Transitional Fossils and the Theory of Evolution in relation to Genesis Accounts

[rossum]

God did have a beginning - he has always existed.

s/did/didn’t I suspect there.

I was not talking about God, which is theology. I was talking about the Intelligent Designer, proposed by ID which is, supposedly, science, not theology.

Or are you telling us that you agree with the Kitzmiller verdict and that ID is not science and hence should not be taught in science classes?

 

[stoplooklisten]

If by “God of Genesis” you mean a literal interpretation, the evidence will never be there. It’s already contradicted by tons of evidence.

The evidence will be there no later than when Jesus Christ returns and is seen. Observational science only see

stoplooklisten:

… when the evidence is there.

Do you have any to share

God respects human freedom. He doesn’t show us Himself visibly and “force us” to acknowledge his existence (not yet anyway,). But, God will bring us all into judgment. And, it will be fair.

How did we live when we thought that perhaps no one was watching (,but Someone has been always watching).

What do we have that wasn’t given to us ( particularly existence and life itself and the things that sustain us). Seeking God is right but do we give it much effort? Thanking God is also the right thing to do.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

The evidence will be there no later than when Jesus Christ returns and is seen.

So, you have no clue. I’ll give you a hint: It’s never. Even when God comes, the evidence we have now will never be contradicted. Truth cannot conflict with truth.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Even when God comes, the evidence we have now will never be contradicted. Truth cannot conflict with truth.

Amen. Jesus Christ rose from the dead and is coming back again.

We know that genetic mutations cause genetic diseases. Down syndrome and cancer are among the genetic diseases.

We do not know that chimpanzees were mutated into human beings. And, yes this truth and many more will remain the same when God returns.

 

[PickyPicky]

We do not know that chimpanzees were mutated into human beings

Very true. We know, in fact, that chimps did not mutate into human beings.

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Congratulations on saying nothing controversial or substantial in that post. That doesn’t address the fact that your belief in a literal Genesis directly contradicts scientific evidence. Unless, of course, you’re not a literalist, in which case some of your previous posts seem odd.

 

[rossum]

We do not know that chimpanzees were mutated into human beings.

We do know that they did not. Ourselves and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. In evolutionary terms they are our siblings – we share the same ‘parent’ species.

 

[buffalo]

literal Genesis directly contradicts scientific evidence.

Science is provisional, Revelation is not.

 

[o_mlly]

Science is provisional …
Capta(name removed by moderator)rudeman:

… the evidence we have now will never be contradicted …

Ay, there’s the rub: faith vs. scientism.

 

[buffalo]

Ay, there’s the rub : faith vs. scientism.

Indeed, blind faith in scientism and the god of buc.

 

[rossum]

Science is provisional, Revelation is not.

Interpretations of Revelation are provisional.

When was the last time you took a non-Christian as a slave? See Dum Diversas (1452) for details.

 

[buffalo]

Interpretations of Revelation are provisional.

When was the last time you took a non-Christian as a slave? See Dum Diversas (1452) for details.

Nope, that is a heterodox position.

 

[rossum]

Nope, that is a heterodox position.

It is an interpretation of Revelation, is it not. The fact that you disagree with Pope Nicholas V does not make in any less of an interpretation of Revelation.

That you disagree with Pope Nicholas’ interpretation shows clearly that interpretations of Revelation are not fixed. Thank you for confirming my point.

 

[Techno2000]

stoplooklisten:

We do not know that chimpanzees were mutated into human beings

Very true. We know, in fact, that chimps did not mutate into human beings.

OMG…He forgot to say Common Ancestor.

 

[stoplooklisten]

Ourselves and chimpanzees share a common ancestor. In evolutionary terms they are our siblings – we share the same ‘parent’ species.

We don’t know that either. That’s just a presumption some people have made.

Radiometric dating of rocks is also based upon presumptions.

 

[rossum]

Radiometric dating of rocks is also based upon presumptions.

That Moses wrote the Pentateuch is also based upon presumptions. And your point is?

 

[CaptainPrudeman]

Radiometric dating of rocks is also based upon presumptions.

Uh, no. It’s based on hard facts. There’s nothing presumed in radiometric dating, unless assuming that facts aren’t relative is an assumption that needs to be counted.

 

[stoplooklisten]

That Moses wrote the Pentateuch is also based upon presumptions.

That Moses wrote the Pentateuch is attested to by multiple means including the testimony of Jesus in the Bible. Are you ready to doubt them all? Skeptics will be skeptics (until they’re not).

Don’t let the source of this article dissuade you from reading.

Link: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/did-moses-write-genesis/

 

[o_mlly]

It’s based on hard facts. There’s nothing presumed in radiometric dating

Another disclosure of the scientism required to be a believer in macroevolution:

The basic assumptions made in radiometric dating are:

• Every radioactive element will decay at a constant rate. The rate at which each element decays is its half-life [ (def) ](javascript:define('Half-life: ', ‘The amount of time that it takes for 50% of a given number of radioactive atoms to dcay.’,‘275’,‘225’,‘def’))
• The rate of decay is specific to a particular radioactive element (see list of half lifes of various radioactive elements).
• When the substance containing a radioactive parent was first formed, there was not daughter element present. It is assumed that the daughter is derived solely from the decay of the radioactive parent. If daughter atoms were present that were not the result of the decay process the calculated date would be unreliable.
• From the time when the substance containing radioactive elements first came into existence until the time that the material was analyzed and dated, the system had been closed; in other words there had been in infusion or removal of either parent or daughter atoms.
• All daughter atoms contained within the radioactive substance were created by the radioactive decay of the corresponding parent atom. This is a repeat of the previous assumption that the system is a closed system.
  http://faculty.ccbcmd.edu/courses/eas101/unit1/radiometric1.html

 

[rossum]

That Moses wrote the Pentateuch is attested to by multiple means

The accuracy of radiometric dating of rocks is attested by multiple means. Again, I ask what your point is.

Link: https://answersingenesis.org/bible-characters/moses/did-moses-write-genesis/

You would do well not to cite AiG. They explicitly say that they will ignore any evidence that does not fit their preconceptions. Read their Statement of Faith:

4:6 By definition, no apparent, perceived or claimed evidence in any field, including history and chronology, can be valid if it contradicts the scriptural record. Of primary importance is the fact that evidence is always subject to interpretation by fallible people who do not possess all information.

All you will get from AiG is a replay of their preconceptions, since they ignore all contrary evidence, as they explicitly say.