Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   answersincreation.org (Literal Genesis AND Old Earth Creationism?)
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 46 of 105 (265763)
12-05-2005 11:58 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by riVeRraT
12-05-2005 6:54 AM


Re: paths of study
I agree the thousand years is a hyperbole, he just picked a number. But what I get from that reading is that time just doesn't matter to God. Almost as if he exists in a demension void of time.
The way God understands slowness, and the way we do, are 2 different things.
yes, he's sort of trying to explain eternity, being outside of time. time is something that god created, i presume, so god would not be subject to it.
This to me could also mean, that any length of time could have happened in the creation process. I have always thought that.
well, except that it says "days." there's no sign of it being an extended metaphor, or that peter's simile applies in that way. if time doesn't apply to god, why couldn't god have created the world in 6 24hr cycles? i see no reason to read the bible as saying anything else.
NEver at any point in my life did I think the world was only 6000 years old.
i haven't either, but that's an entirely different point. like i said, i could care less about accuracy and inerrancy. there have been a couple ways that people try to rectify science with the bible, though, and there are other brands of old-earth creationism. i think the one about pre-existance before creation holds a little more water. not much though.
After my experience, I did start to wonder, and I remain open to any possibility, but made up my mind that whole thing really doesn't play into what makes me believe in God or not.
it really doesn't. i find that alot of people here accuse me of somehow not being a christian or not believing in god because i know a little science. what's really ironic is that i tend to read the bible a good deal more literally than the literalists...
Do you think that if science can prove the bible wrong, then people will use that to not believe in God?
but, see, lying to people about it being scientifically accurate is even worse. when they find out, the disillusionment tends to cripple faith: "if they were lying to me about that, what else were they lying about?" you get all the wonderful fallout of dishonesty.
i think we need to take a healthy attitude to the bible. it's a great collection of books, one that holds some importance to our lives even today, and contains a great many spiritual truths. but it is not always up to modern understandings, and it's not a science book, and it was written by people 2000 years ago who were just as fallible as us, even if we believe they were "inspired" somehow.
people who contend that the bible is all 100% true, the word of god, inerrant, unchanging, and a factual and scientific history simply haven't read it. how do the books of psalms fit in there? are they literal truths? are they the word of god? it's people praising god, sure. but that's like calling your hymnal the word of god.
by far the vast majority of the bible really doesn't have to do with history or science or events. even when it uses those things to frame something, that's all it is: a framework. the point of the story is usually some moral message or teaching.
i think an honest appreciation and study of the text, an appraisal of it through common sense, is a lot more valuable than a dishonest interpretation designed to weasle whatever meaning you want out of it. i've seen the bible used to claim support for any number of atrocities. usually, it does not. and when it DOES, it's usually contradicted by something else, like the words of jesus. i find that christians are too fast to include only the parts they like (for instance, death to gays) but often forget the words of the person who started the whole thing (love and compassion).
Yes I agree, and I know that now. Well 14 years ago I started to realize that. I am now involved with a church pretty heavily. So far, so good, I think I found a good group of people, who seem to think along the same lines. Our own pastor preaches on Sunday that he is "sick of church", which I think is cool. But I already made up my mind, that no matter what these "people" do to me, it has nothing to do with God.
and that's a good attitude. because they really have nothing to do with each other. people mess up, and make mistakes, and often do the wrong thing. all we can do is forgive them, and not let it bother us.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by riVeRraT, posted 12-05-2005 6:54 AM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 47 by riVeRraT, posted 12-07-2005 5:48 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 47 of 105 (266527)
12-07-2005 5:48 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by arachnophilia
12-05-2005 11:58 AM


Re: paths of study
yes, he's sort of trying to explain eternity, being outside of time. time is something that god created, i presume, so god would not be subject to it.
Yes,,In the begining....
but, see, lying to people about it being scientifically accurate is even worse. when they find out, the disillusionment tends to cripple faith: "if they were lying to me about that, what else were they lying about?" you get all the wonderful fallout of dishonesty.
This is the biggest thing I have learned in here. You should not mix the bible and science.
Check the rave about orbs in digital pictures on the internet. I know better because I am into photography, and astronomy. My pastor started to make the mistake of claiming they were entitys, or spirits, but I informed him, and he corrected it right away. Another big preacher did the same thing, I was really enjoying his conference too.
At the end of the conference he started showing all these pictures with orbs and such. I wanted to tell him, but the people I was with suggested not to. There was like 600 people there. So I prayed, and I felt like the Lord said, if you run into him in the hallway, and he is by himself, you should tell him. I was leaving in 10 minutes, so there wasn't much time. I walked out, and there he was standing in my face, all alone. He almost cried when I started to tell him what I knew. This guy has courses that you can take about the bible, and things. One of the biggest things he teaches about is integerty. So I explained that I was worried about his integrety, and using pictures like that was not the best way of spreading God's love for us.
It was interesting to see all that happen to say the least.
So I completely agree with you on that one. It is interesting to see how things match up, just out of curiousity.
I think too many people take this verse, and apply it to the whole bible, the last verse in Revelation.
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
i find that christians are too fast to include only the parts they like (for instance, death to gays) but often forget the words of the person who started the whole thing (love and compassion).
Death to gays, lol.
Should there be gay leaders in the church? Who are we to judge? Commit one sin, you have commited them all. All of us are sinners, so I see us as all being equal. Just what exactly did Jesus think of Gay people anyway? I know there are whole threads on this topic. You say love and compassion, but there were people that he did get upset at. I am not saying this gives us a right to be upset, but cleary there are things that God likes, and dislikes...sorry getting off-topic.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by arachnophilia, posted 12-05-2005 11:58 AM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by arachnophilia, posted 12-08-2005 5:52 PM riVeRraT has replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 48 of 105 (266942)
12-08-2005 5:52 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by riVeRraT
12-07-2005 5:48 PM


Re: paths of study
This is the biggest thing I have learned in here. You should not mix the bible and science.
bible + science = disillusionment.
Check the rave about orbs in digital pictures on the internet. I know better because I am into photography, and astronomy. My pastor started to make the mistake of claiming they were entitys, or spirits, but I informed him, and he corrected it right away. Another big preacher did the same thing, I was really enjoying his conference too.
At the end of the conference he started showing all these pictures with orbs and such. I wanted to tell him, but the people I was with suggested not to. There was like 600 people there. So I prayed, and I felt like the Lord said, if you run into him in the hallway, and he is by himself, you should tell him. I was leaving in 10 minutes, so there wasn't much time. I walked out, and there he was standing in my face, all alone. He almost cried when I started to tell him what I knew. This guy has courses that you can take about the bible, and things. One of the biggest things he teaches about is integerty. So I explained that I was worried about his integrety, and using pictures like that was not the best way of spreading God's love for us.
It was interesting to see all that happen to say the least.
i wonder what the waterspots on my film mean? probably hard water.
what exactly does that orb bs have to do with jesus anyways? are people that desperate to prove that spirituality is even possibile that they'll swallow any old newage crackpot's crap?
i think that people have lost their bullshit-detecting ability. we're favoring homeremedy and faith healing over medicine, pseudoscience for science, and all kinds of just plain crazy stuff like this.
i think it's this very problem that many religious leaders prey on -- but it's just really damaging to the actual integrity of the religion. i don't think people really take christians serious anymore. we can't make up our own minds, cycling through guilt and revival, we don't listen to words of the person at the center of our religion in favor of creationists and bible thumpers and homophobes...
it's the same problem you described earlier - confusing the church with christianity. the world sees us as representing christ -- if we do it by acting like nutjobs, lies and deceptions, and judging and condemning, then we're not really representing christ. they're getting the wrong picture.
I think too many people take this verse, and apply it to the whole bible, the last verse in Revelation.
18 I warn everyone who hears the words of the prophecy of this book: If anyone adds anything to them, God will add to him the plagues described in this book. 19 And if anyone takes words away from this book of prophecy, God will take away from him his share in the tree of life and in the holy city, which are described in this book.
you can find traditions like that earlier in the bible, too.
Should there be gay leaders in the church? Who are we to judge?
the argument they use is that they are unrepentant, in a lifestyle of sin. if you think about it really, none of us ever stop sinning -- it's just in our nature. why should we throw stones? what makes us better?
Just what exactly did Jesus think of Gay people anyway?
doesn't say. but i imagine he'd treat them like all of the other sinners he talked to.
You say love and compassion, but there were people that he did get upset at.
mostly people who judged others, and hypocrites.

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by riVeRraT, posted 12-07-2005 5:48 PM riVeRraT has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 49 by riVeRraT, posted 12-08-2005 6:56 PM arachnophilia has replied

  
riVeRraT
Member (Idle past 416 days)
Posts: 5788
From: NY USA
Joined: 05-09-2004


Message 49 of 105 (266960)
12-08-2005 6:56 PM
Reply to: Message 48 by arachnophilia
12-08-2005 5:52 PM


Re: paths of study
what exactly does that orb bs have to do with jesus anyways? are people that desperate to prove that spirituality is even possibile that they'll swallow any old newage crackpot's crap?
Exactly my point.
I was critized for revealing the truth. People said that I was letting peoples hopes down. I say if your going to hope for something, at least let it be real. I used that same arguement, what do orbs have to do with Jesus?
Should there be gay leaders in the church? Who are we to judge?
the argument they use is that they are unrepentant, in a lifestyle of sin. if you think about it really, none of us ever stop sinning -- it's just in our nature. why should we throw stones? what makes us better?
Right, none of us stop sinning. But since going through what I went through, I do feel bad when I sin. So if I was preaching, I would readily admit I am a sinner, and no better than anyone else. But I would also express that I do not desire to be that way, just like Paul talks about in Romans. I would also express a desire to change, for anything I might be doing wrong.
But would a gay person stand on a pulpit and say the same thing about his sins? Or would he want it to be ok to be gay?
This is where I get confused about how I should be with this subject. Deep down inside, I really don't know how God wants me to be about it. I do know he wants me to love everyone, thats a given. But when you love someone, should you encourage them to sin?
I know many gay people, even some in my related family. We talk about it all the time, and there never really is an answer. 2 of my family members stopped being gay (if thats possible) and we talk about it.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 48 by arachnophilia, posted 12-08-2005 5:52 PM arachnophilia has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2005 3:15 AM riVeRraT has not replied
 Message 52 by AdminNWR, posted 12-09-2005 8:41 AM riVeRraT has not replied

  
arachnophilia
Member (Idle past 1344 days)
Posts: 9069
From: god's waiting room
Joined: 05-21-2004


Message 50 of 105 (267094)
12-09-2005 3:15 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by riVeRraT
12-08-2005 6:56 PM


we're way off topic here
but i'm actually enjoying this conversation. if the mods don't like it, we can move it or something.
[moved]
This message has been edited by arachnophilia, 12-09-2005 05:55 PM

אָרַח

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by riVeRraT, posted 12-08-2005 6:56 PM riVeRraT has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by AdminNWR, posted 12-09-2005 8:37 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 51 of 105 (267123)
12-09-2005 8:37 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by arachnophilia
12-09-2005 3:15 AM


Re: we're way off topic here
Yes you are off topic.
I don't like to interrupt a good discussion, so I have taken the liberty of opening a new thread on behalf of arachnophilia, where this can be continued. Please continue the conversation in A conversation on faith (riVeRraT and arachnophilia).
If you disapprove, please comment on the moderation discussion thread below.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by arachnophilia, posted 12-09-2005 3:15 AM arachnophilia has not replied

  
AdminNWR
Inactive Member


Message 52 of 105 (267126)
12-09-2005 8:41 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by riVeRraT
12-08-2005 6:56 PM


Please continue elsewhere
Apologies for the interruption. Please continue your discussion in A conversation on faith (riVeRraT and arachnophilia). We can allow the current thread to return to the topic in the OP Message 1.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by riVeRraT, posted 12-08-2005 6:56 PM riVeRraT has not replied

  
achristian1985
Inactive Member


Message 53 of 105 (547298)
02-17-2010 11:38 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
05-11-2005 2:08 PM


