Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Old-Earth Creationism: A Heretical Belief?
Reasons to Believe ^

Posted on 02/17/2009 8:38:53 AM PST by mnehring

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-56 last
To: Just mythoughts
Before there was Gould was the Heavenly Father, He is the WORD and He had Moses pen the Genesis of what HE did. That is my foundation and when anybody preaches another 'gospel' according to Paul they are teaching against the WORD.

OK, now I am officially confused.

I don't buy into Gould's basic premise of evolutionary speciation (either through 'punctuated equilibrium' or by classic gradualism). Honestly, I don't buy into the Theory of Evolution to explain speciation, orgins, or any of the such. Like you, the foundation for my beliefs about origins in found in the the truth of Scripture. I do, however, appreciate Gould's candor in admitting to the social failings of evolutionary thought in its application to race in western civilization. He explains that, from an evolutionary science standpoint, race is bunk.

From a Biblical standpoint, race (as we catagorize it) is bunk.

From a purely scientific standpoint, race is bunk. As I said, race is a social construct. What does that have to do with a "'gospel' according to Paul."

You have left me confused.
51 posted on 02/18/2009 8:59:54 AM PST by raynearhood ("I consider looseness with words no less of a defect than looseness of the bowels" -John Calvin)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

In the OJ trial DNA was not used to determine the “race” of the attacker, it was used to IDENTIFY the attacker. It was either OJ Simpson or his previously unknown identical twin with the exact same DNA.

DNA can be used for “racial” classification, but only as a % chance. In other words, you count up the markers most associated with different human populations and you can get an estimate that the person whose DNA you found is, lets say, 80% likely to be of Asian descent.


52 posted on 02/18/2009 9:04:28 AM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 48 | View Replies]

To: allmendream
DNA can be used for “racial” classification, but only as a % chance. In other words, you count up the markers most associated with different human populations and you can get an estimate that the person whose DNA you found is, lets say, 80% likely to be of Asian descent.

And by definition of the many races found to exist right on this very day upon this earth means simply they could not have all come from only two flesh beings? Correct?

53 posted on 02/18/2009 9:34:40 AM PST by Just mythoughts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 52 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts
The genetic diversity of the human race and our suitability of each population for the selective pressures of their native environment speak to the ability of humans to evolve new genetic variations.

A Creationist poster suggested there was no evolution, just “devolution”, or loss of genetic variation or genetic information. That is ridiculous as the maximum genetic variability of “only two flesh beings” is FOUR at any genetic loci. Obviously human genetic variation came from somewhere, and that variation is not degenerative, but adaptive.

54 posted on 02/18/2009 9:45:21 AM PST by allmendream ("Wealth is EARNED not distributed, so how could it be redistributed?")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 53 | View Replies]

To: Just mythoughts

Humans were mining red ochre in tunnel mines in the Lebombo Mountains 80,000 years ago. That indicates that the earth is older that Young-Earth Creationists want us to believe.
Read about it here: http://jandyongenesis.blogspot.com/2007/10/mining-blood.html


55 posted on 02/18/2009 2:10:42 PM PST by Jandy on Genesis
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 50 | View Replies]

To: raynearhood; Just mythoughts
This isn't some feel good, "We're all the same!" crap that Ham, Lee N., or I are talking about. Race is a social category, not a genetic category. Injecting race into genetics is not scientific, but an example of the social situation influencing science. The Mismeasure of Man really is a good book, and Gould does a much better job of putting genetics, determinism, the history of race, and the misclassification of the human species into layman's terms than I ever could.

One of my majors in college was anthropology, which involved physical anthropology courses. My recollection (been quite a while, and anthropology is not something you use everyday, you understand) is that other inheritable traits vary quite independently from what most people think of as "race" which is based on appearance.

56 posted on 02/18/2009 3:16:29 PM PST by Lee N. Field ("Gnosticism and anti-trinitarian heresy, like beans and cabbage, makes for a powerful combo. ")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-5051-56 last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson