Posted on 12/10/2006 5:29:49 PM PST by shrinkermd
It wouldn't fit in with His character to do that but He can't help it if humans misinterpret the data they find.
Adam was created as a grown man, with the appearance of age. The day he was created, how old would you say he was, just by looking at him? You could say (estimate here for the sake of argument) *30 years old* and you would be right, in a way. If you said *one day*, you would also be right but according to all appearnces, you would be wrong. So which one is right? Both are. But God didn't do it with the intend to deceive, He did it out of practicality. He couldn't have started with a sperm and egg and left it lying on the ground.
Still waiting for a scientific answer to your question....
The Cambrian "explosion" took place over millions of years; it was not "sudden" (a fact well-known to anyone who cares to do a few minutes of research).
I just don't understand how the theory of evolution calls into question the existence of God. One can believe in both.
Most Christians 'believe' Evolution because they do NOT know what their Bible says. If, as they say, they 'believe' the words of Jesus and the New Testament writers, they have to decide what the following verses mean:
Acts 17:26-27
26. From one man he made every nation of men, that they should inhabit the whole earth; and he determined the times set for them and the exact places where they should live.
27. God did this so that men would seek him and perhaps reach out for him and find him, though he is not far from each one of us.
Romans 5:12-21
12. Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, and in this way death came to all men, because all sinned--
13. for before the law was given, sin was in the world. But sin is not taken into account when there is no law.
14. Nevertheless, death reigned from the time of Adam to the time of Moses, even over those who did not sin by breaking a command, as did Adam, who was a pattern of the one to come.
15. But the gift is not like the trespass. For if the many died by the trespass of the one man, how much more did God's grace and the gift that came by the grace of the one man, Jesus Christ, overflow to the many!
16. Again, the gift of God is not like the result of the one man's sin: The judgment followed one sin and brought condemnation, but the gift followed many trespasses and brought justification.
17. For if, by the trespass of the one man, death reigned through that one man, how much more will those who receive God's abundant provision of grace and of the gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man, Jesus Christ.
18. Consequently, just as the result of one trespass was condemnation for all men, so also the result of one act of righteousness was justification that brings life for all men.
19. For just as through the disobedience of the one man, the many were made sinners, so also through the obedience of the one man the many will be made righteous.
20. The law was added so that the trespass might increase. But where sin increased, grace increased all the more,
21. so that, just as sin reigned in death, so also grace might reign through righteousness to bring eternal life through Jesus Christ our Lord.
If there were no
one man, that means SIN did NOT enter the World thru him.If
Adam was NOT the one man, that means SPIRITUAL DEATH did not come thru him.If SIN did NOT enter the World thru the
one man, that means Jesus does not save from SIN.Are we to believe that the
one man is symbolic? Does that mean Jesus is symbolic as well?The Theory of Evolution states that there WAS no one man, but a wide population that managed to inherit that last mutated gene that makes MEN different from APES.
Acts 17:24-26 24. "The God who made the world and everything in it is the Lord of heaven and earth and does not live in temples built by hands. Was LUKE wrong about this? 1 Corinthians 11:8-9 1 Timothy 2:13
If so, is GOD so puny that He allows this 'inaccuracy' in His Word?? |
NIV Genesis 2:18
The LORD God said, "It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him."
Thanks for continuing to live up to the stereotypes.
How old is the universe? 10,000 years?
I want you to show me some proof, not just a bunch of yammering. Whenever a creationist is shown real data, they just ignore it, whenever a creationist is asked to explain something, they cop out and just claim its a miracle. I'd call that pretty snobbish.
Actually, you can be a christian and not be ignorant. But it takes one hell of a lot of ignorance in 2006 to cling to a belief that the universe is 10,000 years old because a book of faith is being used as a scientific textbook.
Yeah, I'd say you are ignorant, and pretty petty, you claim to be a Christian, but you are just itching to do the judgement that is reserved to God. I doubt that God appreciates you trying to be His surrogate.
Why doesn't evolution happen at that rate all the time? Or, why did it happen at that rate when it's happened so slowly the rest of the time. What speciation has occurred in the last 10,000 years or so that there have been records of human habitation?
Thanks. My bad. It says oxygen creates fossils.