You're close
I am perturbed, flabbergasted, and disturbed by the continuing efforts of ignorant, misguided, and scripturally incorrect religious people to foist their misconceptions, under the guise of ‘scientific theories’ (creationism, intelligent design, etc.) upon the educational system. In addition to the obvious damage and hindrance to our educational curricula, these attempts are a huge misrepresentation of spiritual reality and Biblical truth; and are a tremendous disservice to God and His interests concerning the human race. Please objectively consider the enclosed information. May it finally put to rest the ‘red herring’ of an evolution/Genesis conflict. Should you find it to be of value, feel free to disseminate it as far and wide as you wish.
The validity of evolution would not, in the slightest degree, diminish the evidential necessity of the existence of God, nor would it preclude the validity of divine creation.
Evolutionists for nonscientific reasons have erroneously discarded the Genesis account and, equally erroneously, religionists have discarded evolution as being contradictory to a Genesis account.
Now it is time to logically examine the merits and foibles of the "pro-Creation" argument.
For we are told that in the beginning God created (bara) the heaven and the earth; but the Scriptures never affirm that He did this in the six days. The work of those days was, as we shall presently see, quite a different thing from original creation: they were times of restoration, and the word asah is generally used in connection with them.
Now asah signifies to make, fashion, or prepare out of existing material; as, for instance, to build a ship, erect a house, or prepare a meal.139
To promote the literality of the six days of restoration makes equally as much sense as the Roman Catholic Church's defense of the earth as the center of the universe in the time of Copernicus. It is theologically incorrect to think that the 6 days were literal 24-hour days, since time elements (lights) were not assigned until the 4th day. The damage done by such misguided, and scripturally mistaken believers, in making Christians appear to be ignorant and illogical people, has been inestimable. What would cause some of the better scientific minds of the last century to illogically jump to conclusions in a frenzied effort to discredit the Bible in general and Genesis in particular? What would cause religious people to feel compelled to attack evolution as if they were defending the Faith? The answer to these questions is obvious if we rephrase them with the word who instead of what. Who has always endeavored to cause the human race to strain out a gnat and swallow a camel? None other than our most subtle enemy, Satan.
If the Bible is the Word of God, then science cannot help but substantiate its validity- there should be no actual conflict between the two. The paramount question, for both "evolutionists" and "Creationists," should be: "Do evolution and Genesis concur?" In other words, is Genesis (particularly Chapters One and Two) an account of the evolutionary process, as we understand it?
There are six specific categories of life formed in the six?day account: 1. Plants in the sea, 2. Vegetation (plants and trees) on the land, 3. Life (fish) in the sea, 4. Birds over the earth, 5. Life (cattle, etc.) on the earth, 6. Man.
The order of their listing in the six?day account is in the same specific chronological order of appearance determined by scientifically derived (evolutionary) evidence:
1. Sea-plants: Pre?Cambrian 531 million B.C.
2. Land vegetation: Mid?Silurian 365?380 million B.C.
3. Aquatic life: Devonian 255?316 million B.C.
4. Birds: Jurassic 131 million B.C.
5. Land life: Paleocene Epoch 50?60 million B.C.
6. Man: Late Tertiary Period 1?3 million B.C.
Do you really believe that this is coincidental? How did Moses know the correct order when he wrote Genesis thousands of years ago, long before the rise of the scientific methods that have objectively verified the Genesis account? The mathematical odds against this being coincidental are 720 to 1; in other words, 720 to 1 that this account is divinely inspired, since divine inspiration is the only alternative to coincidence. Truly the Bible is the inspired Word of God!
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added a bunch of blank lines between paragraphs. The software here does not recognise paragraph indentations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-11-2005 2:08 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-19-2010 11:40 PM achristian1985 has replied
 Message 66 by Coragyps, posted 02-20-2010 10:03 PM achristian1985 has not replied

  
achristian1985
Inactive Member


Message 54 of 105 (547299)
02-17-2010 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by Minnemooseus
05-11-2005 2:08 PM


