and went; descending to earth, each morning at dawn;
Pruning those branches, whose purpose was spent; and sowing new seeds, before moving on;
For many mansions had vineyards, in his Kingdom above; and these he tended with care;
But his garden on earth, he lavished with love; for his bride and children lived there.
There must have been need; of very great speed; o'er the distance he had to fly;
For he travelled so fast; millennia went past; in less than the blink of an eye;
So some had their day; while he was away; overseeing afar through the night;
Returning ere long; and finding the strong; construing their might as right.

I certainly respect your right to your opinion on these matters whether I agree or not. Have a blessed day!

 

[Greg]

Tell me, Boanerges, how is your appendix doing?

Mine has been taken out, but recently science has found that the appendix plays a role in the immune system. While we live in a culture and society that is clean and in comparison to most free of germs and disease, for those who do not each and every part of the immune system is important.

 

[sirasemkin]

Age of the earth?

How old is the earth?

 

[kyval82]

creation all the way!

In the womb, a childs eyesight developes in one swift move, same as the heatbeat! That is so very amazing to me!

 

[Darian]

How old is the earth?

Since I believe that God made the earth, and since I believe that He cannot lie, I take Him at His word that He made the Earth in six literal days, as he describes them:" and the evening and the morning were the first day". Since then, it was 1948 years from Adam to Abraham, 2052 years from Abraham to Christ, and approximately 2000 years from Christs birth until now. So the Earth would be about 6000 years old.

 

[WaterRock]

How old is the earth?

Speaking from the Spirit, I would say it's older than dirt....:shade:

 

[David777]

Hello.

HOW OLD IS THE EARTH?

No one has any idea, and that is the truth!

Science has made assumptions and so do people that read the Bible. I do not believe that mankind can seriously address this question. Proof is not possible, think about it.

I believe in creation, have a background in Science. Some questions are way beyond our ability to answer with any degree of certainty.

 

[stijmonkey]

The bible is the #1 authority on this topic and it is nothing but truth especially for Christians. So when the Bible says God created this in one day and that the next day then that it what it means, it is very straight forward on the matter and just to make it clearer it goes on to say that evening passed and morning came marking each day. So ONE evening and ONE morning passed and it was ONE day it simply doesnt get any more clear straight forward and literal than that!

To try and interpret it any different is completely illogical and in my opinion ridiculous, especially when it is confirmed later in Genesis and again later by Jesus himself. The only reason people started to try and interpret it any differently was to fit it to shotty science that says the earth is older and to fit evolution. That is absolutely insane (remember the bible was written to/by people thousands of years ago many of them being illiterate as pointed out earlier) so why would Genesis not be meant to be taken literally

So when some people cant accept the very clear scripture they scour the rest of the scripture to find a reason to interpret it differently, and they dont see that as twisting the word of God, it simply doesnt make sense especially when their main support for their "interpretation" is the scripture "and a day is as a thousand years" im sorry but no, sure this is a scripture therefore it is truth, but for them to use this scripture to try and put their interpretation on Genesis they are not only twisting Genesis but they are forced to twist this scripture aswell

They take this one scripture to say ya but a day could mean a thousand(s) years see it says it right here, nope sorry but that is taking the scripture completely out of context the scripture is trying to convey that God is timeless and operates outside of time nowhere else is it mentioned or even implied to not be trying to explain this fundamental truth. so to use this to support old earth creationism is again illogical, comes out of completely nowhere, ridiculous, twisting the scripture to meet your agenda, and most importantly it is in no way scriptural.

We need to read the Bible objectively and not with preconcieved notions otherwise we will either simply confuse ourselves and completely miss the truth or try and make it fit what we already think is truth. So in conclusion there is tons of scripture supporting the literal translation of Genesis and ONE scripture taken completely out of context and twisted that doesnt, and it doesnt only when it is taken out of context.You either believe the entire Bible to be the divinely inspired and therefore the undeniable word of God and the absolute truth or you dont in which case you cant take any of it seriously

And a far as the whole wisdom teeth and not believing any evolution goes, Not having wisdom teeth is a wonderful example of adaptation or micro evolution which is observable and testable and true which is perfectly fine and will cause no problems with your beliefe but i want to make it clear that macro evolution is not observable or testable and mathematically impossible ten times over it is a complete lie, and just for the record you not having wisdom teeth is an example on entropy and a loss of genetic information which is the exact opposite of evolution so im not entirely sure where you were trying to go with that.

But all of that being said dont take my word for it, infact dont take anyone's word for it ALWAYS research the scripture objectively with no presumptions for yourself pray and come to your own conclusions, ALWAYS!!!. . . .God Bless