Seriously, this is what the article says:
" ... the first appearance of oxygenated conditions in the world’s oceans and the first appearance of large animal fossils confirms the importance of oxygen as a trigger for the early evolution of animals, the researchers say. They hypothesize that melting glaciers increased the amount of nutrients in the ocean and led to a proliferation of single-celled organisms that liberated oxygen through photosynthesis. This began an evolutionary radiation that led to complex communities of filter-feeding animals, then mobile bilateral animals, and ultimately to the Cambrian "explosion" of skeletal animals 542 million years ago.
I'm sorry, I simply don't believe a change in the mix of chemicals in the oceans or atmosphere will "trigger" evolution of animals from single-celled organisms.
Even Darwin believed it was a mutation within an existing species which triggered evolution of a new variant. If the mutation was better for survival, the mutated creature lived on, and passed on the mutation.
As an example, consider the following: Did giraffes grow long necks because the trees were tall (environmental trigger), or did mutated giraffes with long necks (genetic trigger) survive and pass on their genes because they could eat more?
This is one of my complaints about those who believe evolution explains the creation of life forms (it does not), rather than just the adaption and change of life forms.
Many evolutionists find it absurd someone can believe the following:
"And the LORD God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul."
but believe inanimate matter can become a life form. And apparently can believe an increase in oxygen can cause oxygen breathing creatures to evolve from photosynthesizing creatures.
I would put forth the notion that both of these beliefs are based in faith in certain fundamental assumptions.
There is never going to be any evidence proving dirt became life. It is a matter of faith for atheist scientists as well as religious people.
"Thanks for continuing to live up to the stereotypes. "
Yeah, I'm just another sterotypical dufus. Proof is hardly something that you're concerned with, since it is in your face, every day. The creationists who you continually label as blind cavemen are not quite as resistant to scientific evidence as you seem to be. OK. Here's something. If a thing exists, it must have been created. You claim evolution proves the non-existence of a creator, so... what did hydrogen evolve from? If people evolved from single-celled organisms, why are there still single-cell organisms? If you claim evolution is the answer to our existence, then why are there no half and half creatures in the fossil record? If the universe is billions of years old, does that mean there can be no creator? You act as though you have all of the answers, that the proof of your assertions is in "science." Then why have so many of these "proofs" been disproven over the years, with constant changes in the story? I think you are so anti-Christian, it blinds you to reality. A single-celled organism is, in itself, so complex that it would be impossible for it to have created itself accidentally. Period. I don't pretend to have all the answers, but looking at these theories of evolution, I sure as heck have a lot of questions. You seem to be satisfied with every bit of supposition, hypothesis and theory that comes down the pike. You are an ignorant, incompetent scientist, and you question nothing. You merely yammer.
Brilliantly put, Magellan. I couldn't have said it nearly as well.
OK, so perhaps you would like to provide us with some credentials to demonstrate why it is you feel qualified to condemn everyone who disagrees with you as *scientifically illiterate*? What field is your scientific degree in? What scientific career field are you currently employed in? What qualifies you to pass this kind of judgment on people who you know nothing about except their views on the ToE and creation? How does this entitle you to pass judgment on them as people and as a whole? If they disagreed with you on a different scientific issue, would you also condemn them the same way?
Once upon a time...
But wait! It is all about the O2 argument, and the appearance of large animals!!!!!
And what did God do after he scraped that ball of mud together? He 'breathed' into the nostrils of the mud thing and man became a living soul!!!
It was, IT WAS the miracle of 02 all along!!! God doesn't breath out CO2!!!! He breathes out 02!!!!!! EUREKA!!
Whew. this article had me sweating there for a second or two...
Explain why you wouold expect to find an extensive fossil record of things having no shells or bones.
Iron exposed to the atmosphere. That is, either on the surface or washed down into the ocean from immense basaltic deposits. The oxygen produced as waste by anaerobic microorganisms would first bind with the oceanic iron, then as it became depleted the oxygen would bubble to the surface and enter the atmosphere. It would have to combine with surface iron and any other active molecules before it could accumulate in quantity.
To this day, the vast majority of Earth's free oxygen is produced by ocean microorganisms.
Thank you for a lengthly response, the time and attention you have afforded me, and the compliments...but I think you have me confused with someone else.
To my recollection, I don't use that term very often, and only when necessary...although, I don't disagree with those that do frame their argument around it, consistently. I like to approach argumentation slightly different than most people, and those who might know me here, can attest to that. I like to work from principles, and argue accordingly.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.