Theistic Evolutionism!!! Free Will, human spirit
What evolved characteristic was reached in man that differentiated him from the other creatures? Both man and all other creatures have souls- what difference is there between man's soul and the souls of animals? Only man has a free will. Animals must choose either according to rational thought processes (mind) or according to instinct (emotions). The less developed an animal's brain is, the more instinctual is its behavior. Only man has a will that is free and can choose according to neither of these. God would give man a spiritual existence only if man is responsible for his actions, and man could not be held responsible for his actions unless he has a free will.
Does the scientific evidence verify this hypothesis?
Free will is inevitably associated with intelligence. To do something willful, after all, you have to understand the existence of alternatives and choices among them, and these are attributes of intelligence. 153
The lower animals differ from man solely in his almost infinitely larger power of associating together the most diversified sounds and ideas; and this obviously depends on the high development of his mental powers. 154
We can only judge by the circumstance under which actions are performed, whether they are due to instinct, or to reason, or to the mere association of ideas: this latter principle, however, is intimately connected with reason.155
If we look back to an extremely remote epoch, before man had arrived at the dignity of manhood, he would have been guided more by instinct and less by reason than are the lowest savages at the present time. 156
... yet it is not improbable that there is a certain amount of interference between the development of free intelligence and of instinct . . . 157
The attainment of a free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence, and the greater the level of intelligence the less the influence of instinct (emotion). This is why the mind is the leading part of the soul, a further verification of Scripture by science.
The following proposition seems to me in a high degree probable- namely, that any animal whatever, endowed with well-marked social instincts, the parental and fillial affections being here included, would inevitably acquire a moral sense or conscience, as soon as its intellectual powers had become as well, or nearly as well developed, as in man. 158
Most of the evolution of human behavior is based upon the ability to symbol, which in turn is a product of neuroanatomical evolution. During primate evolution the cerebral cortex increased in size (Chapter 20). The major trend, which we have repeatedly emphasized, was the development and elaboration of special senses and the expansion of those centers of' the brain, particularly in the cortex, concerned with conscious control over complex behavior and voluntary control over the muscles. Therefore it is believed that areas of association (areas receiving and sorting complex sensory impressions) and areas of control over voluntary actions have increased in size.159
The wide range of intelligence present among mammals suggests that increased intelligence must be the result of potent selection pressure. ... Brain size certainly is related to the evolution of intelligence.... but the critical question, discussed in Chapters 9 and 21, cannot be answered by examining the gross size of the brain.160
Yet, although elephants and whales are relatively intelligent, it is quite clear that they are far less intelligent than human beings, and may well be less intelligent than the chimpanzee and gorilla. How may this be squared with the superhuman size of their brains? ... The brain is not merely an organ of intelligence; it is also the medium through which the physical aspects of the body are organized and controlled. If the physical size of the body is great, enough of the brain is occupied with the physical to allow little for the purely intellectual.161
The functional meaning of a trend to a larger cranial capacity is not as well understood as is sometimes thought.
Probably more significant than absolute cranial capacity is the relationship between brain size and body weight. 162
Yet there are organisms in which the brain body ratio is actually more favorable than in a human being. This is true for some of the smaller monkeys and for some of the hummingbirds. In some monkeys the ratio is as great as 1:17.5. Here, though, the absolute mass of a brain is too small to carry much of an intellectual load.
The human being strikes a happy medium. The human brain is large enough to allow for high intelligence; and the human body is small enough to allow the brain space for intellectual endeavor.
Yet even here the human being does not stand alone. ...
What of the dolphin and porpoises, which are pygmy relatives of the gigantic whales? Some of these are no more massive than human beings and yet have brains that are larger than the human brain (with weights up to 1,700 grams, or 3 3/4 pounds) and more extensively convoluted.
It is not safe to say from this alone that the dolphin is more intelligent than the human being, because there is the question of the internal organization of the brain. The dolphin's brain may be organized for predominantly nonintellectual purposes. 163
But when we are comparing modern Homo sapiens with presapiens hominids, relative brain sizes can mask enormous biological differences, as we implied earlier. During the past few million years human brains have enlarged, but they must have increased in internal complexity, too. This is what really separates us from the brain of 1470 (a fossil skull)."... These examples emphasize that it is the internal organization that is most important in determining the scale of wit and intellect.164
Jerison has proposed a theory ... based on estimates of body weight and brain volume. From the estimates he calculates the total number of neurons associated with the body weight and the number of neurons associated with the adaptive capacity of the animal are then calculated. The calculation that is important here is the one that gives an estimate of the adaptive capacity of the animal (Table 21.1)....
The quantities in Table 21.1 imply that the number of adaptive neurons has increased markedly in hominid evolution.... Yet we must remember that astonishingly rapid advances and changes in culture took place after the 8.5-billion neuron level (Homo sapiens) was achieved. Perhaps there was a minimum number of these neurons associated with adaptive capacity necessary for great diversity and elaboration of cultural artifacts. 165
The attainment of free will is dependent on the attainment of a certain level of intelligence. Intelligence requires not only a minimum gross brain size but also a low brain?to?body ratio and a high level of "adaptive capacity" neurons. Only Homo sapiens (modern man) meets all three of these requirements.
Amongst the vertebrate the degree of intellect and an approach in structure to man clearly come into play.... If we take as the standard of high organization, the amount of differentiation and specialization of' the several organs in each being when adult (and this will include the advancement of' the brain for intellectual purposes), natural selection clearly leads towards this standard . . . 166
It is, therefore, highly probable that with mankind the intellectual faculties have been mainly and gradually perfected through natural selection.167
The evolution of intelligence was a consequence of the process of natural selection. Can we thus bring this process under the scrutiny of the physical sciences?
In this chapter we have tried to show that the logical extensions of Mendelian genetics allow us to view evolution as changes in gene frequencies. New alleles are introduced by mutation; gene frequencies are altered by natural selection....
Evolution occurs when new genetic traits appear in a population by means of mutation and when the survival and increase or the elimination of alleles results from natural selection.168
A mutation is a change in the material that carries the genetic information such that an inherited variation in a genetically controlled trait results. New traits enter a population by mutation. It is the only way a wholly new characteristic can begin to develop in an evolutionary line.169
New traits, new genes, are introduced into human populations by mutation. A mutation is a change in the basic genetic material that produces a new, inherited, phenotypic trait. 170
It was by the process of natural selection, acting on the trait of increasing cranial capacity (and complexity) produced by genetic mutation, that man evolved with an increasing mental ability leading to intelligence sufficient to have a free will. Eventually, a mutation occurred that would, when expressed, reach the point at which man's intellectual powers gave him a free will.
It is further known that mutations, in almost every case, are recessive rather than dominant. They are not expressed when paired with a normal gene, which is the dominant one. 171
A dominant mutant gene will usually be quickly eliminated, since we assume any mutation is apt to upset the dynamic equilibrium an organism has achieved with the environment. A recessive mutant gene, on the other hand, may stay "hidden" in the population. It will be eliminated only when it occurs in a homozygote. In a sense it hides phenotypically unexpressed until such a time as expression does not lead to elimination. 172
First, it is not safe to assume that the trait is completely recessive. We now know that many genes once considered recessive actually have some effect in the heterozygous state. If such a gene affords even a very slight selective advantage to heterozygotes, this advantage will maintain the gene in the population. 173
As we said, if a genetic mutation in an individual is particularly advantageous, then it is that individual's genes that will increasingly form the genetic stock of future generations of its particular species. 174
This recessive mutation was spreading itself through the pre-Adamic population as a heterozygote, that is, it was paired with a dominant gene of the pre-mutation variety. The selective advantage of the mutation ensured such a spreading. Inevitably, two individuals with such heterozygous genes mated and produced the first offspring with both genes being of the recessive mutant variety. When this offspring reached maturity, he was the first one of his species whose intelligence was of a degree sufficient for him to have a free will. This offspring was Adam; and he then received a spirit with which, by the exercise of his free will, he could choose to receive God Himself into this new part of him and thus express God. It was at this point in his evolution that man became a conscious being. But this incurs a problem: Adam was unique. If Adam mated with others of the pre?Adamic population, there would be a fifty percent chance that his offspring would be heterozygous and consequently would not have free will, while having a spirit. Thus all of Adam's immediate offspring must be homozygous for this trait, for him to truly be the "first man" of the Adamic race of man. Therefore, Adam must have a mate who is also homozygous for the same genetic trait. But Adam alone was homozygous for this trait.
How did God solve this problem?
Consanguinity in individual pedigrees may not be undesirable. 175
Human populations are not random mating populations. Inbreeding occurs, and the more inbreeding the more often individuals homozygous for a recessive trait will appear. In other words when inbreeding occurs the likelihood increases that a mutant recessive gene will appear in the homozygous state. 176
But when inbreeding occurs ... mutations are matched in increasingly higher proportions the closer the relationship of the parents become.177
Homo sapiens has 46 chromosomes; 44 are called autosomes, and 2 are called sex-determining chromosomes. Chromosomes occur in pairs, man has 22 pairs of autosomes and 1 pair of sex chromosomes....
The sex chromosomes are named, by convention, the X?chromosome and the Y-chromosome. Normal human males have 1 X?chromosome and 1 Y?chromosome; normal females have 2 X?chromosomes. 178
And Jehovah God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him a helpmeet for him.... And Jehovah God caused a deep sleep to fall upon the man, he slept; and he took one of his ribs, and closed up the flesh instead thereof; and the rib, which Jehovah God had taken from the man, builded he into a woman and brought her unto the man. And the man said, This is now bone of my bones, and flesh of my flesh: she shall be called Woman, because she was taken out of Man. (Gen. 2:18, 21?23)
It is possible to clone a woman from a man. However, it is not possible to clone a man from a woman. God cloned Eve from Adam so that the required trait would be retained by Adam's offspring. There are other relevant differences between men and women that are directly attributable to the genetic difference (sex chromosomes) between men and women that are important in spiritual matters (see Appendix IX).
Edited by achristian1985, : Paste put a ? instead of - in second sentence
Edited by achristian1985, : pieces of other texts (smilies, etc.) somehow got mixed in,making reading harder.
Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Added a bunch of blank lines between paragraphs. The software here does not recognise paragraph indentations.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by Minnemooseus, posted 05-11-2005 2:08 PM Minnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2010 12:45 PM achristian1985 has not replied

  
Adminnemooseus
Administrator
Posts: 3974
Joined: 09-26-2002


Message 55 of 105 (547557)
02-19-2010 11:40 PM
Reply to: Message 53 by achristian1985
02-17-2010 11:38 PM


Let us make this the topic to respond to achristian1985
To achristian1985 - I don't know if you will be back.
Showing up at a forum and plastering a bunch of long and not particularly coherent messages into various topics is bad form and tends to get management (eg. ME) cranky. Especially if 4 or more of the messages are identical. So, please take it a little easier and be more selective of what and where you post.
By the way, a rocky welcome to evcforum.net.
Adminnemooseus (yes, the same person as Minnemooseus)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by achristian1985, posted 02-17-2010 11:38 PM achristian1985 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by achristian1985, posted 02-20-2010 6:03 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied
 Message 63 by achristian1985, posted 02-20-2010 9:42 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 56 of 105 (547586)
02-20-2010 12:45 PM
Reply to: Message 54 by achristian1985
02-17-2010 11:44 PM


Re: Theistic Evolutionism!!! Free Will, human spirit
I don't see why cloning would be necessary. There's nothing in your hypothesis that prevents one male and one female, both homozygous for the relevant allele, from occurring in the same generation.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 54 by achristian1985, posted 02-17-2010 11:44 PM achristian1985 has not replied

  
achristian1985
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 105 (547612)
02-20-2010 6:00 PM


That's true, although cloning (used for lack of a better term: duplication except for Y chromosome is more precise) would produce the closest match. The mating with others of their generation answers the question that W. J. Bryan could not: "Who was Cain's wife?"

Replies to this message:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2010 6:24 PM achristian1985 has replied

  
achristian1985
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 105 (547613)
02-20-2010 6:03 PM
Reply to: Message 55 by Adminnemooseus
02-19-2010 11:40 PM


Re: Let us make this the topic to respond to achristian1985
My apologies to every member of this website. Ignorance of the law or its interpretation is no excuse. In future, my posts will be shorter, more precise and relevent. Now, did I see posts mentioning websites w/o invoking administrative wrath? If so, http://www.amessageforthehumanrace.org

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by Adminnemooseus, posted 02-19-2010 11:40 PM Adminnemooseus has seen this message but not replied

  
Dr Adequate
Member (Idle past 284 days)
Posts: 16113
Joined: 07-20-2006


Message 59 of 105 (547619)
02-20-2010 6:24 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by achristian1985
02-20-2010 6:00 PM


That's true, although cloning (used for lack of a better term: duplication except for Y chromosome is more precise) would produce the closest match.
Which would be a bad thing if Adam carried any harmful recessives. Think of the children ...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by achristian1985, posted 02-20-2010 6:00 PM achristian1985 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 60 by achristian1985, posted 02-20-2010 6:54 PM Dr Adequate has replied
 Message 61 by achristian1985, posted 02-20-2010 7:10 PM Dr Adequate has not replied

  
achristian1985
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 105 (547625)
02-20-2010 6:54 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by Dr Adequate
02-20-2010 6:24 PM


Divine motivation precludes random chance. (Einstein: "God doesn't shoot craps with the universe?"
Recessive matching not so detrimental as thought in short-term relationships. J ust don't encourage your kids to keep marrying their cousins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-20-2010 6:24 PM Dr Adequate has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 68 by Dr Adequate, posted 02-21-2010 12:38 PM achristian1985 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024